>The Colossus of Rhodes (Ancient Greek: ὁ Κολοσσὸς Ῥόδιος, romanized: ho Kolossòs Rhódios Greek: Κολοσσός της Ρόδου, romanized: Kolossós tes Rhódou)[a] was a statue of the Greek sun-god Helios, erected in the city of Rhodes, on the Greek island of the same name, by Chares of Lindos in 280 BC. One of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, it was constructed to celebrate the successful defence of Rhodes city against an attack by Demetrius Poliorcetes, who had besieged it for a year with a large army and navy. According to most contemporary descriptions, the Colossus stood approximately 70 cubits, or 33 metres (108 feet) high – approximately the height of the modern Statue of Liberty from feet to crown – making it the tallest statue in the ancient world.[2]
>In 653, an Arab force under Muslim general Muawiyah I conquered Rhodes, and according to the Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor,[7] the statue was completely destroyed and the remains sold.[8]
False idols
so, no real reason then. which is kind of the point of the thread.
a+ response
>the statue was completely destroyed and the remains sold
To whom, b***h? be more specific.
I had no idea those frickers were behind it.
Not just muslims but everyone did this, """romans""" melted quite a lot of statues and used the metal for other purposes
Justinian destroyed temples and used the marble to build walls around attica.
>"""romans""" melted quite a lot of statues and used the metal for other purposes
>Justinian destroyed temples and used the marble to build walls around attica.
Notice that the Romans are rebuilding and the Muslims are simply destroying without rebuilding.
Kinda crucial.
rebuilding what? You are coping
And arabs destroyed it and sold it to fund their campaigns, so arabs are guilty because they did this while on the attack and not on the defense?
Plenty of antique statues and temples were also destroyed due other practical purposes like many byzantine buildings had "refurbished" temple marbles.
>rebuilding what? You are coping
You may actually be clinically moronic.
>muhhh Arabs didn rebuild da 5000 ft naked pagan god. Hee so sexo, Arubz iz eevul.
moron, they destroyed that shit for a reason, why would they rebuild it. Unless you're suggesting Arabs built nothing, in which case you would be an even more supreme moron.
If I destroyed everything of your culture and anything that could be remembered of it then built my own things is it ok?
Only if you think it's not okay.
It's not about whether it is hood or not. It is whether it is dmart or not. Every civilization in history does this. The one's who don't end up assimilating in the conquered nations culture and get wiped out themselves. numerous examples of this. If you want to establish supremacy of your lifestyle, you have to destroy their lifestyle. All successful empires did it.
>supremacy of your lifestyle, you have to destroy their lifestyle. All successful empires did it.
Not all of them did it or uniformly did one policy empire wide.
What do you not understand what "conquering" means?
Wasn't the statue already destroyed in a earthquake?
It's just a big statue of a naked man. Are you a homosexual by any chance?
Did muslims even make anything cool of their own? I can't think of anything.
They like to destroy, simple as.
Anyone who would destroy a historic statue or artifact is no better than an animal.
Not really, espcially since you seem to gloss over THEFT of historic statue or artifact so I'm not sure if you think that is more okay.
Communist
How is that communist?
He's white.
I'm not here to argue with Communists. Just basically pointing out what you are so people can ignore you.
Are you like some sort of NPC?
Whatever it takes to make you feel better.
what's commie about
'm not here to argue with Communists. Just basically pointing out what you are so people can ignore you.
Destruction and renewal/reuse of infrastructure has been a thing for ages.
not really. It is more of an Action that displays complete and utter psychological domination of the conqueror over the conquered. Here is an image of your God, gigantic beyond comprehension, created by your ancestors hundreds of years ago and is a source of Admiration and unity for your nation. Now some guy conquers you and destroys it like it's worth nothing. Because he claims that what he brings is better. It breaks your hope and belief in the old system completely. You start to levitate towards submission to the conqueror automatically.
Strategically, it's a smart thing to do.
I think it can occasionally be justified but not in the modern era. Even as a literal nazi I'd rather see historical statues of Stalin be put in museums rather than destroyed. That being said, non historical "art" that is degenerate should burned along with troon literature and moronic Marxist literature. Not banned, but symbolically burned and any remaining copies officially mocked as examples of how low we can go as a specifies with the wrong people in charge.
>That being said, non historical "art" that is degenerate should burned along with troon literature and moronic Marxist literature. Not banned, but symbolically burned and any remaining copies officially mocked as examples of how low we can go as a specifies with the wrong people in charge.
cringe. Also why should Stalin's shit be preserved? If someone wants to buy it go ahead, but if you put statues up without consent or agreement one shouldn't be surprised if it gets taken down.
>Also why should Stalin's shit be preserved?
Because you can put it in a museum and explain some history to go along with it, or even say that such a system didn't even last a century before collapsing in on itself, contrasted with other states that only fell from outside influence for example. Even having it as a war trophy is better than destroying it in my opinion, since it can be used as an opportunity to convey the inferiority of that system. This only goes for historical art as far as I am concerned though, I don't care about the destruction of "art" made of sticks or decedent art that is degenerate like a great deal of modern art or pieces that women make from their period or some shit like that.
But that's an extremely biased take on it. Stalin statues are not war trophy's and have no real historical value to them. Even that "decedent art made of sticks and degenerate" art actual value to it.
>decedent art made of sticks and degenerate
I said or, stick art isn't decedent it's just shit.
>But that's an extremely biased take on it
I never claimed to be unbiased, in my first post I am a self admitted Nazi.
I just don't think it's an issue that will be agreed upon. I see having the statues of a raving madman as an opportunity to teach about that madman and to explain the intricacies of that civilization. I understand the want to destroy it as that man and his civilization was horrific but I think it's better to have physical things for future historians to have as reference as well.
>theres plenty of art that we can preserve to remember the soullessness of these societies without bring in the 'glory' element of it, at least imo
But most Soviet art is about glorifying themselves and the workers as well as those who spearhead their movement, to not have surviving examples of that just seems disingenuous.
>But Soviet states promoted a lot of the arts how the frick did you gloss over that?
Pic related, their art was amateurish at best and was centered on a cult of personality. Soulless brutalist mass produced buildings can't compare to classical art or other art from throughout the ages like art deco, renaissance pieces, gothic architecture, etc. Their most unique art wasn't even that great and was hypocritical to put it lightly.
>stick art isn't decedent it's just shit.
But many people can find value in it.
>their art was amateurish at best and was centered on a cult of personality
A lot of their art was heavily funded by the state and many paces of art funded by said states in the Iron Curtain often critiqued it as well.
>Soulless brutalist mass produced buildings
Brutalism was not the only style and various states shifted in them.
>I think it's better to have physical things for future historians to have as reference as well.
But we have surviving pictures
>But many people can find value in it.
And I don't care about the opinions of those "people".
>A lot of their art was heavily funded by the state and many paces of art funded by said states in the Iron Curtain often critiqued it as well.
How does that deviate from what I said about their art being amateurish at best?
>Brutalism was not the only style and various states shifted in them.
I am aware but most Soviet art was similar in drab. If it wasn't blocky or propaganda, it was brutalist or was a highly glorified realism. You've seen one piece and you've seen them all basically.
>But we have surviving pictures
Yes but physical pieces can actually be examined physically, pictures can only cover so many angles and some details don't transfer well. Also pictures can be lost to time or become corrupted. I think it's important to have physical examples just in case.
statues of people that hold records for 'most people murdered for no good reason' probably aren't worth saving. not saying erase him from history, but his statues were basic anyway, definitely not "wonder of ancient world' status
I just think that it's important to preserve historic art of civilizations just to have an insight about their culture even slightly. The statues are basic but so was all of their architecture and art in my opinion (which is why they loved shit like brutalism), and it serves to drive home that point of how soulless that civilization was.
completely agree about saving historical art, but i think we can probably let some things go too. a huge statue says 'glory' or celebration in some way, i dont think we should be glorifying anyone like stalin, or ghengis kahn or mao or any leader of 'the sea people', or anyone who is basically known for little more than being horrendously murderous. i think we can just leave it to books and paintings.
and to that point, CoR wasn't a person it was just a cultural "thing" meant to be impressive, maybe an individual doesn't agree with the subject the culture chose (in the case of OPs subject) but its more about 'look what we managed to do' which is definitely preserve worthy.
>CoR wasn't a person
>was a statue of the Greek sun-god Helios
Marxists are atheists and tend to see their leaders as basically divine beings, and thus a lot of Marxist and Soviet art revolves around these men. The same can be said for Maoist China or in Best Korea. They still have a preserved body of Lenin for God's sake. That is why statues of stalin are considered Soviet "art" to me. By normal circumstance they wouldn't be since unlike Greek and Roman statues such statues are rarely as detailed or carry much weight but there isn't much beyond that to salvage for Communist societies since their art lives and dies on this shit from lack of Gods. Even Muslim art has more soul than Communist art in my opinion and they are banned from depicting a ton of shit.
i get what youre saying, but the non-marxists out there (most of the world, and as-close-as-makes-no-difference entire world after the fall of soviet russia) know better than making these guys a substitute god, so i dont think there is any real value in saving the statue portion of that art, since imo the potential damage from stupid people falling into the trap of 'i need to give glory becuase dats a big stachoo' is far greater than the loss of letting them go. a photo of a statue is good enough, and neptune or jupiter didnt kill swaths of their own subjects because they were moronic enough to think "i can totally engineer my entire society on my own".
further, the fact that these guys -were- real humans inspires other humans to be shitty too, or at least think being shitty might go down in history well if im shitty enough.
theres plenty of art that we can preserve to remember the soullessness of these societies without bring in the 'glory' element of it, at least imo
>soullessness
Soulless as in what?
>these societies without bring in the 'glory' element of it, at least imo
Why the hell are yo so concerned about "bringing" in the glory? It's such a trifle thing to concern yourself with
>soullessness
not my words, im responding to someone elses statement
>bringing a figure, historical or not, glory being a trifle
10000000% disagree and i would lap you if I could. are you living under a rock?
>10000000% disagree and i would lap you if I could. are you living under a rock?
Having Nazi or Socialist Europe art on display wouldn't be a threat to society or the system. Italy has a bunch of Fascist architecture on display and they do no give a frick about it or try to "contextualize" it.
why are you talking about 'art on display' like we're talking about any kind of art. were talking specifically about art that is huge and awe-inspiring. idgaf about a painting of mao or stalin, i care about a statue of mao that is 'so huge its impossible to ignore'.
>it serves to drive home that point of how soulless that civilization was.
But Soviet states promoted a lot of the arts how the frick did you gloss over that?
the entire "soviet saga" (including the putin era) is one big insecurity-fest. virtually all of what came out during that time was 'BE MORE CREATIVE THAN THE WEST OR ELSE YOU DIE'
ya you can get some stuff to be good that way, but its manufactured/forced, thus... no soul
the statue was already fallen over anyways
Because they don't know that they are also pagans (Allah was a moon god idol).
The state was already toppled centuries prior due to an earthquake. It was just a ruin on the ground abandoned.
i mean it was technically muslims i guess, but didnt mohammy die like 20 yrs prior to this? at that point, muslims were mostly just riffraff pains in the ass, islam was hardly established.
it was more like... middle easterners. and yeah, the fertile crescent has been a shitshow since like 3000bc. look at Ashurbanipal, he got pissy and fricked up like 2k yrs of history, erased like what 5 ancient cities?
the desert breeds destruction
It was ugly and useless. Muslims destroyed a lot of important cultural/architectural things but this was not one of them. The Christcucks should have gotten rid of it first.
>ugly
youre 350lbs arent you
art is inherently useless you mo-ran
Based Muawiyah dabbin on greekoids
The statue was already destroyed and literally every single group of people on earth for all of history did similar things.
Enough with these garbage threads, it's stale
When I heard someone chucked cake at the Mona Lisa I got pissed and felt stupid cause of course they'd put glass over it. I'm not even a huge fan of the painting I mean it's alright da Vinci had cooler stuff but the frame of mind to shit on or destroy someone else's work takes a certain mindset. Sure the Arabs could have left the statue but what would stop the rhodians from melting it down or scrapping it themselves to give it back to the Arabs and then some. What is best in life Conan?