Was the city of Venice created in the 17th Century?

dreamtime

Administrator/Moderator
Staff member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
3,335
Location
Germany
(I found this post of mine in the archives and thought it deserves its own thread.)

Venice is known for it's hundreds of beautiful canals. Unfortunately the city has been deteriorating as long as people have documented the state of the city, so it's surprising to see historians claim a supposed history of more than 1000 years.

I found an old map from the late 16th, early 17th Century, which does not show Venetia:

11296126.jpg

The map was published in 1618, and shows the old italy (Italia antiqua), so it probably references an older time than the 17th Century, although "older" could simply mean 100 years earlier.

Instead of Venice it shows the supposedly old, antique, city of "Altinum", and according to Wikipedia, Altinum:

is the name of an ancient coastal town of the Veneti 15 km SE of the modern Treviso, northern Italy, on the edge of the lagoons. Located on the eastern coast of that nation, at the mouth of the river Silis, it was first destroyed by Attila in 452 and gradually abandoned by its inhabitants, who sought refuge in the islands of the lagoon, such as Torcello and Burano, in the area where later Venice would be built.

Altinum was abandoned by its citizens and then sank into the lagoon.

According to archaeologists, Venice's ancestor was surrounded by rivers and canals, including one large canal that ran through the center of the city and connected it with the lagoon.

A digital reconstruction of the area shows that the city stood two to three meters above what was then the sea level. The structure of Altinum was complex and perfectly suited to the particular demands of the swampy environment. Researchers say that it looks like the Romans knew how best to build on this harsh, swampy landscape -- long before they began the construction of Venice in the middle of a lagoon. (source)

The official story is that Altinum was destroyed in the 7th Century AD

But as waves of barbarians invaded, Altinum was a ripe target and, finally, in the 7th century AD, a Lombard invasion pushed the city's remaining residents onto the surrounding islands of the Venice lagoon. (source)

Is it possible that the modern Venetia is not only a product of that catastrophe leading to the sinking of Altinum, but basically a re-incarnation of Altinum? Is it possible that Altinum didn't sink in late antiquity, but only 350 years ago?

Alternative scenario: Here is evidence of the invented 1000-years that Fomenko speaks about, and when the city of Altinum sank somewhere between 1600 and 1700 (in the 17th Century, not the 7th), people were able to save parts of the city, now submerged underwater.
Voila, Venice was (re-)born.

tnF9crO.png
VLbOBYd.png

The mentioned 17th Century map clearly shows Venice to not exist, and Altinum to exist. By the way, it also shows Pompeii alive and kicking.
What archeologists are digging out at the historical site of Altinum isn't the entirety of Altinum - it's a small part of a way larger city, most of it now submerged under water or rebuilt into modern Venice.

Before Altinum/Venice god flooded in the 17th Century, maybe with the same event that destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum, it was a big city full of water canals, but built on top of the land. The canals did not fill every street, they were strategically built to transport stuff out of the city:


n7RxAbs.jpg
(The orange part is the canal)

This was how the modern area of Venice was built as well, but all streets got flooded with water, so they re-designed the city to work without streets.
You can see the original big "true canal" run through the inner city...


aMa6HiR.jpg

...which originally was basically water-free.
The name of this canal is "Canal Grande", and it follows the natural flow of the original river (called Brenta) that predates the canal. Which means, the canal is not artificial. I suggest: The city was built around this river, originally.

In the 20th century some people thought Venice was some kind of magical city, resting entirely on wooden constructs, like this painting suggests:

kTtSWdX.jpeg

But when, in 1996, the theatre „La Fenice“ burned down completely, people were for the first time able to look at the underlying structure:

9e62pwL.jpg

Turns out, the buldings rest entirely on stone walls.

jhHqdBA.jpeg

Only the Renaissance style facades rest on wooden stakes, suggesting a rebuilding effort where the facades had been renovated in line with the new reality that the houses were now basically surrounded by water.

Interestingly the front facades are not completely connected to the houses, but are a bit loose, which means that the city design is earthquake resistant. The front sides are built on top of water-proof limestone (Istrian Stone) to not let the water slip through the facades. This suggest the facades were built later, as a way to protect the original houses from the new water level.

All in all I think Venice as we know it was recreated from Altinum around 350 years ago, with an enourmous building effort to create waterproof and stable house-facades, protecting parts of the original city.

Interestingly, historians do not know how and by whom Venice was created, the origins are entirely in the dark. I suggest that Venetians simply made the best out of it when their city of Altinum was destroyed in the cataclysm of the 17th Century (or maybe a bit earlier) that also destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum, and many other parts of the world. Parts of the city of Altinum survived, but were now surrounded by a lagoon of water, so in an effort to save a significant part of the city, front facades were built. What they could not save, they demolished.

When the Vatican church created the 1000-year history hoax, the history of Altinum was put back 1000 years into the past, with historians saying it was abandoned in the 7th Century. Instead I suggest it was in fact only abandoned in the 17th Century, and it wasn't run over by attackers, but it was simply submerged in a giant catastrophe. The partially submerged parts that survived became modern Venice.
 

dakotamoon

Active member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
35
Reaction score
138
Thanks, great article. Reminds me of the "Pompeii" /Vesuvius issue: Maps of Italy from the 1600's show no Pompeii in existence! So the Roman artifacts found in perfect shape in Pompeii, are completely bogus. There are many eye witness reports of Vesuvius erupting and taking out Pompeii in the 1600's - so the priceless Roman artifacts are nonsense! Rome wasn't there man!
 

Silveryou

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
570
Reaction score
1,078
Location
Langobardia
(I found this post of mine in the archives and thought it deserves its own thread.)

Venice is known for it's hundreds of beautiful canals. Unfortunately the city has been deteriorating as long as people have documented the state of the city, so it's surprising to see historians claim a supposed history of more than 1000 years.

I found an old map from the late 16th, early 17th Century, which does not show Venetia:


The map was published in 1618, and shows the old italy (Italia antiqua), so it probably references an older time than the 17th Century, although "older" could simply mean 100 years earlier.

Instead of Venice it shows the supposedly old, antique, city of "Altinum", and according to Wikipedia, Altinum:

is the name of an ancient coastal town of the Veneti 15 km SE of the modern Treviso, northern Italy, on the edge of the lagoons. Located on the eastern coast of that nation, at the mouth of the river Silis, it was first destroyed by Attila in 452 and gradually abandoned by its inhabitants, who sought refuge in the islands of the lagoon, such as Torcello and Burano, in the area where later Venice would be built.

Altinum was abandoned by its citizens and then sank into the lagoon.

According to archaeologists, Venice's ancestor was surrounded by rivers and canals, including one large canal that ran through the center of the city and connected it with the lagoon.

A digital reconstruction of the area shows that the city stood two to three meters above what was then the sea level. The structure of Altinum was complex and perfectly suited to the particular demands of the swampy environment. Researchers say that it looks like the Romans knew how best to build on this harsh, swampy landscape -- long before they began the construction of Venice in the middle of a lagoon. (source)

The official story is that Altinum was destroyed in the 7th Century AD

But as waves of barbarians invaded, Altinum was a ripe target and, finally, in the 7th century AD, a Lombard invasion pushed the city's remaining residents onto the surrounding islands of the Venice lagoon. (source)

Is it possible that the modern Venetia is not only a product of that catastrophe leading to the sinking of Altinum, but basically a re-incarnation of Altinum? Is it possible that Altinum didn't sink in late antiquity, but only 350 years ago?

Alternative szenario: Here is evidence of the invented 1000-years that Fomenko speaks about, and when the city of Altinum sank somewhere between 1600 and 1700 (in the 17th Century, not the 7th), people were able to save parts of the city, now submerged underwater.
Voila, Venice was (re-)born.


The mentioned 17th Century map clearly shows Venice to not exist, and Altinum to exist. By the way, it also shows Pompeii alive and kicking.
What archeologists are digging out at the historical site of Altinum isn't the entirety of Altinum - it's a small part of a way larger city, most of it now submerged under water or rebuilt into modern Venice.

Before Altinum/Venice god flooded in the 17th Century, maybe with the same event that destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum, it was a big city full of water canals, but built on top of the land. The canals did not fill every street, they were strategically built to transport stuff out of the city:


(The orange part is the canal)

This was how the modern area of Venice was built as well, but all streets got flooded with water, so they re-designed the city to work without streets.
You can see the original big "true canal" run through the inner city...



...which originally was basically water-free.
The name of this canal is "Canal Grande", and it follows the natural flow of the original river (called Brenta) that predates the canal. Which means, the canal is not artificial. I suggest: The city was built around this river, originally.

In the 20th century some people thought Venice was some kind of magical city, resting entirely on wooden constructs, like this painting suggests:


But when, in 1996, the theatre „La Fenice“ burned down completely, people were for the first time able to look at the underlying structure:


Turns out, the buldings rest entirely on stone walls.


Only the Renaissance style facades rest on wooden stakes, suggesting a rebuilding effort where the facades had been renovated in line with the new reality that the houses were now basically surrounded by water.

Interestingly the front facades are not completely connected to the houses, but are a bit loose, which means that the city design is earthquake resistant. The front sides are built on top of water-proof limestone (Istrian Stone) to not let the water slip through the facades. This suggest the facades were built later, as a way to protect the original houses from the new water level.

All in all I think Venice as we know it was recreated from Altinum around 350 years ago, with an enourmous building effort to create waterproof and stable house-facades, protecting parts of the original city.

Interestingly, historians do not know how and by whom Venice was created, the origins are entirely in the dark. I suggest that Venetians simply made the best out of it when their city of Altinum was destroyed in the cataclysm of the 17th Century (or maybe a bit earlier) that also destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum, and many other parts of the world. Parts of the city of Altinum survived, but were now surrounded by a lagoon of water, so in an effort to save a significant part of the city, front facades were built. What they could not save, they demolished.

When the Vatican church created the 1000-year history hoax, the history of Altinum was put back 1000 years into the past, with historians saying it was abandoned in the 7th Century. Instead I suggest it was in fact only abandoned in the 17th Century, and it wasn't run over by attackers, but it was simply submerged in a giant catastrophe. The partially submerged parts that survived became modern Venice.
Pay attention to the fact that the author of that map, Philipp Cluver (Philipp Clüver - Wikipedia) was the "founder of historical geography" and disciple of Scaliger. I agree though that they constructed the city on firm land.
 

dreamtime

Administrator/Moderator
Staff member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
3,335
Location
Germany
Pay attention to the fact that the author of that map, Philipp Cluver (Philipp Clüver - Wikipedia) was the "founder of historical geography" and disciple of Scaliger. I agree though that the constructed the city on firm land.

thanks for this information.

That's why dates do not matter that much here, and why I still speculate we are talking about the 17th Century and not earlier, even though the map would indicate Altinum disappeared in the 16th Century or earlier. I think we are talking about an event that happened between 1600 and 1800.

They probably invented this Cluver guy in the 17th or 18th century.
 

Silveryou

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
570
Reaction score
1,078
Location
Langobardia
(I found this post of mine in the archives and thought it deserves its own thread.)

Venice is known for it's hundreds of beautiful canals. Unfortunately the city has been deteriorating as long as people have documented the state of the city, so it's surprising to see historians claim a supposed history of more than 1000 years.

I found an old map from the late 16th, early 17th Century, which does not show Venetia:


The map was published in 1618, and shows the old italy (Italia antiqua), so it probably references an older time than the 17th Century, although "older" could simply mean 100 years earlier.

Instead of Venice it shows the supposedly old, antique, city of "Altinum", and according to Wikipedia, Altinum:

is the name of an ancient coastal town of the Veneti 15 km SE of the modern Treviso, northern Italy, on the edge of the lagoons. Located on the eastern coast of that nation, at the mouth of the river Silis, it was first destroyed by Attila in 452 and gradually abandoned by its inhabitants, who sought refuge in the islands of the lagoon, such as Torcello and Burano, in the area where later Venice would be built.

Altinum was abandoned by its citizens and then sank into the lagoon.

According to archaeologists, Venice's ancestor was surrounded by rivers and canals, including one large canal that ran through the center of the city and connected it with the lagoon.

A digital reconstruction of the area shows that the city stood two to three meters above what was then the sea level. The structure of Altinum was complex and perfectly suited to the particular demands of the swampy environment. Researchers say that it looks like the Romans knew how best to build on this harsh, swampy landscape -- long before they began the construction of Venice in the middle of a lagoon. (source)

The official story is that Altinum was destroyed in the 7th Century AD

But as waves of barbarians invaded, Altinum was a ripe target and, finally, in the 7th century AD, a Lombard invasion pushed the city's remaining residents onto the surrounding islands of the Venice lagoon. (source)

Is it possible that the modern Venetia is not only a product of that catastrophe leading to the sinking of Altinum, but basically a re-incarnation of Altinum? Is it possible that Altinum didn't sink in late antiquity, but only 350 years ago?

Alternative szenario: Here is evidence of the invented 1000-years that Fomenko speaks about, and when the city of Altinum sank somewhere between 1600 and 1700 (in the 17th Century, not the 7th), people were able to save parts of the city, now submerged underwater.
Voila, Venice was (re-)born.


The mentioned 17th Century map clearly shows Venice to not exist, and Altinum to exist. By the way, it also shows Pompeii alive and kicking.
What archeologists are digging out at the historical site of Altinum isn't the entirety of Altinum - it's a small part of a way larger city, most of it now submerged under water or rebuilt into modern Venice.

Before Altinum/Venice god flooded in the 17th Century, maybe with the same event that destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum, it was a big city full of water canals, but built on top of the land. The canals did not fill every street, they were strategically built to transport stuff out of the city:


(The orange part is the canal)

This was how the modern area of Venice was built as well, but all streets got flooded with water, so they re-designed the city to work without streets.
You can see the original big "true canal" run through the inner city...



...which originally was basically water-free.
The name of this canal is "Canal Grande", and it follows the natural flow of the original river (called Brenta) that predates the canal. Which means, the canal is not artificial. I suggest: The city was built around this river, originally.

In the 20th century some people thought Venice was some kind of magical city, resting entirely on wooden constructs, like this painting suggests:


But when, in 1996, the theatre „La Fenice“ burned down completely, people were for the first time able to look at the underlying structure:


Turns out, the buldings rest entirely on stone walls.


Only the Renaissance style facades rest on wooden stakes, suggesting a rebuilding effort where the facades had been renovated in line with the new reality that the houses were now basically surrounded by water.

Interestingly the front facades are not completely connected to the houses, but are a bit loose, which means that the city design is earthquake resistant. The front sides are built on top of water-proof limestone (Istrian Stone) to not let the water slip through the facades. This suggest the facades were built later, as a way to protect the original houses from the new water level.

All in all I think Venice as we know it was recreated from Altinum around 350 years ago, with an enourmous building effort to create waterproof and stable house-facades, protecting parts of the original city.

Interestingly, historians do not know how and by whom Venice was created, the origins are entirely in the dark. I suggest that Venetians simply made the best out of it when their city of Altinum was destroyed in the cataclysm of the 17th Century (or maybe a bit earlier) that also destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum, and many other parts of the world. Parts of the city of Altinum survived, but were now surrounded by a lagoon of water, so in an effort to save a significant part of the city, front facades were built. What they could not save, they demolished.

When the Vatican church created the 1000-year history hoax, the history of Altinum was put back 1000 years into the past, with historians saying it was abandoned in the 7th Century. Instead I suggest it was in fact only abandoned in the 17th Century, and it wasn't run over by attackers, but it was simply submerged in a giant catastrophe. The partially submerged parts that survived became modern Venice.
Pay attention to the fact that the author of that map, Philipp Cluver (Philipp Clüver - Wikipedia) was the "founder of historical geography" and disciple of Scaliger. I agree though that the constructed the city on firm land.

thanks for this information.

That's why dates do not matter that much here, and why I still speculate we are talking about the 17th Century and not earlier, even though the map would indicate Altinum disappeared in the 16th Century or earlier. I think we are talking about an event that happened between 1600 and 1800.

They probably invented this Cluver guy in the 17th or 18th century.
What I mean is that the map is not very reliable, given the author
 

Mabzynn

Active member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Messages
282
Reaction score
107
As a friendly reminder Attila's throne sits in Venice to this day with a story that says it has nothing to do with the Hun.

People often forget that the Venedi were a group of eastern Slavs. The Vistula Veneti has etymological roots to Sankskrit, Old Irish, Old Norse, High German, etc.

Everyone should invest some time in the Kronika Wielkopolska a history on the Lechia Empire based on compiled written works of the time period on the real history of Poland in the late 1200's. (Ignore the dates as per usual with older history). Janusz Bieszk has some incredible books on the topic.

The Nuremburg Chronicles FOLIO XLIII does provide some important information though regardless of whatever time period we're dealing with:

"Venice, in our time the most renowned city, a noble industrial center of Italy, and the mightiest by land and sea, had its beginning with Aeneti, or Veneti (Heneti), the Trojan. For after the destruction of Troy, Antenor[See Note on Antenor at Folio XXXVI verso.] came there across the Adriatic Sea in ships. And there came with him a great number, called Veneti, who had been drive out of Paphlagonia[Paphlagonia is a district on the north side of Asia Minor, between Bithnynia on the west and Pontus on the east, being separated from the former by the river Parthenius, and from the latter by the Halys; on the south it is divided by the chain of Mount Olympus (according to others by Oglassys) from Phrygia, in the earliest times, but from Galatia afterwards."

So that would put it very close to wherever the destruction of Troy falls on your timeline @dreamtime.
 

Magnetic

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2020
Messages
323
Reaction score
564
Location
USA
The seas increase in depth in every major worldwide rain cataclysm. Where did these waters come from? They came from the deep sky which the ancients called the deep among other names. The progressive increase in the waters on earth are sequential in nature and every cataclysm increased the depth. We see cities that were built on high dry ground being challenged by the increase in terrestrial waters, St Petersburg for instance. St. Petersburg has great canals and waterworks that were built when it was high and dry. All major rivers that issue into seas and oceans are flat and have no cutting into the ground showing the ocean waters have risen mightily. Venice is a case example of a city built on dry ground that found itself watered in depth from the last few massive disaster super rain events, the last being 1704 (a relative increase in depth of 35-50 feet).
 

JWW427

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
2,390
Location
Wash. DC.
Ive been there twice.
I still don't quite understand the tree foundation, even if they are petrified to stone.
The stone foundation idea was better, but why so much trouble?
 

JWW427

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
2,390
Location
Wash. DC.
So much trouble building a city on the water.
Did they keep Venice afloat because it was part of the Prediluvian world before sea levels rose?
Its a thought.
 
Last edited:

jo'bo

Banned
Joined
May 7, 2021
Messages
25
Reaction score
12
(I found this post of mine in the archives and thought it deserves its own thread.)

Venice is known for it's hundreds of beautiful canals. Unfortunately the city has been deteriorating as long as people have documented the state of the city, so it's surprising to see historians claim a supposed history of more than 1000 years.

I found an old map from the late 16th, early 17th Century, which does not show Venetia:


The map was published in 1618, and shows the old italy (Italia antiqua), so it probably references an older time than the 17th Century, although "older" could simply mean 100 years earlier.

Instead of Venice it shows the supposedly old, antique, city of "Altinum", and according to Wikipedia, Altinum:









The official story is that Altinum was destroyed in the 7th Century AD



Is it possible that the modern Venetia is not only a product of that catastrophe leading to the sinking of Altinum, but basically a re-incarnation of Altinum? Is it possible that Altinum didn't sink in late antiquity, but only 350 years ago?

Alternative scenario: Here is evidence of the invented 1000-years that Fomenko speaks about, and when the city of Altinum sank somewhere between 1600 and 1700 (in the 17th Century, not the 7th), people were able to save parts of the city, now submerged underwater.
Voila, Venice was (re-)born.


The mentioned 17th Century map clearly shows Venice to not exist, and Altinum to exist. By the way, it also shows Pompeii alive and kicking.
What archeologists are digging out at the historical site of Altinum isn't the entirety of Altinum - it's a small part of a way larger city, most of it now submerged under water or rebuilt into modern Venice.

Before Altinum/Venice god flooded in the 17th Century, maybe with the same event that destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum, it was a big city full of water canals, but built on top of the land. The canals did not fill every street, they were strategically built to transport stuff out of the city:


(The orange part is the canal)

This was how the modern area of Venice was built as well, but all streets got flooded with water, so they re-designed the city to work without streets.
You can see the original big "true canal" run through the inner city...



...which originally was basically water-free.
The name of this canal is "Canal Grande", and it follows the natural flow of the original river (called Brenta) that predates the canal. Which means, the canal is not artificial. I suggest: The city was built around this river, originally.

In the 20th century some people thought Venice was some kind of magical city, resting entirely on wooden constructs, like this painting suggests:


But when, in 1996, the theatre „La Fenice“ burned down completely, people were for the first time able to look at the underlying structure:


Turns out, the buldings rest entirely on stone walls.


Only the Renaissance style facades rest on wooden stakes, suggesting a rebuilding effort where the facades had been renovated in line with the new reality that the houses were now basically surrounded by water.

Interestingly the front facades are not completely connected to the houses, but are a bit loose, which means that the city design is earthquake resistant. The front sides are built on top of water-proof limestone (Istrian Stone) to not let the water slip through the facades. This suggest the facades were built later, as a way to protect the original houses from the new water level.

All in all I think Venice as we know it was recreated from Altinum around 350 years ago, with an enourmous building effort to create waterproof and stable house-facades, protecting parts of the original city.

Interestingly, historians do not know how and by whom Venice was created, the origins are entirely in the dark. I suggest that Venetians simply made the best out of it when their city of Altinum was destroyed in the cataclysm of the 17th Century (or maybe a bit earlier) that also destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum, and many other parts of the world. Parts of the city of Altinum survived, but were now surrounded by a lagoon of water, so in an effort to save a significant part of the city, front facades were built. What they could not save, they demolished.

When the Vatican church created the 1000-year history hoax, the history of Altinum was put back 1000 years into the past, with historians saying it was abandoned in the 7th Century. Instead I suggest it was in fact only abandoned in the 17th Century, and it wasn't run over by attackers, but it was simply submerged in a giant catastrophe. The partially submerged parts that survived became modern Venice.
Well Venice as we know it today certainly isnt over a thousand years old, well maybe the odd church

Its renaissance architecture, so some where between 1400 and 1700 and I suspect your correct, that it largely 1700s buildings stuck on the back of 1500s facades or 1700s building that were made to look older.


By the 1600s venice was already existing as a cute tourist attraction and building its self a story of being ancient and building old looking buildings all fed in to the tourist myth. It is to a large extent the original Disneyland
 
Last edited:

Silveryou

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
570
Reaction score
1,078
Location
Langobardia
A map (year 1932) showing how deep are the waters in the Laguna (in meters).
MappaLaguna6_1932.jpg

Amsterdam is known (at least in Italy) as the "Venice of the North". They certainly share a low land below sea level, the difference being that Amsterdam remained above.
The_Netherlands_compared_to_sealevel.png
 
Last edited:

Silveryou

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
570
Reaction score
1,078
Location
Langobardia
Thinking twice, the most probable explanation is that the Laguna was artificially created like its counterpart in the Netherlands (Flood control in the Netherlands - Wikipedia), and probably roughly at the same time. The morphology of the Laguna is really identical/very similar to that of the Netherlands on a smaller scale, but after the flood that submerged it, they decided to leave everything as it was, probably due to the costs of draining. So the myth of the construction of the city on water could be the description of something similar to what happened with the creation of the Netherlands for the creation of a city with its military, agricultural and naval infrastructures. MAYBE!!!
 

jo'bo

Banned
Joined
May 7, 2021
Messages
25
Reaction score
12
Thinking twice, the most probable explanation is that the Laguna was artificially created like its counterpart in the Netherlands (Flood control in the Netherlands - Wikipedia), and probably roughly at the same time. The morphology of the Laguna is really identical/very similar to that of the Netherlands on a smaller scale, but after the flood that submerged it, they decided to leave everything as it was, probably due to the costs of draining. So the myth of the construction of the city on water could be the description of something similar to what happened with the creation of the Netherlands for the creation of a city with its military, agricultural and naval infrastructures. MAYBE!!!
Maybe, but I really dont think that's the most likely explination

Venice isnt claimed to have been built on water, which would be a bit fantastical, rather on islands. The Netherlands on the other hand actually moved the sea, which is a far more impressive achievement to my mind and of course repeated the trick on a fairly large chunk of the east coast of England
 
Last edited:

Silveryou

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
570
Reaction score
1,078
Location
Langobardia
venice isnt claimed too have been built on water
Thank you for the explanation. I really appreciate.
The Netherlands on the other hand actually moved the sea, which is a far more impressive achievement to my mind and of course repeated the trick ona fairly large chunk of the east coast of England
Yes they have the biggest d*** right?

Seriously, what I wrote is pretty simple. The morphology of the two territories is nearly identical. That should mean something in my book. Maybe.
 

jo'bo

Banned
Joined
May 7, 2021
Messages
25
Reaction score
12
Thank you for the explanation. I really appreciate.

Yes they have the biggest d*** right?

Seriously, what I wrote is pretty simple. The morphology of the two territories is nearly identical. That should mean something in my book. Maybe.
what similarities are you identifying ?
they certainly share the commonality of being under shallow water, but then so do a great many other places, like a big chunk Lincolnshire for instance

What the Dutch managed with the technology they had at their disposal, is breath taking,
I have no idea if the topography of venice means it could have been done there. But it seems it wasnt and by the time the technology was available venice was already built and as canals were its USP it may not have been the smartest move to drain them
 
Tips
Tips
Please respect our Posting Rules.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top