The Parthenon is Blown Up

Illustration by R. Fresson.

The Athenian temple was partly destroyed on 26 September 1687.

Justin & Stephanie Pollard | Published in History Today Volume 68 Issue 9 September 2018

The 15-year ‘Great Turkish War’, an effort to oppose the expansion of the Ottoman Empire into Europe, was made up of many smaller conflicts, including the Morean War between Venice and the Ottomans, in which the future Venetian doge and fêted Captain-General Francesco Morosini was given orders to seize Athens and its environs from the Turks.

The Acropolis, however, proved a troublesome target. The Turks were dug in on the summit, having heavily fortified the precipitous site, and much of the Turkish population now lived on and around the monuments and in various ancient buildings. Pericles’ Propylaea was still in ruins following the explosion of a powder magazine kept there in 1656, while the Erectheum was a harem. Instead, it was the Parthenon that presented Morosini with the most logical target as he pulled up his artillery on the Philipappus Hill.

Despite the earlier destruction of the Propylaea, the Parthenon was being used by the Turks as a gunpowder store, possibly in the belief that this extraordinary survivor from the Classical Age was protected by the sheer weight of history.

This was not the case. On 26 September 1687 Morosini fired, one round scoring a direct hit on the powder magazine inside the Parthenon. The ensuing explosion caused the cella to collapse, blowing out the central part of the walls and bringing down much of Phidias’ frieze. Many of the columns also toppled, causing the architraves, triglyphs and metopes to come tumbling down.

Morosini later described the shot as ‘fortunate’. Over 300 defenders were killed and fire swept through the Turkish settlement, leading to his recapture of the city. A year later, however, the Venetians were forced to abandon the site as a new Turkish army approached. They considered blowing up the remains of the Parthenon to prevent its further military use, but, thankfully, decided against the plan.

ANCIENT GREECE

Cholera in Victorian London

In 1831 a terrifying new epidemic arrived in London, bringing with it fear and panic⁠—and a sense of urgency about the city's sanitation problems. In the 1700s, Great Britain began transforming into an industrialised nation. By the 1800s, London was the largest city in the world as a result of the social changes brought about by industrialisation, such as mass migration from the countryside to the town. But London was a city overwhelmed by the waste products of its ever-growing population, the majority of whom lived in the squalor of overcrowded slums. Human waste piled up in courtyards and overflowed from basement cesspits into the gutters and waterways. Wellcome Collection (CC BY) Image source for Illustration of London slum with subtitle 'A court for King Cholera' In such conditions diseases were inevitable. Outbreaks of diseases such as typhoid and scarlet fever were common, but the arrival of cholera led to new investigation into sanitation and

Ernest Renan, “What is a Nation?”, text of a conference delivered at the Sorbonne on March 11th, 1882, in Ernest Renan, Qu’est-ce qu’une nation?, Paris, Presses-Pocket, 1992. (translated by Ethan Rundell)

I propose to analyze with you an idea which, though apparently clear, lends itself to the most dangerous misunderstandings. The forms of human society are of the greatest variety. They include great agglomerations of men after the fashion of China, Egypt, and ancient Babylonia; tribes such as the Hebrews and the Arabs; city-states on the Athenian and Spartan model; reunions of diverse countries such as were to be found under the Carolingian Empire; communities such as the Israelites and the parsis, lacking a country and maintained by religious bonds; nations like France, England, and most other modern, autonomous polities; confederations after the fashion of Switzerland and America; the great families that race, or rather language, has established between the different branches of Germans, the different branches of Slavs. Such are the types of groupings that exist, or rather existed, and that one confuses only at the price of the most serious inconvenience. At the time of the Fre

12 things you (probably) didn’t know about the Wars of the Roses

The Wars of the Roses were the civil wars fought in England and Wales between the Yorkist and Lancastrian dynasties between 1455 and 1485. Though historians can’t agree on precisely when and where the conflicts concluded, the general consensus is that the Wars of the Roses ended with the battle of Bosworth in 1485, when Henry Tudor (the future Henry VII, the first Tudor king) defeated and killed Richard III... But, argues historian Matthew Lewis, the roots of these dynastic civil wars went deeper and the branches reached further than this 30-year timeframe suggests. Here, writing for History Extra , Lewis shares 12 lesser-known facts about the Wars of the Roses… 1 Jack Cade’s rebellion rocked the Lancastrians In July 1450, a mysterious man known as Jack Cade led a huge force of common men from Kent into London to protest against the ailing government of the Lancastrian king Henry VI. This episode is generally regarded as being outside the bounds of the Wars of the Roses

History Fiend

Search This Blog