Talk:Hagia Sophia

Witold Rybczynski, in his 2022 history of architecture, mentions that Justinian's architects, to reduce the weight of the dome, used (as was Byzantine practice then) thin bricks layered and set in very thick mortar mixed with brick dust. "Long iron tie-bars below the springing of the arches and vaults countered the horizontal thrust" of the weight of the flat dome.

I wonder if this is the first recorded instance of the use of iron-reinforced masonry. Anyone? Pete Tillman (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why that would reduce the weight of the dome. However, brick dust is a pozolan, and converts lime mortar into hydraulic cement. Using crushed bricks instead of volcanic ash (pozolano) is an ancient Roman technique described by Vitruvius.

John Romer also mentions that a lot of iron was used in Byzantine buildings. He claims the “Little Hagia Sophia” (Sts Sergius & Bacchus) has a tension ring created by using iron staples to link together the marble blocks of the cornice. It's doubtful the first story cornice in St. Sergius and Bacchus would meaningfully counteract that thrust of the dome, which is much higher up. Romer and others imply a similar system was repeated at the Hagia Sophia, but I can't find any sources that verify the use of a tension ring on the main dome.

There are a lot of iron bars spanning across arches and vaults throughout the lower portions of Hagia Sophia. These would counteract the thrust of those particular spans. However, these wouldn't counteract the thrust of the main dome, which is much higher up.

The first version of the dome also collapsed, so whatever they did wasn't very effective. Livius Plinius (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I came across this today article today, ”Hooping as an Ancient Remedy for Conservation of Large Masonry Domes”, which described the structural history of the Hagia Sophia's dome since construction.

According to this article, the original dome (which collapsed in 557) had wooden chains embedded into the masonry. The second dome had thin iron chains embedded into the masonry, but still collapsed in 989 and 1346. In the 16th century, the Ottoman architect Sinan encircled the dome with tie rods. Additional tie rods were again added by Gaspare Fossati in 1847. Livius Plinius (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Starting on November 10, the user Mattia332 made edits to the opening paragraph and infobox of the article and repeatedly reinserted them after they were reverted. The modified material in the opening paragraph read:

The site was an Catholic Eastern Rite church from 360 AD to 1054, when the Great Schism caused it to become an Eastern Orthodox Church, until it was converted back to a Catholic church following the Fourth Crusade. It was seized by the Orthodoxs in 1261 and remained an Eastern Orthodox church until the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453.

The edits also changed the infobox to assert that the Hagia Sophia had been an Eastern Rite Catholic church from 360 to 1054, and apparently left out the dates 1054 to 1204 completely.

These edits and the language they used were clearly pushing a point of view, were ideologically charged, and do not reflect the scholarly consensus on the topic. In addition, the citations provided did not support the claim that the Hagia Sophia had been an Eastern Rite Catholic church until 1054.

It is possible to engage in a reasoned debate about whether the Hagia Sophia, and other churches of its time, could rightly be said to have been "Eastern Orthodox" in a time when the division between the Catholic and Orthodox churches had not yet evolved. However, the details of the institutional history of the Christian church are not relevant to the introductory paragraph of an article about a prominent church building. Readers can obtain more context for the description of the church as "Eastern Orthodox" by clicking the article link to Eastern Orthodoxy. That is what article links are for.

I am very doubtful that there are any reputable, mainstream sources that describe the Hagia Sophia as having been an "Eastern Rite Catholic church." If Mattia332 continues in his attempts to inject POV-pushing language into the page, I would think there ought to be a discussion about what steps should be taken to protect the page from further bad-faith edits.

I have reverted the opening paragraph and infobox to their state as of November 1, 2023.

My apologies in advance for any breaches in etiquette or procedure; I've never edited Wikipedia before. IkSculdeSega (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

From what i see, the changes were initially made by an IP a few days earlier, on 5 November (diff); this was apparently the same individual as User:Mattia332. I also removed the rest of the original research that was added by them. None of the three tertiary sources that were cited support their claims. I also don't see any relevant mention in the article Byzantine Empire; as claimed by the user. Demetrios1993 (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

There has been some recent news about the building's physical state and conservation, namely: concerns about ongoing deterioration of the structure (recently prompted by a report in a Turkish news source and then repeated by several Greek outlets [1], [2], [3], [4]) and a recent Turkish government declaration in September that a 50-year restoration would commence to repair damages ([5], [6]). Things like this probably deserve a mention somewhere. I'm wondering whether they belong towards the end of the current history section, or are perhaps better suited for a "Conservation" section (focused on present-day conservation) in the future? Any thoughts welcome. R Prazeres (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

How could you possibly in common sense say that it was built as an Eastern Orthodox Church when they didn’t exist yet. There was only one church until the schism that church called themselves Catholic. you should stop trying to change church and Christian history Fleurdesboiteaux (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fleurdesboiteaux The proper academic term pre-schism would be Chalcedonian, not Catholic. Your infobox changes are therefore not accurate.

It might indeed be strange to talk about an "Eastern Orthodox" church in the 4th century, however, and the article body (though not the infobox) seems to do that. Perhaps that could be changed. Uness232 (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

If Chalcedonian is the correct term for the period in history, then it should be used. Wikipedia should not rewrite history. Mjroots (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Chalcedonian is used when comparing the Byzantine church to that of the Copts, Armenians, Nestorians, etc. The West was Chalcedonian too, but Catholic is used for the pre-Schism church there; the only NPOV approach is to continue to use Orthodox for the pre-Schism Byzantine church in the East, as is convention. Katechon08 (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply