Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: blam
"The ruins include a large palace, measuring about 750sq m (8,000sq ft), and believed to have been at least four storeys high with more than thirty rooms. "

Something that I aways find striking about rich and powerful historic figures is their level of wealth compared to today. Three and a half centuries ago owning an 8000 sq ft home meant you were one of the most powerful men on earth. Today someone with a net worth of a billion dollars is not even rich enough to get on the Forbes 400 but could easily afford to build a 50,000 or 60,000 sq ft home.
12 posted on 03/28/2006 11:42:17 AM PST by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Poison Pill
Something that I aways find striking about rich and powerful historic figures is their level of wealth compared to today. Three and a half centuries ago owning an 8000 sq ft home meant you were one of the most powerful men on earth. Today someone with a net worth of a billion dollars is not even rich enough to get on the Forbes 400 but could easily afford to build a 50,000 or 60,000 sq ft home.

If we had to construct in hand chiseled stone, Bill Gates would be living in <10k sq ft, I'd bet.

13 posted on 03/28/2006 11:48:40 AM PST by The_Victor (If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Poison Pill
"Three and a half centuries"

Oops... make that millennia
14 posted on 03/28/2006 11:49:38 AM PST by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Poison Pill
Something that I aways find striking about rich and powerful historic figures is their level of wealth compared to today. Three and a half centuries ago owning an 8000 sq ft home meant you were one of the most powerful men on earth. Today someone with a net worth of a billion dollars is not even rich enough to get on the Forbes 400 but could easily afford to build a 50,000 or 60,000 sq ft home.

I enjoy comparing modern life to the times of old too. The greatest wealth could not buy the most basic of conditions that we now take for granted. Fresh fruit and vegetables from all over the world, year around. Lights, heat and air conditioning. Finely woven sheets, better than owned by kings are available at the local discount store. Transportation that would turn any royalty green with envy. Who of us could take the deprivation of living like a king in the days of the Iliad?

20 posted on 03/28/2006 2:59:37 PM PST by Colorado Doug (Diversity is divisive. E. Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Poison Pill
Something that I aways find striking about rich and powerful historic figures is their level of wealth compared to today.

Considering most of the peasantry lived in small hovels with the entire family in basically one room you are correct. Wealth is a comparative adjective.
I took the article to mean the footprint of the palace was about 8,000 square feet – about 90’ on a side. At four stories it would have been around 32,000 square feet of floor space. It’s still not in the modern mansion category – but sizable.
24 posted on 03/29/2006 3:57:45 AM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson