This seems like an odd error for the article to make. The great pyramid in Giza is nearly 50% taller, was built nearly 2500 years earlier, and still stands today.
Why does it “stretch the limits of what it means to be a building?” As far as I understand, the Giza pyramid was built block by block like any other building. Both building probably didn’t many people going to the office every day in them, although the lighthouse probably had some light keepers enjoying a better view than folks keeping the triangle gods happy.
The aquaducts and viae were built block by block too, but they're, I hope we agree, clearly not buildings. In my mind at least, the pyramids are too close to not having an inside relative to how big the outside is -- like how you wouldn't call a mine or a tunnel a building either.
Words are fuzzy concepts meant to convey ideas. Etymologically, I imagine the pyramids are "buildings" in that they're things that are built, like you're describing, but in my internal idea of what a building is, pyramids are too close to just being a carefully shaped mountain. There's also the issue of the fact that they weren't designed for _any_ living person to stay or visit, pushing it closer to a "monument" or "memorial" or something than a "building" in my mind.
Interestingly, if there were more internal space or if they were actively used by people (at any point in history) instead of just being left to the dead in the sands of time then it'd be a lot less clear-cut for me.
I'm not totally sure how other people use that word, but a (obviously biased) survey of the top 10 people I knew would care and respond quickly unanimously called the pyramids of giza "not buildings," the most common alternative description being a "monument."
It's about what you define as "free standing" i.e. self supporting, which at least means no wire anchors, but arguably also means no pyramids because they are a sort of refined mound, no ziggurats, no cheating by excavating around mountains and putting a cap on it
To help ships navigate. Being 100 meters tall it would be visible from quite a distance off shore, something like 36km or 22 miles, before land itself could be seen.
> The Lighthouse, or Pharos of Alexandria... stood more than 100 meters tall above the island of Pharos, guiding ships safely through Alexandria’s treacherous coastal waters
Note that making navigation safer would also benefit trade. Given the choice of landing in a port that was difficult to find and one that had such a lighthouse as a guide...
Lighthouses fulfill roughly the same purpose as hazard signs on freeways — everyone makes more money when ordered goods actually arrive. Rocks on the sea are more dangerous than falling rocks on the roads.
Monument lighthouses have an extra purpose: they project power and wealth. Merchants know this place is Important. Like modern day monuments, whether people need a giant expensive building/statue/obelisk to learn this or it’s just a vanity project for the ruler is a matter of opinion. People aren’t really all that different over the last 2000 years.
Your comment implies that (some) article images are somehow the result of LLMs. I don't think that is the case at all based on the articles' source attributions.
A human artist rendering would not have changed how anyone consumes this article. In fact it may even be less realistic given how artists are not experts in every field and more often than not take wide liberties (see dinosaurs)
We changed the URL from https://greekreporter.com/2025/07/01/lighthouse-alexandria-g... to an article that it appears to have been cribbed from, although it's not entirely clear.
It was the tallest building in the world? And it survived till the 1300s?? Wild.
This seems like an odd error for the article to make. The great pyramid in Giza is nearly 50% taller, was built nearly 2500 years earlier, and still stands today.
A pyramid stretches the limits of what it means to be a "building" though. I don't know that it's a crazy thing to ignore it.
Why does it “stretch the limits of what it means to be a building?” As far as I understand, the Giza pyramid was built block by block like any other building. Both building probably didn’t many people going to the office every day in them, although the lighthouse probably had some light keepers enjoying a better view than folks keeping the triangle gods happy.
The aquaducts and viae were built block by block too, but they're, I hope we agree, clearly not buildings. In my mind at least, the pyramids are too close to not having an inside relative to how big the outside is -- like how you wouldn't call a mine or a tunnel a building either.
Words are fuzzy concepts meant to convey ideas. Etymologically, I imagine the pyramids are "buildings" in that they're things that are built, like you're describing, but in my internal idea of what a building is, pyramids are too close to just being a carefully shaped mountain. There's also the issue of the fact that they weren't designed for _any_ living person to stay or visit, pushing it closer to a "monument" or "memorial" or something than a "building" in my mind.
Interestingly, if there were more internal space or if they were actively used by people (at any point in history) instead of just being left to the dead in the sands of time then it'd be a lot less clear-cut for me.
I'm not totally sure how other people use that word, but a (obviously biased) survey of the top 10 people I knew would care and respond quickly unanimously called the pyramids of giza "not buildings," the most common alternative description being a "monument."
It's about what you define as "free standing" i.e. self supporting, which at least means no wire anchors, but arguably also means no pyramids because they are a sort of refined mound, no ziggurats, no cheating by excavating around mountains and putting a cap on it
Seems like there's a gulf between the artist's computer rendering and the mosaic.
i dare say archaeologists have multiple depictions of the lighthouse, considering how famous it was.
[dead]
Was the point of light houses to attract trade?
To help ships navigate. Being 100 meters tall it would be visible from quite a distance off shore, something like 36km or 22 miles, before land itself could be seen.
> The Lighthouse, or Pharos of Alexandria... stood more than 100 meters tall above the island of Pharos, guiding ships safely through Alexandria’s treacherous coastal waters
Note that making navigation safer would also benefit trade. Given the choice of landing in a port that was difficult to find and one that had such a lighthouse as a guide...
Lighthouses fulfill roughly the same purpose as hazard signs on freeways — everyone makes more money when ordered goods actually arrive. Rocks on the sea are more dangerous than falling rocks on the roads.
Monument lighthouses have an extra purpose: they project power and wealth. Merchants know this place is Important. Like modern day monuments, whether people need a giant expensive building/statue/obelisk to learn this or it’s just a vanity project for the ruler is a matter of opinion. People aren’t really all that different over the last 2000 years.
[stub for offtopicness]
[original URL was https://greekreporter.com/2025/07/01/lighthouse-alexandria-g... - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44598029]
Using Midjourney to visualize a historical structure like this is not just lazy, it's very misleading.
Especially when there are actual digital recreations, available for free use under Creative Commons, based on historical information and modern surveys: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PHAROS2013-3000x2250...
I dont understand your comment
Your comment implies that (some) article images are somehow the result of LLMs. I don't think that is the case at all based on the articles' source attributions.
Check the original article link posted above
> Interpretation of the Lighthouse of Alexandria. Credit: Midjounrey / Open Domain / Free Use
In addition to not paying artists for interpretations, they also apparently do not pay editors to proofread.
A human artist rendering would not have changed how anyone consumes this article. In fact it may even be less realistic given how artists are not experts in every field and more often than not take wide liberties (see dinosaurs)
If you care, you can hire an artist and a subject matter expert to collaborate and produce accurate (to current scientific knowledge) renderings.
Or even an artist who has prior experience creating accurate renderings from archeological data.
If you care.
I think they're commenting on "Midjounrey"