It’ll burn again as it’ll be connected to him.
BREAKING: Paris landmark, Notre Dame Cathedral, is on fire!
- Thread starter Neil79
- Start date
It’ll burn again as it’ll be connected to him.
Commissario
Why would the roof area be full of cameras?
Which besides the cost and uselessness of them would in themselves create fire risks.
I was watching the news earlier and they mentioned something I'd forgotten reading, the Guardian did an article on Westminster palace regarding the problems it has due to age and the likes of old wiring and they have fire wardens/patrols on a regular basis who routinely discover (thankfully) small fires due to things like old electrical wiring and materials that become more flammable as they age or degrade over time.
In 14th C England, 30 would have been a little young for a male to die, but not unusually young. Maximum age was generally 40-45, so 30 was already getting old (consequence of hard work and poor diets). Maybe this was a little lower in France 100-200 years previously, but unlikely to have been higher. A mason might have eaten a little better than those working in the field (better wage), but then again their job was more hazardous, working at height etc.
From my research over the last 8 or so years I've never come across a male peasant (peasants being the bulk of the population) who made it to 60-70. I've come across a woman who made it to 60 once. I've never taken into account infant and child deaths as they are simply not recorded in any of the manorial documentation I've worked on (it was of no interest to the economic/legal operation of estates). I only work with heriots (death taxes) and related records and most of them don't give an age anyway, those which do are generally 30-45. From tracing families, it's quite rare to see anyone alive with mature (14 yr old ish) grandchildren.
Of course, this is only part of England in the 14th C, but based on what I've seen myself, I have great difficulty believing there was much chance at all of reaching 60 or 70 during a similar, or slightly earlier, period in France.
Last edited:
You know that, I know that, most Americans know and acknowledge that, but there are always a few Yanks who can’t resist digging out the French, presumably due to the fact that Chirac, (I think), wasn’t keen on getting involved in the Iraq fiasco circa 2003.
I saw a reply from a French-Canadian, to a post on a U.S. forum that had slagged off the French firefighters, it said, “You’d do well to remember The Marquis de Lafayette, whose army fought side by side with Washington’s troops, and the French navy, which bottled up the English at Yorktown in 1781, contributing to England pulling out of America, or maybe you’d be living in a country now, called Lower Canada.”
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,126
Most Americans are entirely oblivious to the fact that if it wasn't for Spain and France, they would have never gained independence from Great Britian.
Never? Really? I'm not so sure! Eventually colonies go their own way. Happened to all of GB's colonies, and not always with a fight, eh. Oz, NZ, etc.
I imagine that was because we realised the folly of the thirteen colonies, had we succeeded in thwarting the rebellion, I imagine it would not have gone quite the same way.
I guess the empire should really have pushed into dominions earlier, a sense of patronage rather like Greek colonies in antiquity rather than brutish imperialism might have kept the colonies at the very least closer.
Regardless it’s irrelevant.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
It is reported that contributions to the restoration of Notre Dame are nearing €1 Billion in a matter of days, more than has ever been donated for recovery after any natural disaster around the world - this is an absolute outrage.
The building should be made safe or demolished and the money should be spent on living people.
The building should be made safe or demolished and the money should be spent on living people.
That's accepted FE, but what I and Lord Jaffa were referring to, was the constant slurs and insults rained down on France and the French, by a very small but vocal section of ignorant Americans, ignoring the undeniable fact that it was French forces, in particular the French navy's action at Yorktown VA in 1781, which brought the Revolutionary War to a successful conclusion, (for the colonies).
Further to what has been said earlier about the availability of suitable timber for reconstruction...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6928635/Notre-Dame-cathedral-rebuilt-exactly-way.html
Edit to add.
Of course we can get onto the restoration Vs repair Vs conservation argument (AKA Triggers Broom) here.
800 years ago, the roof was built of oak because that was the best material available.
Would it actually be wrong to use different materials today to repair the damage?
Much of the timber roof structure was not visible to the people actually using the building, it was simply there to support the tiles and lead-work. Would using steel rather than timber actually represent some form of cultural vandalism or would it actually be a perfectly reasonable choice
(Especially given that the original builders would probably have chosen steel had it been available at the time and, what is more, a steel roof will be a good bit more fire resistant)
The main objection I would have to using steel rather than timber is actually structural.
Would steel work actually last, or would corrosion destroy it within a century or so, The new sarcophagus over the Chernobyl site has active AC and humidification equipment to ensure long term structural integrity, and that is only intended to be guaranteed for a century or so. Not a millennia like a cathedral.
Would it be practical to use some sort of special corrosion resistant steel alloy (Stainless Steel?) for repairs like this in the hope that it might prove more durable. Or would the cost and physical properties of such alloys make it impractical??
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6928635/Notre-Dame-cathedral-rebuilt-exactly-way.html
Edit to add.
Of course we can get onto the restoration Vs repair Vs conservation argument (AKA Triggers Broom) here.
800 years ago, the roof was built of oak because that was the best material available.
Would it actually be wrong to use different materials today to repair the damage?
Much of the timber roof structure was not visible to the people actually using the building, it was simply there to support the tiles and lead-work. Would using steel rather than timber actually represent some form of cultural vandalism or would it actually be a perfectly reasonable choice
(Especially given that the original builders would probably have chosen steel had it been available at the time and, what is more, a steel roof will be a good bit more fire resistant)
The main objection I would have to using steel rather than timber is actually structural.
Would steel work actually last, or would corrosion destroy it within a century or so, The new sarcophagus over the Chernobyl site has active AC and humidification equipment to ensure long term structural integrity, and that is only intended to be guaranteed for a century or so. Not a millennia like a cathedral.
Would it be practical to use some sort of special corrosion resistant steel alloy (Stainless Steel?) for repairs like this in the hope that it might prove more durable. Or would the cost and physical properties of such alloys make it impractical??
Last edited:
That’s your opinion, and you have every right to both hold, and express it, but I’m guessing that a name like stockhausen has no French connection, while I, with my soupçon of sang français would like to see Notre Dame rise again.
Caporegime
I can see your point and understand what you say, but, I think stockhausen has (for a change
) an extremely valid point.Notre Dame could be made safe, presentable - and still wholly usable - for a fraction of the money raised, Paris would still have its beautiful cathedral and those citizens of the city in need could have their lives transformed.
Let’s be honest, most of the funds raised is going to get squirreled away in offshore bank accounts and tax havens. Many palms will be greased, many will make money and before you know it they’ll be holding their cap out again.
I hear what you’re saying but from another viewpoint globally vast amounts of money are already given to charities each year , it’s also very likely that people who have donated to the Notre Dame fund also give to other worthwhile causes that does get spent on people
If I gave £100 each year to charities providing relief for people suffering famine etc and a one off £10 to the Notre Dame fund does that make it an outrage ?
Soldato
The hard truth is that life is cheap. Always has been, always will be. Otherwise we'd all be out there donating all our spare time and money to worthy causes rather than twaddling on the internet using tech we don't need. We care -- in real, life changing ways -- just as little as those billionaires about the fate of the average impoverished soul in all the overpopulated corners of the globe. A few quid in a charity tin occasionally is just as much conscience laundering as any rich philanthropist is capable of with their inflated, tax dodging bank accounts.
If we really care about life, we should probably be giving all our money to support great works of human achievement, whether that's Cathedrals or photographing black holes, rather than traditional charities, because the fewer human beings there are, the slower we'll destroy everything else on the planet. (I'm not advocating buying a machine gun though, just in case that needs pointing out).
When Notre Dame was being built, the global population was apparently something like 400 million (more than I expected). Now it's 17-ish times greater, 7+ billion and rising fast. That's more than twice as many as when I was born in 1963. Of course the flaw in my argument is that the Catholic Church contributes to excessive population growth, and Notre Dame is symbolically Catholic even if it's not owned by the church.
Life is full of paradox though. All I know for certain is that when I see the great old Cathedrals I -- as a complete, godless heathen -- see something every bit as awe inspiring as the Saturn V or Space Shuttle. Cathedrals are works of man, not god, and they stand as timeless reminders of what we're capable of when we work together.
Just don't ask me if I'd rather these billionaires gave their money to charities trying to fish plastic out of the oceans. I can only juggle so many unstable viewpoints in my head at once!
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,126
History would be very different I think had America not gained independence.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,126
Also French and Spainish military campaigns elsewhere against the British that forced them to largely ignore the conflict in America. Its shocking how ignorant Americans are about their own critical parts of history.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Jan 2015
- Posts
- 1,547
The sooner people realise life is considered cheap and expendable, the less shocked and outraged they will be...