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

Could the Soviet Union Have Survived?

We ask four historians whether the demise of one of the 20th century’s superpowers was as inevitable as it now seems. Soviet poster dedicated to the fifth anniversary of the October Revolution and IV Congress of the Communist International, 1922. Wiki Commons. ‘No one has suggested a convincing alternative scenario’ Rodric Braithwaite, British Ambassador to the Soviet Union (1988-91) and author of Armageddon and Paranoia: the Nuclear Confrontation (Profile, 2017). People still argue about the fall of the Roman Empire. They are not going to agree quickly on why the Soviet Union collapsed when it did. Some think it could have lasted for many years, others that the collapse was unforeseeable. Andrei Sakharov, the Soviet dissident scientist, foresaw it decades before it happened. Victory in war took the Soviet armies to the centre of Europe, where they stayed. The Soviet Union’s seductive ideology had already given it influence across the world. But after Stalin’s death in...

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...

10 things you (probably) didn’t know about the Suffragettes (Year 8 enjoy :) )

Dr Jacqui Turner from the University of Reading reveals some lesser-known facts about the political movement October 12, 2015 at 3:12 pm Passionate about women’s rights, in 1903 the suffragettes of the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) split from the suffragists of the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) to follow the militant agenda ‘deeds not words’. In the years that followed, these women took radical steps to force a change in the laws in Britain for women. But how much do we really know about the Suffragettes? 1 Women did not get the vote on the same terms as men in 1918 Many people assume that, as a direct result of women’s war work during the First World War, they were given the vote on equal terms to men. However, they were not. The Representation of the People Act of 1918 was primarily needed to resolve the issue of soldiers returning from service in the First World War who were not entitled to the vote, as they did not me...

History Fiend

Search This Blog