Original or Re-built? Is it Important to you?

I like everything -- Epcot, Stonehenge, Neuschwanstein, Williamsburg, Warwick Castle, Chartres, etc. etc. That said, I think my heart beats a little faster when I'm looking at someplace really old that has not been reconstructed. It's just neat to think it has been standing for such a long time. I wouldn't say it's important, but it's just a little bit neater.

Jo, this got me thinking and you are right. Friends visited from Britain last month and we took them around the 'local' sights. They were certainly less enamoured by what they called the 'Disneyland replicas' than they were by the originals. However we took them to the Freilichtmuseum in Bad Sobernheim and they were thrilled - a complete medieval village to wander around, butchers, bakers candlestick makers, they just loved it. However what they failed to appreciate was that it was just as much, if not more, of a 'Disneyland experience' as the whole village was reconstructed as a museum from original buildings that had been due for demolition. Why was this reconstruction more worthy than those you mention on the Rhine? I'm afraid I have no answer. That said, could it be that the 'original' has more of a soul. Doesn't explain my dippy friends though.

Doesn't matter one lick of difference to me. Any medieval structure that isn't a ruin today has been remodeled, renovated, repainted and restored several times over. Otherwise, nature remodels it in her own way into a rotting pile of stones. Yes, Rickniks, even Burg Eltz has been spiffed up many times over the years. A common charge people leveled against Neuschwanstein that we read here is that it isn't an "authentic medieval castle", which in my opinion, misses the point entirely. No, it isn't a genuine medieval structure, but it is a genuine, if somewhat extreme, example of 19th century German Romanticism. It says almost as much about its unique time period (and it's rather odd monarch) as any surviving building from the Middle Ages.

My thing isn't whether it was reconstructed but whether it was real in the first place. If it's a real historical building, it doesn't bother me that it had to be rebuilt after a fire, WWII bombing, or Napolean flattened it. Neuschwanstein is an icon but it's not as big of deal to me. It was never a medieval castle, just a fanciful idea of one.

Depends to some extent on the reconstruction. I agree that any building that started out in medieval times has been repaired and renovated, but that's one reason it looks and feels old. I absolutely hated the reconstructed "old town" in Warsaw, because it looked so fake - all the buildings had obviously been built at the same time and were aging at the same rate. A "genuine" old quarter has buildings from different periods built in different styles from different materials. A single reconstructed building doesn't look so out of place. To me Neuschwanstein is a different matter. No, it isn't medieval, but no one is pretending that it is. It's a beautiful example of a "folly" on a grand scale. You visit it (admittedly I haven't) for what it is, not because you want to see a medieval castle.

I'm so happy to know that I'm not the only closet Neuschwanstein fan on here. I'm shocked when others advise new posters not to go there. I've been there before, and I'm taking the kids this summer. There's different kinds of reconstructions. I was lucky to see the reconstruction process of the Frauenkirche in Dresden. It was moving to see how much of the original church they strived to reuse in the reconstruction -- rows and rows of industrial shelving, filled with cataloged pieces of rubble. I also liked the "reconstruction" of the New Synagogue in Berlin, how they used different colored marble to show what was reconstructed so you can see how much was destroyed. Then there's the Jesuiten Kirche in Mannheim, which was completely rebuilt, but just looks like a new church done in an older style. My kids actually like the reconstructed castles. They get upset because I keep taking them to "broken" ones.

Thinking some more about this I've just remembered how taken aback I was by the sets for the Brother Cadfael TV series. I grew up in England, and naturally I always saw medieval buildings looking old. For Brother Cadfael they built new sets - of course, that's how the buildings would have looked THEN, but it really looked weird to me!

"Then there's the Jesuiten Kirche in Mannheim, which was completely rebuilt, but just looks like a new church done in an older style." With the completely reconstructed Schloß just around the corner. One would wish the rest of Mannheim were rebuilt with as much eye to historic restoration. Can't really fault them, though, they had to get everyone housed and working again pretty quickly after the war.

This is an age old question and not just from tourists. But the short answer is that true authentic historic buildings have a physical connection to the past that no reconstruction can ever replace. You can touch stones or wood actually carved by Medieval craftsmen or see an aquaduct that Roman (slaves) actually built. That's going to be different than something that looks old but was actually built 50 years ago. A couple things to keep in mind: no reconstruction can ever be acurately rebuilt so you'll always be looking at a modern interpretation of it and rarely will a historic building ever look exactly as it was. And no one empties out chamber pots into the streets anymore so no town will ever have that authentic Medieval feel... I love Notre Dame des Paris but with the understanding that it's a late 19th century fantasy of a cathedral. Chartres is special because it's actually Medieval, even the windows.

Fascinating question! As a medievalist, I find the importance of authenticity really funny. What does "authenticity" mean in the first place? An untouched monastery in ruins? A 13th-century monastery rebuilt in the 17th century with the original stones? I think a lot of people, especially those who have never been to Europe or don't think about the history, believe that medieval and even ancient buildings like the Pantheon look exactly the way they did on the day they were finished in the first century AD or in the 14th century or whatever. Neuschwanstein is especially interesting because it was built based on Ludwig's fantasies about the Middle Ages. I'm skeptical of reconstructions because of my education. In Ghent there's a castle called Gravensteen which was originally built in the Middle Ages but has since been "rebuilt" by different groups of people, including the Victorians. Is it "authentic"? The people I was with thought so. Buildings reflect their history just like countries. The church of St. Magnus in Braunschweig was originally built in the 11th century, then purposefully demolished and rebuilt between the 13th and 15th centuries. Half of it was destroyed in WWII and that half was rebuilt in 1960 with a wall of modern stained-glass windows. Is this church Romanesque? Is it Gothic and late Gothic? Is it modern architecture? Yes. Is it "authentic"?

Unlike Kathy I was moved by Warsaw's rebuilt old town. Perhaps that has more to do with personal reasons than anything but I thought it was another demonstration of the struggles the Poles had to persevere through, especially in WWII. To me it demonstrated their pride. As for other re-built or re-constructed things, it doesn't reduce my enjoyment of the place. I try to educate myself to know the history of such sites and then I can appreciate their evolution. Imagine if every castle looked like Conwy Castle. I like to compare the ruins to a preserved place such as Powys or Warwick. They allow me to visualize Conwy as it was. There is value in both to me.

Doesn't make a lick of difference to me. But then again I enjoy going to Epcot just as much as going to Europe.

I visit castles for so many different reasons. I went to Chinon in the Loire because I had knew it was a place where Eleanor or Aquitaine and all those Plantagenets had been and I wanted to see a place where that history had taken place. It is a ruin, but you still could understand the scope of the place and see the geography. But I also really enjoyed the Amboise Chateaux Royale, which has been extensively restored. I love going to Stirling Castle. The strategic importance of the castle is so easily evident as you stand on the castle walls and look at the geography. You can see where the Battle of Bannockburn took place and if you look in the opposite direction you can see where the Battle of Stirling Bridge took place. I also want to understand more about how people lived in different times. I can hardly wait to go to Stirling and see the newly restored Renaissance palace. I know it will give me insights into what it was like in James V's court. Sometimes it's just plain amazing to realize that you're walking in the footsteps of people who had tremendous influence on history. I remember when I first visited Hampton Court and was a bit breathless at the thought that Henry VIII had walked these rooms. Different agencies do take different approaches. Historic Scotland is as much if not more about archeology as it is about restoration. And of course, there is the beauty. How many pictures have been taken of Eilean Donan castle? LOL. But then I loved going to Williamsburg, Virginia and even Plimouth Plantation. Pam

"I enjoy going to Epcot just as much as going to Europe." Yikes!!! I went to Epcot. Once. Sooo fake.

^^ yeah, its fake. But fun. Epcot has better rollercoasters than Europe.

""I enjoy going to Epcot just as much as going to Europe." Yikes!!! I went to Epcot. Once. Sooo fake." I went to Epcot when I was 7, and I immediately wanted to go to Europe afterwards. That's the whole point. Same point as the World's Fairs from which the idea originated.

In 2004 I saw the Marksburg in Braubach on the Rhein. I was very impressed that the German castle association tries to maintain it in essentially the same condition (both functional and maintenance) as it was hundred of years ago, so that we, today, can see what a real castle was like. Then in 2008, I visited Reichsburg, in Cochem. It was destroyed in the late 18th century by Napoleon and rebuilt in the late 1800s as a chateau for a Berlin businessman. It's impressive on the outside, but I was very disappointed with the inside - it was nothing like a real castle. I think that the greatest thing is a building that exists today, unchanged, just like is was in the middle ages. Even if it has undergone maintenance and renovation to retain it's original character, that's OK. If a building has been destroyed and put back together with faithful attention to the original design, that's almost as good. But if a building was destroyed and rebuilt with modern features, just to look on the outside like a castle, that's phoney. Even though it's a ruin, I loved Rheinfels. I love walking through all of the chambers of the wall and wondering what is was like back then to try to defend it. On the other hand, Stahleck and Schönburg are modern building that happen to contain rocks that were once part of medieval castle. It's not the original castle. I wouldn't spend a dime extra to stay in Schönburg. That's what I like about Burghausen. It's been there since the 1100s. From across the river it's impressive, sitting out on that high peninsula of land overlooking the Salzach, just as it has for almost a thousand year. I also like Harburg castle in Bavaria for it's originality.

This is a conumdrum that is shared by art as well as architecture. Is it better that an artwork be allowed to deteriorate or that it be conserved and restored? Should the Venus de Milo have her missing arms restored? Should she be repainted as she once was? The original Greek artist (and those who knew the work then) would have not recognized our naked, broken version. So is it more 'authentic' that it be restored or kept as time has damaged it? For that matter, anyone else find it distressing to see old masters' paintings cleaned of centuries of grime and darkened varnish? They don't look so atmospheric anymore. The Chinese terracotta warriors were battered and broken when they were uncovered. Was it wrong to repair them and reassemble the army? There is no right or wrong answer to this question, I think. It is one of the puzzles about the meaning of art and heritage and authenticity.

With all due respect to Kathy from NC, Warsaw was rebuilt after WWII for the benefit and morale of the people of Warsaw and to show the Germans that they could destroy their buildings, but not their spirit. It was not rebuilt to impress American tourists. According to "Warsaw Destroyed and Rebuilt", 782 of the 957 buildings that were classified as historic before the war were completely destroyed with another 141 partially destroyed. Add to that the loss of 100% of the city's bridges, 90% of the factories, 85% of tramlines ... in all, destruction was estimated at 84% . Considering what the people of Warsaw endured during the war and then afterward under the thumb of the USSR, I think what they accomplished is amazing and inspiring.

@Penny - different people make different choices and have different reactions. I grew up in post-WWII England, and I remember rationing (which didn't end until 1954), and seeing the bomb sites in London, many of which now hold new buildings. Instead of rebuilding, for instance, Coventry Cathedral, the people of Coventry chose to build a new cathedral beside the ruins of the old. St Clement Danes, the RAF church in London, on the other hand, was rebuilt. I find both worth seeing. But however inspiring the rebuilt "old" Warsaw is for the people of Warsaw, it left me cold.

@ Kathy - I agree; we all have the right to our own feelings. I apologize for being snarky by dismissing your reactions as those of a random American tourist who has no understanding of post-war reconstruction. I have all the respect in the world for what you must have gone through. However, though England and Poland share the common experience of being the victim of Nazi aggression as well as suffering economic and physical hardship following the war, the experience was not equal for both countries. I don't think it's fair to judge Warsaw's reconstruction efforts so harshly based on London's. That's all I'll say on the matter. I'm not usually confrontational, I just have a soft spot in my heart for Poland and don't like to see it unfairly criticized. If you feel the need to "put me in my place" again, go for it. No hard feelings.

I live in an old house, 1880's and have worked on older. One of the things you learn is nothing can or will or should always stay the same. Time moves on and so do needs. We don't use out houses, we have indoor plumbing. Is that an acceptable change? Are you going to stay in a 19th century hotel and be comfortable without air, smoke alarms and fire exits? Some period materials can't be used, lead paint, arsenic wall paper and asbestos. I was peeved that there is a paved walkway and wall at the Cliff of Mohr, and felt it lessoned my experience. On later contemplation, over beer, I realized without that armoring, the tourist load would do even more damage. Tourism by it self alters everything. Who hasn't gone to that pioneer village, museum, reconstructed castle? Is the knowledge gained any less valuable ? An as for Epcot, been there, had a good time but would rather go to Europe.

@Penny - apology accepted, thanks. (No real hardship for me, I was post-war. I was just an early temporary vegetarian until meat finally came off ration and started tasting better, but the war was real for me in a way it probably isn't for later generations - or in the way it was for those who lived through it.) Unfortunately, the fact that the story of rebuilding Warsaw is inspiring doesn't make the result look authentic - to me.

Interesting question, and many interesting responses. I find that the reconstructed places often make it easier for me to imagine people living there - here in Virginia, I like the recreated James Fort, Indian village, and ships better than the actual Jamestown site. I enjoy talking to the reenactors about what life was like. Of course I wouldn't give up the real/original site - but I just don't seem to spend as much time there when we visit. And I'll admit I even like Jorvik!

Makes no difference at all to me.... old Europe, new Europe, as long as it's Europe I can find beauty in it all....even have a great time with my grandkids in Fake Europe (aka Epcot).... and I think Disney does a pretty good job of it. It is especially nice for kids to meet people who do live in the countries they represent and I feel the food is fairly authentic. I would not trade Epcot for Europe but it can be cheaper! (sort of) Two of my grandkids live in Orlando so we go all the time and one is making his first trip to Europe with me in a few weeks... I'll report on his take on it all...he is a total history buff and will be my personal tour guide at age 10.

Either are fine, but I require full disclosure if viewing something partially or fully rebuilt.

Interesting question and replies. My personal view on the issue is that continuous maintenance of buildings and artwork is ok, but reconstructing buildings from scratch after a flood or war is not. I personally like the results of cities that used damage inflicted by the War to innovate and build new, modern stuff to replace what was already lost, like parts of Berlin in the 1990s and, specially (because it is close to my location right now), Rotterdam. In my view: Postdamplatz is better than reconstructed Dresden - for instance. There is nothing particularly wrong of they decided to rebuild a place for other reasons like boosting morale in a post-War scenario. However, I don't think it makes sense to rebuild something 50 years after War. My favorite historical sites are excavated ruins kept without other use but as ruins, like Herculanum, Paestum, and even Stonehenge. The worst examples, for me, is to keep a place only with its façade, completely rebuilt, than put it to a common use like office or, worse, housing. If a building is not worth keeping as a museum or something special, torn it down and build some modern (for 2011) standard skyscraper to replace it.

Peter -- I was glad to see that the Cliffs of Moher had added the walkways and walls. Before our last trip there, the last time we had been there was in the late 90's, there was just a dirt walkway and cliff. Nothing between you and falling freely onto the rocks below (I'm scared of heights, I was terrified the whole time). When we returned 2 years ago, we had our 2 kids, ages 7 and 3. We also had my sister's family and her teenaged kids, I had each of my kids double-teamed, just in case. I was completely relieved to see the walls. I'll take that reconstruction any day.

One of my favorite castles in Europe is Windsor. After the devistating fire, they " rebuilt". I actually enjoy it MORE now. They added information about the fire, AND what they found during the "resstoration". The tour is much more informative now. I agree that things should be labled appropriately if there has been reconstruction, but I find that it seldom (if ever) takes away from my experience.

I'm torn...I love 'the authentic old stuff', but I also realize that periodic maintenance over the years/centuries was necessary if I was to enjoy it years/centuries later. Munich (rebuilt), Bruges (constantly repairing/replacing those 'old' facades - if they didn't, they would be no 'Bruges'), buildings renovated to install our modern bathrooms, a clean and repaired Sistine Chapel - it's all good! Especially fun is when, as Toni mentioned, really neat finds come to light during reconstruction/renovation - old papers, artifacts, building methods - you can learn a lot from 'messing with the authentic'. I also like full disclosure as does Michael - and I like it when different types and/or colors are used in the reconstruction - ex: the 'real' bottom half of a Greek column is white marble, and the top reconstruction is gray cement. Sometimes, there's much more 'gray' than 'marble' LOL, but then I have the opportunity to see what the original structure may have looked like much better than a few stubs of 'authentic' white marble. Just leave some stubs... (cont.)

(cont.) Neuschwanstein is great, as long as you don't think it's one of Charlemagne's castles. I could slap Napoleon, Louis XIV, and Henry the VIII for the destruction they ordered - LOL - and many, many others. They've ruined MY touring! My personal tastes run less on High Gothic, and more on medieval/Romanesque - Sainte-Chapelle is gorgeous, but I prefer the lower chapel! (actually, it's still kinda fancy for my taste) I understand that most prefer the upper chapel. So, I find most of the 'boring old stuff' seems to be left alone...yea for me. I think most people would freak and demand their money back if they knew how much isn't 'real'! If you don't take care of these treasures, the not-so-future visitors will be looking at new 'stubs of marble'...so we have to keep removing damaging varnish from masterpieces and making old things look new again. It's all good.

One of my favorite little castles is in near-by Kronberg. It isn't huge or unique or anything, but it is pretty much an original and parts of it date from the 1200's. What is really special about it, is that they refuse to install electrical lines inside of it as they feel this would ruin the look, so no lights inside. On dark days, they recommend that you bring a flash-light. It has been nicely restored though, because if you don't do restoration work on these buildings, they fall apart. Wood has to be treated, new rinder applied, crumbling mortar replaced, new paint and so on.

A friend of mine once made a comment about the "fake wood floors" in her apartment. Another friend told her that it wasn't fake wood, it was "genuine laminate." I suppose my point is that, as other posters indicated, as long as you know what it is you can appreciate it (or not) on it's own merits.

"Does this mean the colosseum of Rome was rebuilt? Did they recollect all the excavated stones and put them together. Or was it always standing there?
How much re-construction took place?" No, it was used for various purposes over the centuries but was increasingly becoming decrepit (to the point that it was just being used as a quarry). Then in the 18th century one of the popes decreed it to be a sacred site as Christians had been sacrificed there: without that, I doubt that it would still be around as its historic value was not appreciated until more recently. Actually it could be interesting to mention some of the monuments that almost were destroyed but weren't: 1) from the very beginning (1889) the Eiffel Tower was only destined to remain for 20 years (in fact one of the criteria for its design was for it to be easily dismantled). However by that time, it had become useful as a radio mast and was in fact instrumental in the battle of the Marne (the Germans were just outside Paris and didn't even bother encypting their communications thinking that they were out of reach). 2) As for Paris itself, towards the end of WWII Hitler gave the order for it to be razed. Fortunately the military governor decided to disobey him otherwise it would certainly not be the city we all know today. 3) Saint Paul's cathedral in London narrowly escaped destruction on more than one occasion during the Blitz. In fact the area all around it was flattened. There's a famous photograph of its dome surrounded by clouds of billowing smoke. So some things are destroyed and rebuilt, but some are genuine and yet almost didn't make it to us!

I like both. I like seeing the original without any modern (or relatively modern) reconstruction of what someone thought it looked like. But I also like the full-on living history museums so I can see what it might have really looked like at it's peak. I'm reminded of Terry Pratchett's The Fifth Elephant in which the Low King of the Dwarves talks about his ax which has been in the family for 900 years. The handle has been replaced and the head and the ornamentation has been freshened. But it is still his family's ax. (There is a version of this story in many countries, I understand.) So if a castle has been refurbished and remodeled and reconstructed (but always used as a castle) is it still the same building? Sure. In essence if not in actual materials. But I'm with Michael 1, I'd like to have full disclosure rather than trying to sell it as something it's not (like Stonehenge.)

"rather than trying to sell it as something it's not (like Stonehenge.)" Huh?

"I'd like to have full disclosure rather than trying to sell it as something it's not" Here's the disclosure. If it isn't a pile of ruins swallowed up by vegetation, there has been at least some renovation and tidying up. Visit Detroit to see how quickly nature consumes buildings unless they are regularly refurbished.

I found out only recently that some reconstruction of Stonehenge had been done 1900 and 1964. One stone was straightened and another that had fallen after a storm in 1900 was reset altogether in concrete. Admittedly I haven't done a lot of research but it doesn't seem that greatly publicized - not in tour guides/sites and I couldn't find anything on the UK World Heritage site. I'm happy that work is done to protect sites like this but I'd just like to know about it. That's integral to the history of a place - what has lasted, what has been damaged and how (political, religious, natural forces), how it's be used and refurbished over the years.

@Tom... are you from Detroit? I am from Ann Arbor (45 miles from Detroit) and I for one wish the beautiful buildings were reconstructed, refurbished, cleaned or whatever it takes to give the respect and care that is given to the building in Europe. With the auto industry and the Ford money there were so many magnificent homes and theatres in the area. After my first trip to Europe my thought was how the old buidings in Europe were taken care of, while here, in a matter of a few hundred years we managed to build and destroy many wonderful places, with little regard for the history we were ignoring. Many are now being restored, but for a lot of them it is too late. So sad.

No, I have no connection to Detroit, other than a few brief visits in the 1990s. I had seen an online photo essay about urban blight in the city, so I guess the example was fresh in my mind.