A day in Trondheim, Norway. Walking tour 4k HD

[@tomazmagalhaes3886]

Great vídeo, Greetings 🇧🇷 awesome Norway 👍

[@lorewalker]

Thank you for watching. Glad you liked it 🙏😃

[@firstsecondlast1234]

Awesome 😍

[@lorewalker]

Thank you 🙏 😊

[@sherytravelholic]

so beautiful n amazing country God Bless Norway God bless Scandinavia God bless Europe my favorite

[@Luredreier]

5:18 Opposite side of the city center if I'm not judging this wrong? Near the train station? 6:11 Yeah, the train station. A bit abrupt change there. I'm guessing that you where staying at the hotel next to the train station? It's often the cheapest in the city. I'm more partial towards the Scandic Hotel chain myself, slightly more expensive, but the breakfasts and better standards is worth it I feel. And Scandic Bakklandet is perfect if you want to use public transportation in the city. By the way, did the sound cut off in the video or just on my end?

[@lorewalker]

Yes that’s one of the cheapest solutions when it comes to hotels. It is usually costly to stay I. The city so many people use Airbnb or with some luck Couchsurfing. However I live in Trondheim so I was not using hotel :-)

[@Luredreier]

3:25 It's a shame that they didn't recreate it faithfully. Only the lower parts of the church is original. And the style of the recreation just isn't genuine. :-/ I wish they had more pride in what we actually built instead of trying to copy the continentals...

[@TroenderTass]

Silly statement. Up north you'll find no shortage of abondened villages and towns stuck in the past, doing nothing to develop. This is not a miniature city from the past. Fires are part of our history, not the buildings. And for every fire we make sure we rebuild better and greater. Recreating things exactly how they used to be does not preserve our history. It simply deminish it, and stop development. It's now you get a holly wood movie set, and not an organic city. If you can't appriciate the front part of the cathedral because it is not 800 years old, then you are not fit to give your critique of it.

[@Luredreier]

@@TroenderTass The upper half was designed and built in the 1860s... It's not even *close* to what the church used to be. In my view its state in 1521 should have been the goal for the restoration of the 1800s... You're right that what they did in the 1800s is *also* a part of the churches history. But it has genuinely been severely mistreated after the reformation. Changes are needed for a living society. But the church as it is today represents a scam. It's a attempt at changing history itself. It's just as messed up as the attempts at making Norwegian history farmer history only ignoring the costal history that's the reality for the majority of Norwegians for most of history. Or how we during WW2 celebrate "gutta på skauen" the resistance movements aligned with the ideals of the labour party ignoring the complexity of Norway during and after the war in our history and the narrative of our country. Ignoring the contribution in the resistance against the Germans made by the communists. Or how those who joined the Germans to fight against the USSR often did so because of the winter war and seeing the communists as a bigger threat to Norway then the Germans or Brits. How we treated people after the war. There was little justice in that. Just cruelty and a desire for revenge, often applied to people who had done nothing wrong. Norwegian history is filled with this kind of propaganda history that while we absolutely should be aware of it is *nothing* to be proud of. And yes, I lump our cathedral into that category.

[@TroenderTass]

@@Luredreier Like I said, if you can't appreciate the monument for what it is just because it is not from the medievals, that's on you. I've seen how the cathedral looked in the 1300-1500s. It was also impressive, but not as beautiful as this one. It is a monument for something greater than whatever people existed when it was originaly built, and should not be limited by what used to be.

[@Luredreier]

@@TroenderTass This has nothing to do with being medieval or not. Nor looks. This is nationalism and dishonesty. And there's nothing beautiful about that. The people restoring the church didn't have the courage to have pride in our own culture and what we have done ourselves. And instead tried to pretend that we're something we're not. That we were somehow "better" then we actually are. Honestly I would have preferred a ruin over that kind of dishonesty. Ruins usually don't lie. I'm never going to advocate for tearing down that church. But don't ever expect me to feel anything but shame and disgust of that thing polluting my home city. And the worst part is that now there's been generations growing up with it this way, and they'd be losing something if it *was* changed too... Even if that happened during a restoration, say after another fire or something... People would want it to be built up just the way they've grown up with it, all lies be damned. And that pisses me of even more.

[@TroenderTass]

@@Luredreier Nothing wrong or dishonest about the restoration work. That is the monument they wanted to build at that time. It is more common then you think. Most older buildings around europe are restoration work. Alot of the cathedral is restored the way it originaly looked, they simply created something more magnificant that would be even more appriciated by generations to come if it doesn't get destroyed. I don't know what you mean by "done our self" or our "own way". The original cathedral was built with labour from all around europe. Is the ciicingion street structure a "fake" as well, just because it is just another "continantal city design like all other european cities"? Most architecture from whatever periode, is a "cheap" copy from somewhere else. It is not like the wheel is reinvented every time something is built. Try to find a nother nidarosdomen, it is actually very distinguished from alot of other cathedrals in Europe.

[@TroenderTass]

No better city in Norway.