The Acropolis(!?)

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

<span style='color:green'>

When many people talk about the Acropolis, they don't really mean the Acropolis, but the Parthenon instead.

The Acropolis is just the mountain on which the Parthenon (the famous big, white building) resides!

The original buildings on the Acropolis were destroyed in 480/479 BC by ravaging Persians. However, the famous

Pericles (495 - 429 BC) decided that the destroyed buildings should be replaced by magnificent buildings representing

Athens' glory and intellectual progress. As a result, construction began in 447BC and continued until 427BC. The

marbles used in the construction were produced at Penteli Mountain, about 20km away and until today a source

for finest marble.

The Parthenon itself was designed to follow a specific geometric pattern, which is too complicated for me to understand

or explain. For further information on this, please refer to http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/vismath/proceedings/bulckens.htm

The Parthenon was dedicated to Athena. Legend has it that inside the Parthenon, a giant 12m tall statue of Athena was erected, made of gold and ivory. No one is quite sure what happened to it. The name "parthenon" comes from the Greek word "parthena", meaning virgin, and it results from the fact that Athena was thought to be a virgin - a parthena. Hence, Parthenon!

Sculptures under the cornice show battles fought by Amazons, Centaurs, Giants, and pre-mycaenian Greeks.

The Parthenon had many uses throughout the millennia of its existence. Originally it was a place of worship to the goddess

Athena and it witnessed the slaughter of 200 bulls every 4 years. Some time around 380 AD, Emperor Theodosius (who later on his

death bed would split the Roman Empire into an Eastern and Western part) turned the Parthenon into a Christian Church dedicated to the Virgin Mary. Later, in 1204 AD, the Franks turned it into a Catholic Church. In 1458, the Turks turned it into a Mosque. Later, it was turned into a gunpowder magazine.

The Parthenon stood, virtually undamaged, until the 26th September, 1687. On that day, the Venetian military forces of

Morosini attacked the Turks in Athens and a German artillery Lieutenant fired a shot and hit the Parthenon directly. The resulting explosion

tore the building into the pieces the Parthenon is today.

Thanks to Jacques Carrey, a French artist, sketchings and drawings exist that show the Parthenon in all its beauty and how it

looked like in 1674, when Carrey spent two weeks making these drawings.

A reconstruction of the Acropolis with the Parthenon and all other buildings (click for larger image)

A closeup of the Parthenon and its former beauty (click for larger image)

The Parthenon today (click for larger image)

At the back, to the right of the Parthenon (click for larger image)

International reconstruction efforts are in place today, but it is unclear whether they will restorate the entire building

or whether the work will be limited to conserving the surviving pieces. Some people feel that since the building has been

destroyed for "only" 320 years (which is just a fraction of the time it stood unharmed), it should be rebuilt completely

and once again bask Athens in its marble beauty.</span>

[Dauragon 0]

Too offtopic

Quote[/b] ](about military, politics, science, other military games and similiar topics loosely related to the game)

[Pathy 0]

Was tempted to say the same 5 minutes ago (but was too scared )

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Its an old tradition that I make threads like this every now and then, and it is also well within the rules (history is a science).

[Pathy 0]

Yes but what are we meant to discuss?!?  

I know, i'll say something contraversial, like.....Its a scar on the face of Athens and should be bulldozed....there, now you can all tell me how wrong i am

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

To save you the embarrassment, I will give you two links to past threads, so hopefully you can gain some inspiration about what you could discuss about history

Linky 1

Linky 2

[Gadger 0]

So the acropolis at Rhodes just referes to the mountain/hill and not the building situated on it?

[edit]

Has to be seen to be appreciated

[tankieboy 0]

Get out more.

[Gadger 0]

Get out more.

[Pathy 0]

Its just....it all seems very cut and dried.....you need some controversy for a great historical debate

The only issue i see here is whether it should be rebuilt or not.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

So the acropolis at Rhodes just referes to the mountain/hill and not the building situated on it?

[edit]

http://www.heliotropion.com/Photos....des.jpg

Has to be seen to be appreciated  

Not quite, "Acropolis" in ancient Greek means "highest point in the city". However, in Athens its the name of the hill

Whereas on Rhodes, its simply the highest point of their town I believe I may be mistaken though, I haven't made it to Rhodes yet :P Looks nice anyhow

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Get out more.

I will help you right along with a 48hr PR.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Its just....it all seems very cut and dried.....you need some controversy for a great historical debate    

The only issue i see here is whether it should be rebuilt or not.

I don't tell people how to have debates, unless it goes against the forum rules

But it is an interesting point, I personally would like to see it rebuilt Paid for by the city of Venice, since they bombed it

[Pathy 0]

Quote[/b] ]But it is an interesting point, I personally would like to see it rebuilt  Paid for by the city of Venice, since they bombed it

Now THATS better....do you really think they should pay for something that happened 300 years ago?

May be of interest:

http://www.greece.gr/CULTURE....lis.stm

EDIT: Also

Quote[/b] ]The Turks used the Parthenon as a powder magazine when the Venetians, under Admiral Morosini, sieged the Acropolis in 1687. One of the Venetian bombs fell on the Parthenon and caused a tremendous explosion that destroyed a great part of the monument which had been preserved in a good condition until then.

The disaster was completed in the beginning of the 19th century, when the British ambassador in Constantinople, Lord Elgin, stole the greatest part of the sculptural decoration of the monument (frieze, metopes, pediments), transferred them to England and sold them to the British Museum, where they are still exhibited, being one of the most significant collections of the museum.

Not really thier fault, i'd say, so why should they have to pay millions 300 years on to restore it

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

I knew it would be difficult to rebuilt it, but that it would be THIS complicated, I didn't know

I guess this 1 fake stone to 6 original ones scheme might work quite well, it would make a good balance, considering that buildings get renovated over time anyway.

As for who should pay for the reconstruction effort, it was a joke on my side that Venice or Turkey should pay. I believe that the UN would be the organisation to ask for money, as the Parthenon is part of the UN protected buildings list or something like that. Anyway, it is of historic importance to human kind, so hopefully the UN should provide funds for its reconstruction

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ] ......... it should be rebuilt completely

and once again bask Athens in its marble beauty.

Sorry to disappoint you old chap - but most of the building was painted in strong vibrant colours. Thus you wouldn't see much "white marble" at all. The reason for using marble was because it's a soft stone , thus easy to physicaly shape with tools.

The function of the greec temple was also quite different from the (later) roman ones. The greeck themple was only "a house" for the God. The ceremonies all took place outside the buildings - and the Goddes had to be carried outside. The roman temples however was different in the way that the temple was enclosed on at least three sides and the shrine/Godess was never taken outside. The ceremony thus took place inside the roman temple.

[Supah 0]

I knew it would be difficult to rebuilt it, but that it would be THIS complicated, I didn't know

I guess this 1 fake stone to 6 original ones scheme might work quite well, it would make a good balance, considering that buildings get renovated over time anyway.

As for who should pay for the reconstruction effort, it was a joke on my side that Venice or Turkey should pay. I believe that the UN would be the organisation to ask for money, as the Parthenon is part of the UN protected buildings list or something like that. Anyway, it is of historic importance to human kind, so hopefully the UN should provide funds for its reconstruction

If you reconstruct you might destroy the archeology. Better leave it as it is now

[Winters 1]

"I don't know but i been told, the Parthenon is mighty old"

"How old?"

"We don't know"

"Well that's real good but it needs improvement"

The Simpsons

[Pathy 0]

A difficult balance between preserving it without "destroying" it

[-Ash- 0]

I've been to the Acropolis at Lindos in Rhodes and it's very nice indeed.

Ex-Ronin. I think Tankieboy was only joking you know.. It's called British humour, he wasn't being offensive or anything, just tongue in cheek. I've seen people getting away with worse on here and not recieving a 48PR..

[Bordoy 0]

Get out more.

I will help you right along with a 48hr PR.

talk about abusing your power.

[Placebo 29]

If you have an issue with a moderating decision PM the moderator.

[UKFMav 0]

Ignorance is bliss to the average joe-flaspointeer.

[Madus_Maximus 0]

If the UN were to decide they'd take about 10 years discussing if they should discuss it, then another century or so deciding if they should ask for funds, then when they finally do ask it'll have been done by a group of private fundraisers who got bored of the UN's unique ability to not make disisions.

[DeLiltMon 0]

@ Aug. 25 2004,13:33)]I've been to the Acropolis at Lindos in Rhodes and it's very nice indeed.

Did you walk up or go by donkey?