General Discussions

[Thryleon]

The Notre Dame spire that burned down in 2019 is not even the original spire. The original spire became so damaged over a few centuries that it was removed - the removal was completed in 1792. The Cathedral remained "spireless" for decades until a new spire was completed in 1859. I guess it wasn't a big deal back then to leave the Cathedral without a spire for ages.

I object on principle to what is in my view a needless destruction of beautiful old trees to replace a replica.

Interesting.

Just for context France back then:

In 1789 the estates general was held leading to a period know as the French revolution which lasted until roughly 1799, and in the process, the French monarchy was overthrown.  I imagine a spire was indeed quite irrelevant for the people at the time.

In 1792 was the proclamation of the first French republic.

Revolution and the church

Historian John McManners argues "in eighteenth-century France, throne and altar were commonly spoken of as in close alliance; their simultaneous collapse ... would one day provide the final proof of their interdependence." One suggestion is that after a century of persecution, some French Protestants actively supported an anti-Catholic regime, a resentment fuelled by Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire.[64] Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote it was "manifestly contrary to the law of nature... that a handful of people should gorge themselves with superfluities while the hungry multitude goes in want of necessities."[65]
In this caricature, monks and nuns enjoy their new freedom after the decree of 16 February 1790.

The Revolution caused a massive shift of power from the Catholic Church to the state; although the extent of religious belief has been questioned, elimination of tolerance for religious minorities meant by 1789 being French also meant being Catholic.[66] The church was the largest individual landowner in France, controlling nearly 10% of all estates and levied tithes, effectively a 10% tax on income, collected from peasant farmers in the form of crops. In return, it provided a minimal level of social support.[67]

This would have been remarkable given the climate of France at the time, and explains the reason why it took them so long to restore the spire.

Even so, it fails to take into account that tourism is extremely important, and Notre Dame, would be one of the Parisian highlights and must do's.  I think its important we not underestimate this fact.  You are free to object on principle, but just for context, Australia during that period wasnt even a fledgling nation, it was a penal colony.

There has been an immense amount of change from 1900 to today, so thinking that the previous 100 years had very little change is fraught with danger.


Its not like they are Brazil setting fire to the Amazon in order to increase the amount of farmable land.