Arguments Against The Pantheon

Rome stood as a true empire in the early centuries of the Common Era. Its wealth and power went unmatched in the West for years. Engineering was an area Rome specialized in. With the invention of concrete, Rome could build structures unmatched in the ancient world. Though Rome herself fell, these buildings have stood the test of time. Everyone knows the Colosseum, which is also, though less popularly, known as the Flavian Amphitheater. While the Colosseum is spectacular in its own right, the Roman Pantheon has more boldly persisted through the ages.
The building’s very name can speak for itself. “Pan,” which means all; and “theo,” which means god, when put together, translate, quite literally, to “All gods.” This fact stands to represent the fair amount of religious tolerance exercised by the Romans.
One could argue that the Romans fiercely persecuted Christians in the third century. This, however, is a very small instance in …show more content…
Perhaps, this could point to the desirability of old ways amongst Europeans later on. Possibly, one could argue, the Pantheon represents a case study in how “innovation” can, in many ways, mean “reservation” or “restoration.” Though the politics, religion, and social order of Europe changed; some still wanted to hold on to the old way of doing things, as opposed to building a new temple and worshipping there. However, this cannot be applied to all people of the time, for some chose to desecrate such buildings. Even if the structures were not purposefully neglected, they were, often, unintentionally spurned as a result of a simple lack of funds. During the early days of these buildings’ post-Roman history, Europe had certainly lost much of its former glory. The political unity Europe experienced during the Roman Empire quickly faded into oblivion following the sacking of Rome, in 476 CE, by