Why did Europe prefer stone-based buildings over wood, unlike their Asian counterparts?
Why did Europe prefer stone-based buildings over wood, unlike their Asian counterparts?
Basically, Asian architecture (or at least Chinese) has plenty of stone and brick in its construction. The Japanese live in wood and paper houses because stone houses tend to collapse in earthquakes while paper ones can shift around a lot more.
Reinli stave church, Sør-Aurdal
Tudor The timber-framed Staple Inn in Holborn, London
Kizhi Pogost: Russian Log Church
The churches do not count, as symbolism of religious authority has been extensively used in both Europe and Asia with various elements such as stone and wood.
The city buildings, however, are interesting: were English buildings naturally built as multi-storied structures or was this a result of urbanisation?
I'm not sure on this one. They certainly do have a lot of forests, even today. But they also have a lot of mountains. Maybe lack of decent iron to quarry the stone could play a small part.I read somewhere that the reason why the japanese built mostly wood houses was because the had more access to quality wood than to quality stone and so they didn't have a need to resort to stone when they had plenty of good wood around.
I've heard Japanese people say the same. No idea if there is any truth to it.In India, where i live, its a common myth that the Japanese live in 'paper houses' (sic) because of the earthquakes. You know, from the idea that paper and wood houses won't kill you when they come crashing down in an earthquake.
The "rodent" theory seems quite reasonable. Explains why most houses - not just forts and castles but common farmhouses - were built out of stone.
But I believed the Plague to have also passed through Asia, with equal devastations as their European counterparts. Maybe the news was suppressed in China and nearby Asian countries, unlike in Europe?
Why did Europe prefer stone-based buildings over wood, unlike their Asian counterparts?