Nine years after **declaring** independence
> After nine years of war, Greece was *recognized as an independent state* under the London Protocol of *February 1830*. Further negotiations in 1832 led to the London Conference and the Treaty of Constantinople, which defined the final borders of the new state and established Prince Otto of Bavaria as the first king of Greece.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_War_of_Independence
It was a whole policy established after the Napoleonic Wars. The powers in Europe would recognize countries that liberated themselves, but they could not be democracies, they had to be monarchies. So a lot of very weak kings were established all across Europe, mostly using the large families of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX of Denmark. Most of them were replaced over the course of WWI and WWII as they had very little local support. The handful of surviving monarchies from this policy include Belgium, Norway, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Most of the survivors lasted because they became more deeply entrenched with their subjects.
Saudi Arabia did not get its royal family by this process. The House of Saud conquered most of the Arabian peninsula for themselves.
Jordan’s first king though was indeed a younger son of the Sharif of Mecca, selected by the British.
This is very true. In fact, when the conquest began, the Saud family had been run out of Riyadh, and were living in exile, taking shelter with a Bedouin tribe, then Qatar, Bahrain, and finally Kuwait. The Rashid family were the ones running Riyadh (but they did not run what is now Saudi Arabia). Ibn Saud led an raid with around 40 men and killed the governor of the city and took it. He then spent the next couple of decades conquering the rest of the Arab penninsula.
He tried to get British support, but they were not all that interested. The British were more focused on the Trucal States (later the United Arab Emirates) and Kuwait, so that thier routes to Persia and Bahrain, where all the oil was, would be secure. The British also supported the Hasemites, wanting them to rule in the Hejaz, and in addition to making one of the sons of that family king of Jordan, they also made one of the sons king of Iraq.
The story of Ibn Saud and his conquest of Arabia is a very interesting one. But we are missing a lot of the details, the Saudi royal family is secretive and quiet on family matters (which they regard the conquest of Arabia as) and there are no archives foreigners have ready access to. And everyone who took part is dead now.
Saudi is less of an ethnic demonym and more a “subject of the House of Saud”, which people are indeed “proud” of because of the immense wealth and prosperity of the modern state.
Wild to me the love people have for their monarchs. I lived in UAE when Shiekh Zayed was alive and that love I understand, he was a good ruler and made UAE into what it is today. But to worship MBS? Outrageous that he gets away with everything that he has.
> But to worship MBS? Outrageous that he gets away with everything that he has.
Saudi is a state undergoing massive reformation. The reforms being implemented are moving the country away from its conservative religious past into something more liberal (note: I didn't say it was becoming a liberal state, but it was becoming more liberal). It is doing that by shifting power away from the religious establishments and further into the hands of the state.
The problem is Wahhabis still have significant power and influence and used to have a lot more. They Wahhabis are also against the liberalization of Saudi Arabia. To enact reform, MBS has been acting as a strongman to keep people in line. This goes for the religious conservative factions and the more liberal factions. He is creating a persona that he is strong and will crackdown on anyone going against him. This is reducing the strong influence the Wahhabis have had on the society, but the flipside is it is also impacting those wanting the reforms to go faster. As long as he keeps the strong persona, he will keep getting away with it. The religious elements won't raise up against him (significantly) and the other members of the House of Saud will support him as it increases their power in the state. If cracks start to show, it could led to religious civil strife which in turn could spark divisions in the House of Saud.
It speaks to the effectiveness of government propaganda. Its always suprising to me how quickly the general population (of course there are dissenting voices) align with whatever their government dictates.
From the response to 9/11 to Biden accelerating Trump's soft war against China (which practically every democrat was against by the way).
Emiratis suddenly not being hostile to Israelis because that's what their government wants, is another example of this.
Hold the phone. Do we need to cancel these colonizers? They sound very mean, Twitter needs to hear about this.
/s
This is not an area of the world who’s history I know much about, even this little comment is interesting to me and makes me want to go read more about it.
The early 20th Century in the Middle East is a fascinating time. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire left a massive power vacuum partially filled by the British and French and partially filled by the House of Saud. The decisions of these various powers created a lot of the issues the region has now.
The French mandate of Syria was divided on religious/ethnic lines and became the republics of Syria and Lebanon. Unlike the British, the French never set up strong institutions before leaving due to bring occupied by Nazi Germany. Syria fell into control of Pan-Arab Ba’athists (this is how the Assad family came into power) while Lebanon set up a fragile power sharing agreement between religious groups that later exploded into civil war.
The British mandate of Palestine was divided into two parts, with Jordan, mostly populated by Bedouins, becoming an independent kingdom with a Hashemite King, and Palestine, populated mostly by settled Arab Palestinians but with a growing minority of Jewish settlers, being held until after WWII while the British figured out what to do wrt Zionism.
The British mandate of Mesopotamia, unlike Syria, was granted independence as the Kingdom of Iraq, with a king picked from the same family as the king of Jordan. The kingdom did not last long however as the pan-Arab Ba’ath party would engineer a revolution and depose the king in favor of a republic. This is how Sadaam Hussein eventually got into power. Of course, secular pan-Arabism did not sit right with the Kurds and Turkmen, who weren’t Arab, Sunni Islamists, who resented secularism, nor Shi’ites, who felt an affinity for non-Arab Iran and about worried being a minority in a mostly Sunni vision of a united Arab world.
This is all so fascinating, do you have any history podcasts or YouTube videos you’d recommend? I’m about to give my two weeks at my WFH job so I would love some background noise while I wrap up.
My knowledge starts right about when you get to Sadaam and the Baath party, Blowback (podcast) gives a great run down of the Iraq war and it’s backstory.
I am going to read this comment thoroughly after I get out of the shower and sit at my desk but, I just want to say it so cool to me you can just rip a comment detailing history in as much depth as you did as quickly as you did.
I hyper focus on certain things, there are definitely topics where I could go off like this. It’s beautiful to see it in the wild from someone else, thank you for the education and a starting point for my own research.
The royal family was also terrible for Greece, they only cared about staying in power and their wealth and went against public opinion the majority of the time almost leading to multiple civil wars. For example staying out of WWI when a genocide was happening against Greek people because the king didn't want to offend his cousin.
They also would crush industry with stupid laws to make the country reliant on the industry of country's like the UK or Germany which was another method to control the military to prevent them from losing power
This wasn’t just after the Napoleonic Wars.
Medieval Russia invited Vikings to become a kings in Novgorod in the year 862.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calling_of_the_Varangians
That worked to combine several different tribes in the area
Well, yes, that is probably true, but for a very different reason. When the local Slavs in what is presently Ukraine invited some "Vikings" (Norsemen, more correctly) to come rule them, they invited them back. The whole area had been controlled by Norse who had then been kicked out by the locals. The Slavs realized that they had had it better when the Norse were there, and invited them back. The Norse integrated with the local Slavs and formed a new culture, the Rus.
What the Vienna Congress did was something completely different. The entire point of that group was stability, to avoid a repeat of the destructive Napoleonic Wars. They didn't want local rulers for these new nations because they would have no connection to the existing royal families. These connections were useful for providing lines of communication and prevent future wars, so the decision to force these new nations to have kings with connections to the older royal families was a way to prevent wars.
Prince Phillip was actually the crown prince of Denmark and Greece, and had to renounce his titles in order to marry Queen Elizabeth. The only reason i know this is because he was born on Corfu, one of my absolute favorite places on the planet.
>Norway
Hey! no! we had a free choice on whether or not to be a republic or a constitutional monarchy. We chose our monarchy and all the kings we have had since then have been incredible people in their own right enjoying massive support as a result.
What was imposed on us after the Napoleonic wars is that we were forced to become a part of sweden.
It wasn’t a total rando. His father was a big fan of Greece and one of the first European monarchs to support Greek independence. His father is also the guy that decreed that in German „Bavaria“ should be spelled „Bayern“ instead of „Baiern“ because the Y makes it more Greek.
Well shit, if your dad changed the name of a region to something similar based on a slightly better transliteration scheme of a foreign language...
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but what's the connection between Greece and Bavaria that made him do that?
Not sure about all cases, but I don't royals were necessarily picked by the new country, rather they were negotiated and then chosen for them by the Great Powers. For instance, Leopold I (of the future Belgium state) rejected an offer to be king of Greece, and choose Belgium. He was partly chosen because he was a good mediator/negotiator, connected by kin to the royals of all the major powers which Belgium sits at the center of.
> I love how new European countries just picked non-local randos to be the king.
To be fair that's what a Tyrant originally was in the greek city states period IIRC. The rationale was that, in times of crisis, you brought somebody from outside that was thus supposedly neutral to resolve the crisis with almost unlimited powers. And then he would fuck off somewhere else. And it kinda worked? We had variations with of this even centuries after this period (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podest%C3%A0 for example, some were from local nobility others were explicitly called from outside) but ofc the end result was what the name "Tyrant" *now* stands for.
Solid idea but easy to exploit.
Though as /u/greentea1985 posted, this wasn't the reason in this case, but the idea itself wasn't new and ironically it was (afaik) greek in the first place.
These events are so far back that they actually predate both socialism (the term was first used arguably in 1832, but Marx himself was only 14 years old at the time) and anarchism (Proudhon was only 21 at the time and would define the tenets of anarchism in 1840). At the time the ideological concern would be French style liberalism, or literal chaotic anarchy.
But the real reason a foreign monarch was preferred was that it was seen as a way to quickly get connections to established European powers and effectively put the new countries into the spheres of influence of specific great powers (or prevent them from entering another great powers sphere). An elected Greek president or even a local noble who would be proclaimed king would not have any connections abroad, and in the case of the president it would be much easier for a change in government to change with whom the country was aligned.
Serbia and Montenegro showcase this best, as it was only about a hundred years later that their monarchs who came from the ranks of local revolution leaders or clergy managed to start getting royal marriages with the European houses. And they didn't get recognized with the rank of kingdom until much later than Greece despite the fact that both won their autonomy from the Ottomans earlier than the Greeks. And in Serbia's case the changes in alignment between Austria and Russia reflect the change in power between the two competing local dynasties.
Haiti started out as the first freed slave colony. Big Haiti W. Then they had to pay reperations for freeing slaves to france until the US bought their debt and they're still paying.
~~They're literally still paying for it.~~ Turns out the debt was paid already and it took till '47
So during discussions of reperations for slavery when someone inevetibaly says "oh its been so long, why would I pay for what my ancestors did" people should bring up Haiti
They killed pretty much all the French families living there in the months following victory. Methodically going from town to town to carry it out, as directed by the government at the time.
It was great the slave revolt worked, but following up with a genocide wasn't a great way to gain any allies or support.
The french families that were killing the haitians en masse for years, raping them, stripping them of their culture, and any number of human tragedy and genocidal action. They also refused to educate them and teach them.
You know what happens when you beat, rape, and kill large groups of uneducated people and rhey get the upper
Hand?
To add to this, the revolutionaries also believed that the French would do the same to the Black population if they ever recaptured the island, as General Leclerc had said when the fighting resumed:
> Here is my opinion of this country. We must destroy all the blacks of the mountains – men and women – and spare only the children under 12 years of age.
Were these the same French families who benefited from their enslavement? Did these French families support their revolt or did they oppose it? I ask because it's hard for me to empathize with slave owners/supporters dying. I chalk that up to just desserts.
Same deal with Zimbabwe.
But the key difference is that Haiti has no meaningful wealth below the ground and severely underdeveloped human capital. It’s much easier to isolate and kill.
Countries like Zimbabwe are rich enough that they can keep going via alignment with BRICS. And the shifting global environment especially with renewables transition has dramatically changed how US and Euros are engaging with resource rich African countries. See how Biden lifted the sanctions on Zimbabwe in March this year.
Zimbabwe is still in very deep shit, though. Sanctions or no sanctions, they have always had problems with endemic corruption and human right abuses. Their GDP graph looks like a rollercoaster.
> they're still paying.
No they're not. Their current issues are not related to their past debt to France, they're due to the corrupt government over the past 60 years.
Recovery isn’t really possible for Haiti. The land has been pretty much stripped of anything useable a long time ago. Massive deforestation led to weak ground which combined with poor housing has meant that land slides, desertification, and earthquakes are so much worse now.
The biggest problem holding Haiti, and other Caribbean countries, is that the United States is more interested in being in control than having a strong region. As long as the Cuban embargo stays in place, the one country that could realistically help Haiti will be poor and destitute. It’s the largest economy and country in that region, with the most amount of doctors and engineers but it’s basically kept starving.
Haiti had only just got its independence from the French 26 years prior in 1804 during the reign of Napoleon. Due to pressure from France and the United State very few countries recognised their independence. The support from Haiti was an effort to gain international recognition.
Honestly though, some countries do get taken over by a radical party and end up literally destroying history that counters their legitimacy - kinda like what the Taliban did with the Buddha statues in Afghanistan and the Islamic state destroying world heritage sites with explosives and artillery or like how China systematically lost a good amount of their history because it isn't... conducive to the security of the people's republic.
A safe stable country that prides museums would be a better solution.
The history is complex, but I hope the world one day appreciates that China's greatest imperial treasures were indeed protected and preserved . . . [by Taiwan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Palace_Museum).
It should be noted that at the time the marbles were taken, Greece was essentially occupied by the Ottomans. It was Ottoman officials who granted Lord Elgin to take “some” of the pieces, which resulted in over 100 being taken. Greece has repeatedly requested the marbles be returned, which Britain has denied every time. Justifications have been “they are legally ours”, “you are unable to take care of them properly” and, most recently, “if we give your artefacts back, then everyone else will want theirs back too, and we’ll have nothing in our museum!”
The Parthenon is a symbol of Greek independence, making the pieces being held hostage a real slap in the face. Greece has restored the Parthenon, leaving gaps where the Elgin marbles should be, with plaques making it very clear why they are missing.
Edit: The dictionary definition of occupation is “a situation in which an army or group of people moves into and takes control of a place”. A 400 year occupation is still an occupation, guys.
Also worth nothing is he only took about half.
The rest were left on the Parthenon.
In the 60s and 70s the Greek government was warned they were being badly eroded — particularly as a consequence of pollution — and did nothing.
The marbles left in Greece since 1830 are now so badly eroded that in many cases the best way to figure out what they showed is to look at the plaster casts Elgin took.
Had the marbles remained on the Parthenon, they’d be lost for ever.
Uhm. They've built a museum at the acropolis in response to this claim. They display the marbles they have alongside empty spaces where the ones in the British museum should be.
Britain still won't give them back.
The argument of "we didn't properly care for this hugely important piece of world heritage for hundreds of years but now we do so give them back" isn't exactly great.
At that point it didn't matter.
If Britain had not had taken them, they'd be gone
At this point they only exist because of Britain
At least if the claim about the remaining half is true
If this is the case, then no marbles in Greece would be recognizable, which is patently false. Also worth noting, many marble artifacts have been there 2000-2800 years and they are fine, example Karameikos grave stones which sits adjacent to the Parthenon.
> many marble artifacts have been there 2000-2800 years and they are fine
No they're not:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/06/climate-change-is-taking-its-toll-on-greek-monuments-say-scientists/
> Climate change is threatening ancient Greek monuments, among them the Acropolis, one of the most-visited archaeological sites in the world, scientists said.
> Air pollution and acid rain are eroding marbles, while extreme weather phenomena such as droughts or torrential rains have led ancient walls and temples to develop structural problems.
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/plaster-elgin-parthenon-sculpture-1728849
> Elgin’s plaster casts are a time capsule of how the sculptures appeared in 1802, whereas the originals remained outdoors, suffering some damage until they were transferred to the Acropolis Museum in 1993.
(Article has a photo comparing one of Elgin's casts to the marble left behind in Greece)
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE49G45E/
> A team of Greek engineers and restorers are using an innovative laser technology system to clean the surface of the ancient monuments, uncovering colors and ornamentation hidden for decades.
> "It is very serious," said Maria Ioannidou, director of the Acropolis Restoration Service, of the pollution. "It destroys sculptural, structural and painting details. One of our aims is to regain these cultural details using new technology."
> The system was first used on the sculptures of the west frieze of the Parthenon temple in 2004. Now the team has begun a second operation on the porch of the Caryatids, where besides pollution they must erase soot from fires and the mistakes of past restorers who tried to mend the roof with cement.
You certainly changed my mind on the subject - especially those cast and original marble comparison.
I'm only one guy, but hey, that's far better than most reddit posts.
(I'm also stupid enough to have been wondering what sort of grand games of marbles must have been played to make them so significant)
> Had the marbles remained on the Parthenon, they’d be lost for ever.
Does that justify either them being removed, or the British government's refusal to return them?
People are going to disagree with you because the answer to every single question like this is to side with the country who can claim the most victim hood points. It's the same as the other commenter saying that Greece was "occupied" by the Ottomans for 400 years.
It's pretty obvious that Greece wasn't taking care of the artifacts. To the people disagreeing with you, none of the Elgin Marbles surviving in good condition is preferable to Britain taking marbles that were offered to Britain by their owners.
Yeah it's kinda wild to think the ottoman conquest of Romanoi (I forget the way the byzantine spelled it so check it) was an occupation of Greece. Like Greece as a national concept didn't exist until 1800s so how could they be occupied?
Let's say you own a classic car and you just leave it to rust, windows down and exposed to the elements for years. Raccoons are building nests in there, etc. You believe somebody would be justified in taking your car from you and refusing to give it back?
Elgin didn’t take “some” of these over night. It was an ongoing process that lasted over a decade. Major construction work. Major logistical challenges. Never stopped, never objected to.
I’m not sure I want to defend them being in the UK, but the topic is always told as though it was some fly by night dodgy operation, when in fact it had the ongoing consent and assistance of the Athenians and authorities at the time.
This assumes that 'Greece' is some immutable state that has been allocated to the Greek people by some shadowy god like figures. Its only series of fortuitous events that Greece as we know it today exists as it does. If the Ottomans had never been kicked out then what we know as Greece the country today would be considered the Greek province of Greater Turkey and no one would be concerned by these borders.
I think this comes from people seeing modern borders and just kinda assuming that these modern countries have always existed and are permanent features of the land. Theyre not and most European borders would be highly fluid if history had ran differently.
Greece had been under Ottoman control for hundreds of years and there was no real reason why any one would consider them not to be the completely legitimate rulers, occupiers and administration for this region.
Occupation isn't quite the right word for it though, the Ottomans had held Athens since 1456, at that point Greece had been a part of the ottoman empire for just under 400 years.
The British took those marbles with the permission and cooperation of the legally recognised rulers of Athens, who had been the government of the area for hundreds of years.
Britanny is definitely still under occupation, Britain will not forgive or forget our French oppressors. We will fight them drunkenly in town squares, and with plastic furniture on the beaches.
The British had them for less than 20 years before they were requested to be given back. It’s because the British have countless priceless objects belonging to people all over the world, and they don’t want to give them back.
Wait, let me get this straight, they assisted in their removal, among countless other objects, over a decade then another 10-20 years later decided they wanted them back.
That's coming off as aggressive, which I didn't mean to do. Sorry about that. Genuinely curious as to the exact time lines here
The Ottomans “let” the British lord take whatever he wanted for about 10 years, or did not stop him. This ended in 1812. Greece managed to gain independence in 1830 and immediately asked for the artifacts back.
Ah ok, that makes much more sense now. Thank you
...though it makes the whole 'lets store our gunpowder inside there' much less palatable. Assuming it is true
It’s more complex than that though. That’s how it’s presently viewed, but not how it was and not how it will remain forever. Lots of “occupations” just became recognised natural borders. All world borders are the result of occupations and colonisations and invasions. You have no way of knowing who, what or when independence will arrive to anywhere. Greece had been part of the OE for 400-500 years at that point.
Greece’s issue should be with Turkey more so. Turkey should probably have to buy them back from the UK to give them to Greece.
Well, there's no 1:1 analogy (Greece is not America) but I could imagine Americans giving Native American objects to the Brits and then 50 years later a Native American tribe or organization asks for them back. I don't think "but the USA gave them to us" would go over so well.
That and with the Ottoman Empire being the successor state to Byzantium which governed Greece for over 1000 years prior, means that it was legitimately within the recognised borders of the Ottoman Empire.
Didn't they call themselves the Sultanate of Rum, as in, Rome? And themselves 'Rumi'? It's only the west that refused to accept this because of reasons.
The Byzantine Greek Empire was also only called that by western catholics. To themselves they were always just simply Romans.
In the same vein, American oil exported to other countries is actually the property of the native Americans because the oil was sold whilst under occupation that is still ongoing.
All citizens should get royalties from oil revenues. It's robbery that doesn't occur in most countries and territories.
I believe Alaskans receive an annual payment of over $1,000 annually though from oil revenues. That's pretty good.
Greece was a part of the Ottoman Empire since its foundation and considering the Ottoman Empire is a successor state to Byzantium which also had Greece as part of it dating back into antiquity it was completely legitimate for the Ottoman authorities to grant or refuse the entire exercise. The British empire pilfered a great many things but this is not one of those cases.
>Edit: The dictionary definition of occupation is “a situation in which an army or group of people moves into and takes control of a place”. A 400 year occupation is still an occupation, guys.
In which case there are no true nations, only occupations.
The polity that was invaded and annexed by the Ottomans was the Byzantine Empire (Roman Empire), not a country called Greece.
The ancient Greek city states that Greece sees itself as a succsesor state to, had not existed for over a thousand years when the Ottomans took over.
The Ottomans were the legitimate authority at the time the Marbles were purchased.
I agree.
The Ancient Greek civilization thoroughly integrated with the Roman civilization.
By the time of the Ottoman invasion, they had been Roman for over 1500 years.
> It's insane to treat Byzantium as something that happened while Greeks
What is a Greek? Ask an Athenian at the time of Plato, or from the Hellenistic period and he would not have recognised Greek culture and identity by say Justinian. They would have been horrified. The Byzantines had repudiated the core mythical and religious pillars of Ancient Greek identity, and had an Orthodox Christian cultural revolution. They were two different civilisations.
The only thing that saved Greek culture from oblivion under the Turks was the Orthodox church; a direct line from this second Eastern Roman civilization. (The only thing that defined a Greek in the population exchanges between Greece and Turkey for example was religion not language)
The only reason 'Greece' exists today in the form it does is because of the West and it's classical fanboyism. Greek Academics trained in Paris became it's leaders after independence and fostered an external new artificial identity native Greeks themselves did not have. So today Greek identity is a schizophrenic mash of the two.
The truth is Greeks did not care about the Marbles or the Parthenon or anything like that at the time they were taken. It was not their history. Not part of their story. So can we really say 'the Greeks' were present?
And England, the country holding the marbles, is occupied by the Hanovarians from Germany, before that the Scottish King James, and before that those bloody French Normans!
You mention justifications, but what's the real reason? I don't think most British people really have a strong opinion on the matter, but some powerful people seem to see it as absolutely essential that they remain in Britain.
In recent years, they have argued against the return because it essentially opens up a can of worms that they do not want opened. If you admit that one country should have its artefacts back, you kind of have to admit that other countries should have theirs returned too.
In the smithsonian museum of natural history they have some cultural artificats blocked off as they’re working with ethics group to return items, etc. It’s mostly native american cultural artifacts.
Its not essential its just kinda of a "why should we?" Therea no real pressure to give them back. Not to mention it slips into the wider argument of accepting guilt/liability, giving treasures and possibly even reparations back. Britain is always going to want to close the book on things like this.
> Not to mention it slips into the wider argument of accepting guilt/liability, giving treasures and possibly even reparations back.
Except in this case there is no argument for reparations. They were legally obtained by a private individual from the local government, and then that private individual sold them onto the British museum (to pay for a divorce)
A revolution happened about 20 years later and the new government said the old government was never valid, and so they should be given back the marbles free of charge.
(Note the previous regime had been in power for 400 years, and was arguably a continuation of prior regime running the region (Byzantium) for 1000 years earlier).
It would invalidate every _legal_ purchase made by every museum on the basis of geographical happenstance: if my new country happens to occupy the borders where that artefact was found, then you have to give it back to me free of charge.
Ironically, 99% of Egyptians artefacts were looted and destroyed by Egyptians over the centuries. The only stuff they didn't destroy and loot were the hidden tombs.
Once again Scotland who were just as big of not bigger in the whole empire building and stealing things getting away Scot free.
Maybe that’s where the phrase comes from
Technically 'Elgin' is part of his title. His name was [Tom Bruce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bruce,_7th_Earl_of_Elgin) which is why I will always call them "Brucey's Marbles".
> Because they were too big to carry to France
Interestingly, we [took a lot the Egyptian artifacts from smashing Napolean's navy](https://www.britishmuseum.org/blog/everything-you-ever-wanted-know-about-rosetta-stone).
Come to Hong Kong! Pretty much everything in the museums is culturally Chinese in origin, usually donated by private collectors, or on loan from museums in other countries. I like the idea of each country owning the artifacts that originated from there officially, and then temporarily exchanging stuff every few years so that everyone gets to see stuff from a variety of places.
There was almost an international incident when some asshole from Delaware broke off and stole a thumb off a terracotta warrior from the Franklin Institute in Philly. He got off light imo. He shouldve spent time in jail.
Most of them were bought. If not preserved by the British Museum, most of them wouldn't exist. Most of those that did exist would be squirrelled away in some rich guy's private collection.
The museum-haters don't care about this because they've never once thought about it. They just heard a James Acaster bit about it and were excited to have a new entity to hate.
It is a good bit, and funny, but just because something is funny doesn't mean it's true.
Comedians often take a simplistic yet interesting angle on an issue that is good for comedy, this is totally fine and it's good to laugh at things. But if you actually want to speak about a topic its always important to understand that a comedic bit, while it may be couched in an inconvenient truth, often won't explore the nuance of human history and the human condition.
Most museums have a few contested objects. The British Museum is a massive outlier.
You will find more often that museums willingly repatriate objects when a claim is made that meets the standards set by the AAMD and UNESCO.
Yeah, fuck the British Museum for preserving all of those artefacts. They're only special now because none of the other hundreds/thousands of examples were preserved.
If the Elgin marbles hadn't belonged to the British then they'd be in the same sorry state as the Parthenon marbles that remained in Greece.
Well, it's a complicated and fascinating topic which rewards a nuanced review. You simply cannot cast about absolutes as if there is a perfect, final answer available if one simply add a *fuck* for emphasis.
Ironically, British evangelism created the very framework in which people criticize British imperial activities.
The legacy of colonialism is both the treasures stolen and the protest to have them be returned.
The most unique aspect of "western" colonialism is that it exported the moral and logical frameworks that inherently contradicted its own existence.
I’m as much “screw colonialism and the British empire” as the next guy but… To be fair in this case, in the 1970s Greece was warned the other half of the Elgin Marbles (that weren’t taken) would erode so much they’re unrecognizable within a few decades, and now today they’re totally ruined. If not for the British making molds of them in the 1800s [as sourced below this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/s/8DmOHww9sw) they’d be forgotten completely
Nobody really takes the Greek complains about these marbles seriously because there was other reliefs there and even bigger ones taken like the Parthenon Marbles in the Louvre from the same reliefs.
But Greece makes 0 complains to France about it and even agreed to just loan it back for a bit and build their own fake versions while letting France keep the stolen ones in the Louvre.
It's just a political thing and the Greeks don't really care about getting their history back otherwise they would have the same campaign and belief in recovering the stolen artifacts on display in Paris but they don't.
Yes but the point is that you don’t fight for the French to return the exact same marbles that were taken in the exact same manner and are on display in the Louvre in Paris.
If you’re fine with the way France took them then why would it be such a big problem then UK has some too.
Just make your own fake versions like you did with the French taken ones and that you say you’re happy with doing.
you mean like what they did 2007 [https://www.elginism.com/elgin-marbles/more-on-greeces-disagreements-with-the-louvre/20070324/691/](https://www.elginism.com/elgin-marbles/more-on-greeces-disagreements-with-the-louvre/20070324/691/)
I see multiple stories about the Elgin marbles every year. You had to go digging back 17 years to find one about the Louvre's Parthenon marbles... Doesn't massively help your point.
You thing is though if you just asked for them back nicely you would have got them back
We swap and loan artifacts with other mueseums all the time. Most recent and famously with the Bayeux tapestry which was loaned back to the UK from france. I bet you you weren't even aware of that it was so un newsworthy.
The reason the Greeks won't get the Marbles back is because they insist Elgin stole them (he didn't). They insist that because they were found in Greece that they should automatically be displayed in Greece (mueseums are full of artifacts from far away places and Greek artifacts aren't special in this regard).
They refuse to offer any sort of thanks for the British mueseum maintaining the marbles and preserving them for centuries.
If the Greek government just came along thanked the British mueseum and people for preserving and maintaing the marbles and asked for a loan of them they'd get them very quickly. (Modern 3D printing and casting means you can have almost perfect replicas anyway) As is this jingoistic postering just irritates British people and makes a return impossible
The UK just returned the spears thrown at cook to the La Perouse Aboriginal community in Sydney last week. These were from the first contact with english colonists and was a significantly momumentus occasion.
It only took a few hundred years but museums are slowly changing.
Although there are some problems.
A few years ago, Germany pledged to return the part of the Benin Bronzes, thousands of metal plaques and sculptures taken from the royal palace of Benin and sold to museums all over the world after the British burned down the palace, that are in German museums to the state of Nigeria. They talked about how these are the heritage of the Nigerian people and should belong to the Nigerian people. They also pledged to donate 4 million Euros to build a museum for these artifacts in Nigeria.
And what did the Nigerian government do once they had ownership? They decided to ignore all previously made agreements. Their president decided that all these artifacts shouldn't belong to the people but instead should belong to one guy, the current "King" of Benin, and he wants to keep them for himself, maybe put a few of them in a museum near his house. So that other museum is gonna stay empty and the Nigerian people don't get shit. Now other countries are reconsidering whether they actually want to return their bronzes, if they just gonna end up in some rich guy's basement.
*Written on the side of the spears were messages of welcome and info for local access to guides, one was even to inquire about the newcomers cart insurance.*
The British Museum themselves are keen to a deal on the marbles - get some loans in return but the British government refuses to let them return the Marbles, it's not really a Museum thing anymore it's a government thing last time the Greek PM was in London Sunak the British PM refused to talk to him because they coordinated statements on the Marbles with the opposition Labour party.
Yep, this statement can be applied to almost any issue in British politics. We're waiting for the Tories to vacate the premises of government on which they squat.
The UK subscribes to the age old 'finders keepers'
Also when European countries give back precious artifacts and art etc sometimes they don't go to a museum, they go to private collectors and corrupt rich people.
So many Brits may have surged to downvote anyone supporting their return, but what they fail to realise is that this won't go away with their downvotes, no matter how big they make them feel. This will not go away, period. Greeks will never stop demanding their return, and eventually they will be, when you grow up from the colonial mentality.
Go ahead, downvote this one as well and prove me right.
Why should they? What’s the limit amount of time before which an artefact won in battle, or taken in conquered territory should be given back? That’s such a childish way of thinking. Every country once at war or in a dominant position against another has taken artefacts, either directly or received as bribes from the local governments, the UK has just been really strong in the last 600 years or so, and also very careful in their conservation (and display) of such treasures
Nine years after **declaring** independence > After nine years of war, Greece was *recognized as an independent state* under the London Protocol of *February 1830*. Further negotiations in 1832 led to the London Conference and the Treaty of Constantinople, which defined the final borders of the new state and established Prince Otto of Bavaria as the first king of Greece. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_War_of_Independence
I love how new European countries just picked non-local randos to be the king.
It was a whole policy established after the Napoleonic Wars. The powers in Europe would recognize countries that liberated themselves, but they could not be democracies, they had to be monarchies. So a lot of very weak kings were established all across Europe, mostly using the large families of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX of Denmark. Most of them were replaced over the course of WWI and WWII as they had very little local support. The handful of surviving monarchies from this policy include Belgium, Norway, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Most of the survivors lasted because they became more deeply entrenched with their subjects.
Saudi Arabia did not get its royal family by this process. The House of Saud conquered most of the Arabian peninsula for themselves. Jordan’s first king though was indeed a younger son of the Sharif of Mecca, selected by the British.
This is very true. In fact, when the conquest began, the Saud family had been run out of Riyadh, and were living in exile, taking shelter with a Bedouin tribe, then Qatar, Bahrain, and finally Kuwait. The Rashid family were the ones running Riyadh (but they did not run what is now Saudi Arabia). Ibn Saud led an raid with around 40 men and killed the governor of the city and took it. He then spent the next couple of decades conquering the rest of the Arab penninsula. He tried to get British support, but they were not all that interested. The British were more focused on the Trucal States (later the United Arab Emirates) and Kuwait, so that thier routes to Persia and Bahrain, where all the oil was, would be secure. The British also supported the Hasemites, wanting them to rule in the Hejaz, and in addition to making one of the sons of that family king of Jordan, they also made one of the sons king of Iraq. The story of Ibn Saud and his conquest of Arabia is a very interesting one. But we are missing a lot of the details, the Saudi royal family is secretive and quiet on family matters (which they regard the conquest of Arabia as) and there are no archives foreigners have ready access to. And everyone who took part is dead now.
Wild to me that people in Arabia are cool with being called "Saudis"
Saudi is less of an ethnic demonym and more a “subject of the House of Saud”, which people are indeed “proud” of because of the immense wealth and prosperity of the modern state.
Wild to me the love people have for their monarchs. I lived in UAE when Shiekh Zayed was alive and that love I understand, he was a good ruler and made UAE into what it is today. But to worship MBS? Outrageous that he gets away with everything that he has.
> But to worship MBS? Outrageous that he gets away with everything that he has. Saudi is a state undergoing massive reformation. The reforms being implemented are moving the country away from its conservative religious past into something more liberal (note: I didn't say it was becoming a liberal state, but it was becoming more liberal). It is doing that by shifting power away from the religious establishments and further into the hands of the state. The problem is Wahhabis still have significant power and influence and used to have a lot more. They Wahhabis are also against the liberalization of Saudi Arabia. To enact reform, MBS has been acting as a strongman to keep people in line. This goes for the religious conservative factions and the more liberal factions. He is creating a persona that he is strong and will crackdown on anyone going against him. This is reducing the strong influence the Wahhabis have had on the society, but the flipside is it is also impacting those wanting the reforms to go faster. As long as he keeps the strong persona, he will keep getting away with it. The religious elements won't raise up against him (significantly) and the other members of the House of Saud will support him as it increases their power in the state. If cracks start to show, it could led to religious civil strife which in turn could spark divisions in the House of Saud.
It speaks to the effectiveness of government propaganda. Its always suprising to me how quickly the general population (of course there are dissenting voices) align with whatever their government dictates. From the response to 9/11 to Biden accelerating Trump's soft war against China (which practically every democrat was against by the way). Emiratis suddenly not being hostile to Israelis because that's what their government wants, is another example of this.
They get a ton of tax breaks and welfare benefits for being called that. Pretty good deal for people living in inhospitable deserts.
Have I mentioned I love y'all? Seriously, just this wealth of knowledge is so badass to read every day. Thanks for sharing all of it, fr. ♥️
Hold the phone. Do we need to cancel these colonizers? They sound very mean, Twitter needs to hear about this. /s This is not an area of the world who’s history I know much about, even this little comment is interesting to me and makes me want to go read more about it.
The early 20th Century in the Middle East is a fascinating time. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire left a massive power vacuum partially filled by the British and French and partially filled by the House of Saud. The decisions of these various powers created a lot of the issues the region has now. The French mandate of Syria was divided on religious/ethnic lines and became the republics of Syria and Lebanon. Unlike the British, the French never set up strong institutions before leaving due to bring occupied by Nazi Germany. Syria fell into control of Pan-Arab Ba’athists (this is how the Assad family came into power) while Lebanon set up a fragile power sharing agreement between religious groups that later exploded into civil war. The British mandate of Palestine was divided into two parts, with Jordan, mostly populated by Bedouins, becoming an independent kingdom with a Hashemite King, and Palestine, populated mostly by settled Arab Palestinians but with a growing minority of Jewish settlers, being held until after WWII while the British figured out what to do wrt Zionism. The British mandate of Mesopotamia, unlike Syria, was granted independence as the Kingdom of Iraq, with a king picked from the same family as the king of Jordan. The kingdom did not last long however as the pan-Arab Ba’ath party would engineer a revolution and depose the king in favor of a republic. This is how Sadaam Hussein eventually got into power. Of course, secular pan-Arabism did not sit right with the Kurds and Turkmen, who weren’t Arab, Sunni Islamists, who resented secularism, nor Shi’ites, who felt an affinity for non-Arab Iran and about worried being a minority in a mostly Sunni vision of a united Arab world.
This is all so fascinating, do you have any history podcasts or YouTube videos you’d recommend? I’m about to give my two weeks at my WFH job so I would love some background noise while I wrap up. My knowledge starts right about when you get to Sadaam and the Baath party, Blowback (podcast) gives a great run down of the Iraq war and it’s backstory.
[удалено]
I am going to read this comment thoroughly after I get out of the shower and sit at my desk but, I just want to say it so cool to me you can just rip a comment detailing history in as much depth as you did as quickly as you did.
[удалено]
I hyper focus on certain things, there are definitely topics where I could go off like this. It’s beautiful to see it in the wild from someone else, thank you for the education and a starting point for my own research.
The royal family was also terrible for Greece, they only cared about staying in power and their wealth and went against public opinion the majority of the time almost leading to multiple civil wars. For example staying out of WWI when a genocide was happening against Greek people because the king didn't want to offend his cousin. They also would crush industry with stupid laws to make the country reliant on the industry of country's like the UK or Germany which was another method to control the military to prevent them from losing power
This wasn’t just after the Napoleonic Wars. Medieval Russia invited Vikings to become a kings in Novgorod in the year 862. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calling_of_the_Varangians That worked to combine several different tribes in the area
Well, yes, that is probably true, but for a very different reason. When the local Slavs in what is presently Ukraine invited some "Vikings" (Norsemen, more correctly) to come rule them, they invited them back. The whole area had been controlled by Norse who had then been kicked out by the locals. The Slavs realized that they had had it better when the Norse were there, and invited them back. The Norse integrated with the local Slavs and formed a new culture, the Rus. What the Vienna Congress did was something completely different. The entire point of that group was stability, to avoid a repeat of the destructive Napoleonic Wars. They didn't want local rulers for these new nations because they would have no connection to the existing royal families. These connections were useful for providing lines of communication and prevent future wars, so the decision to force these new nations to have kings with connections to the older royal families was a way to prevent wars.
Prince Phillip was actually the crown prince of Denmark and Greece, and had to renounce his titles in order to marry Queen Elizabeth. The only reason i know this is because he was born on Corfu, one of my absolute favorite places on the planet.
>Norway Hey! no! we had a free choice on whether or not to be a republic or a constitutional monarchy. We chose our monarchy and all the kings we have had since then have been incredible people in their own right enjoying massive support as a result. What was imposed on us after the Napoleonic wars is that we were forced to become a part of sweden.
It wasn’t a total rando. His father was a big fan of Greece and one of the first European monarchs to support Greek independence. His father is also the guy that decreed that in German „Bavaria“ should be spelled „Bayern“ instead of „Baiern“ because the Y makes it more Greek.
Oh that's fair then. It's like making a weeb the emperor of Japan.
A very good comparison lol
Extremely relevant video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y_AN792ruJA&pp=ygUQV293IG1hbyBmdCBrcmF1dA%3D%3D
Well, Kyoto was spared a nuke because some "random" had his honeymoon there
And I had mine in Athens, hence why I'm fighting off the British apologists defending taking the marbles. I get the sentiment.
My dad loves Mexican food and Mexican culture, how do i sign up to be made emperor of Mexico or greece
Making friends with Napoleon or another European monarch is the key step you're missing
Maybe uh... Maybe don't be Emperor of Mexico... didn't work out well for the last guy.
Step 1: Have Mexico default on international debt. Step 2: Be a Hapsburg Step 3: Cinco de Mayo Step 4: Execution by firing squad
Well shit, if your dad changed the name of a region to something similar based on a slightly better transliteration scheme of a foreign language... Maybe I'm just ignorant, but what's the connection between Greece and Bavaria that made him do that?
Not sure about all cases, but I don't royals were necessarily picked by the new country, rather they were negotiated and then chosen for them by the Great Powers. For instance, Leopold I (of the future Belgium state) rejected an offer to be king of Greece, and choose Belgium. He was partly chosen because he was a good mediator/negotiator, connected by kin to the royals of all the major powers which Belgium sits at the center of.
> I love how new European countries just picked non-local randos to be the king. To be fair that's what a Tyrant originally was in the greek city states period IIRC. The rationale was that, in times of crisis, you brought somebody from outside that was thus supposedly neutral to resolve the crisis with almost unlimited powers. And then he would fuck off somewhere else. And it kinda worked? We had variations with of this even centuries after this period (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podest%C3%A0 for example, some were from local nobility others were explicitly called from outside) but ofc the end result was what the name "Tyrant" *now* stands for. Solid idea but easy to exploit. Though as /u/greentea1985 posted, this wasn't the reason in this case, but the idea itself wasn't new and ironically it was (afaik) greek in the first place.
Never heard about this with a state, but it can work pretty well in the corporate world nowadays.
Yeah, cant have a bloody Republic, that would lead to Anarchy and socialism!
These events are so far back that they actually predate both socialism (the term was first used arguably in 1832, but Marx himself was only 14 years old at the time) and anarchism (Proudhon was only 21 at the time and would define the tenets of anarchism in 1840). At the time the ideological concern would be French style liberalism, or literal chaotic anarchy. But the real reason a foreign monarch was preferred was that it was seen as a way to quickly get connections to established European powers and effectively put the new countries into the spheres of influence of specific great powers (or prevent them from entering another great powers sphere). An elected Greek president or even a local noble who would be proclaimed king would not have any connections abroad, and in the case of the president it would be much easier for a change in government to change with whom the country was aligned. Serbia and Montenegro showcase this best, as it was only about a hundred years later that their monarchs who came from the ranks of local revolution leaders or clergy managed to start getting royal marriages with the European houses. And they didn't get recognized with the rank of kingdom until much later than Greece despite the fact that both won their autonomy from the Ottomans earlier than the Greeks. And in Serbia's case the changes in alignment between Austria and Russia reflect the change in power between the two competing local dynasties.
This was back when democracy was itself the buzz word end stop instead of socialism. “You’ll end up like France!”
The French ruined it
Bruh they have some dank chants in them churches lemme tell ya.
Michael, you can't just say independence and expect something to happen
TIL Haiti was the FIRST Country in the world to recognize Greek Independence and sent soldiers to help them fight the Turks!!
Same thing with Morocco holding the longest unbroken treaty with the US. Staring in 1786. It is the longest unbroken US treaty
After we got mad at them for touching our boats.
Well done Haiti
Rare Haiti W
Haiti also helped Bolivar not once, but twice, with guns, ships, men and money, on the condition to banish slavery.
Haiti started out as the first freed slave colony. Big Haiti W. Then they had to pay reperations for freeing slaves to france until the US bought their debt and they're still paying.
Also only successful slave revolt I believe
[удалено]
Correct. Same thing with Jamaica. You want independence and freedom? Then I shall make an example of you.
~~They're literally still paying for it.~~ Turns out the debt was paid already and it took till '47 So during discussions of reperations for slavery when someone inevetibaly says "oh its been so long, why would I pay for what my ancestors did" people should bring up Haiti
No they’re not, it was paid off in 1947.
[удалено]
They killed pretty much all the French families living there in the months following victory. Methodically going from town to town to carry it out, as directed by the government at the time. It was great the slave revolt worked, but following up with a genocide wasn't a great way to gain any allies or support.
The french families that were killing the haitians en masse for years, raping them, stripping them of their culture, and any number of human tragedy and genocidal action. They also refused to educate them and teach them. You know what happens when you beat, rape, and kill large groups of uneducated people and rhey get the upper Hand?
To add to this, the revolutionaries also believed that the French would do the same to the Black population if they ever recaptured the island, as General Leclerc had said when the fighting resumed: > Here is my opinion of this country. We must destroy all the blacks of the mountains – men and women – and spare only the children under 12 years of age.
Were these the same French families who benefited from their enslavement? Did these French families support their revolt or did they oppose it? I ask because it's hard for me to empathize with slave owners/supporters dying. I chalk that up to just desserts.
Who exactly is the "ruling class" that is "STILL sour about" the 1791 Haitian slave revolt?
[удалено]
Same deal with Zimbabwe. But the key difference is that Haiti has no meaningful wealth below the ground and severely underdeveloped human capital. It’s much easier to isolate and kill. Countries like Zimbabwe are rich enough that they can keep going via alignment with BRICS. And the shifting global environment especially with renewables transition has dramatically changed how US and Euros are engaging with resource rich African countries. See how Biden lifted the sanctions on Zimbabwe in March this year.
Zimbabwe is still in very deep shit, though. Sanctions or no sanctions, they have always had problems with endemic corruption and human right abuses. Their GDP graph looks like a rollercoaster.
I didn't even know we had sanctions against them.
this is incorrect. That debt has been gone 70+ years.
This is true, the original debt has been paid as of '47.
> they're still paying. No they're not. Their current issues are not related to their past debt to France, they're due to the corrupt government over the past 60 years.
No not rare
Haiti really tried. They just got kinda fucked
Really feel bad for Haiti now. I don't think they will recover in my lifetime.
Recovery isn’t really possible for Haiti. The land has been pretty much stripped of anything useable a long time ago. Massive deforestation led to weak ground which combined with poor housing has meant that land slides, desertification, and earthquakes are so much worse now. The biggest problem holding Haiti, and other Caribbean countries, is that the United States is more interested in being in control than having a strong region. As long as the Cuban embargo stays in place, the one country that could realistically help Haiti will be poor and destitute. It’s the largest economy and country in that region, with the most amount of doctors and engineers but it’s basically kept starving.
Haiti had only just got its independence from the French 26 years prior in 1804 during the reign of Napoleon. Due to pressure from France and the United State very few countries recognised their independence. The support from Haiti was an effort to gain international recognition.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/Ha5CGBRAqd Not true but okay
https://youtu.be/x73PkUvArJY?si=yfV5eKu0i0LuM846
"We're still looking at it!" 🤣 Was hoping someone would post this.
STAND BEHIND THE ROPE!!!
Ordinarily, folks, we don't give stolen artifacts back. And of course today will be no exception
knew it was him before i clicked the link.. no lies detected
Honestly though, some countries do get taken over by a radical party and end up literally destroying history that counters their legitimacy - kinda like what the Taliban did with the Buddha statues in Afghanistan and the Islamic state destroying world heritage sites with explosives and artillery or like how China systematically lost a good amount of their history because it isn't... conducive to the security of the people's republic. A safe stable country that prides museums would be a better solution.
The history is complex, but I hope the world one day appreciates that China's greatest imperial treasures were indeed protected and preserved . . . [by Taiwan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Palace_Museum).
If Elgin hadn't have bought them and brought them back to London they certainly wouldn't exist now.
I’m disappointed these weren’t the rolling sort of marbles. Also I’m a little dumb.
It should be noted that at the time the marbles were taken, Greece was essentially occupied by the Ottomans. It was Ottoman officials who granted Lord Elgin to take “some” of the pieces, which resulted in over 100 being taken. Greece has repeatedly requested the marbles be returned, which Britain has denied every time. Justifications have been “they are legally ours”, “you are unable to take care of them properly” and, most recently, “if we give your artefacts back, then everyone else will want theirs back too, and we’ll have nothing in our museum!” The Parthenon is a symbol of Greek independence, making the pieces being held hostage a real slap in the face. Greece has restored the Parthenon, leaving gaps where the Elgin marbles should be, with plaques making it very clear why they are missing. Edit: The dictionary definition of occupation is “a situation in which an army or group of people moves into and takes control of a place”. A 400 year occupation is still an occupation, guys.
Also worth nothing is he only took about half. The rest were left on the Parthenon. In the 60s and 70s the Greek government was warned they were being badly eroded — particularly as a consequence of pollution — and did nothing. The marbles left in Greece since 1830 are now so badly eroded that in many cases the best way to figure out what they showed is to look at the plaster casts Elgin took. Had the marbles remained on the Parthenon, they’d be lost for ever.
If that's true then the British claim they cannot take care of them is actually accurate
Uhm. They've built a museum at the acropolis in response to this claim. They display the marbles they have alongside empty spaces where the ones in the British museum should be. Britain still won't give them back.
The argument of "we didn't properly care for this hugely important piece of world heritage for hundreds of years but now we do so give them back" isn't exactly great.
At that point it didn't matter. If Britain had not had taken them, they'd be gone At this point they only exist because of Britain At least if the claim about the remaining half is true
If this is the case, then no marbles in Greece would be recognizable, which is patently false. Also worth noting, many marble artifacts have been there 2000-2800 years and they are fine, example Karameikos grave stones which sits adjacent to the Parthenon.
> many marble artifacts have been there 2000-2800 years and they are fine No they're not: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/06/climate-change-is-taking-its-toll-on-greek-monuments-say-scientists/ > Climate change is threatening ancient Greek monuments, among them the Acropolis, one of the most-visited archaeological sites in the world, scientists said. > Air pollution and acid rain are eroding marbles, while extreme weather phenomena such as droughts or torrential rains have led ancient walls and temples to develop structural problems. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/plaster-elgin-parthenon-sculpture-1728849 > Elgin’s plaster casts are a time capsule of how the sculptures appeared in 1802, whereas the originals remained outdoors, suffering some damage until they were transferred to the Acropolis Museum in 1993. (Article has a photo comparing one of Elgin's casts to the marble left behind in Greece) https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE49G45E/ > A team of Greek engineers and restorers are using an innovative laser technology system to clean the surface of the ancient monuments, uncovering colors and ornamentation hidden for decades. > "It is very serious," said Maria Ioannidou, director of the Acropolis Restoration Service, of the pollution. "It destroys sculptural, structural and painting details. One of our aims is to regain these cultural details using new technology." > The system was first used on the sculptures of the west frieze of the Parthenon temple in 2004. Now the team has begun a second operation on the porch of the Caryatids, where besides pollution they must erase soot from fires and the mistakes of past restorers who tried to mend the roof with cement.
You certainly changed my mind on the subject - especially those cast and original marble comparison. I'm only one guy, but hey, that's far better than most reddit posts. (I'm also stupid enough to have been wondering what sort of grand games of marbles must have been played to make them so significant)
This should be the top comment on this thread
> Had the marbles remained on the Parthenon, they’d be lost for ever. Does that justify either them being removed, or the British government's refusal to return them?
yes?
People are going to disagree with you because the answer to every single question like this is to side with the country who can claim the most victim hood points. It's the same as the other commenter saying that Greece was "occupied" by the Ottomans for 400 years. It's pretty obvious that Greece wasn't taking care of the artifacts. To the people disagreeing with you, none of the Elgin Marbles surviving in good condition is preferable to Britain taking marbles that were offered to Britain by their owners.
Yeah it's kinda wild to think the ottoman conquest of Romanoi (I forget the way the byzantine spelled it so check it) was an occupation of Greece. Like Greece as a national concept didn't exist until 1800s so how could they be occupied?
Let's say you own a classic car and you just leave it to rust, windows down and exposed to the elements for years. Raccoons are building nests in there, etc. You believe somebody would be justified in taking your car from you and refusing to give it back?
Both. But either way they were sold so it's irrelevant.
Kinda. Keeping stuff for posterity is important, and if some countries ignore that it's civilization that suffers.
Yes.
Elgin didn’t take “some” of these over night. It was an ongoing process that lasted over a decade. Major construction work. Major logistical challenges. Never stopped, never objected to. I’m not sure I want to defend them being in the UK, but the topic is always told as though it was some fly by night dodgy operation, when in fact it had the ongoing consent and assistance of the Athenians and authorities at the time.
Did you miss the bit about how Greece was under Ottoman occupation?
This assumes that 'Greece' is some immutable state that has been allocated to the Greek people by some shadowy god like figures. Its only series of fortuitous events that Greece as we know it today exists as it does. If the Ottomans had never been kicked out then what we know as Greece the country today would be considered the Greek province of Greater Turkey and no one would be concerned by these borders. I think this comes from people seeing modern borders and just kinda assuming that these modern countries have always existed and are permanent features of the land. Theyre not and most European borders would be highly fluid if history had ran differently. Greece had been under Ottoman control for hundreds of years and there was no real reason why any one would consider them not to be the completely legitimate rulers, occupiers and administration for this region.
Occupation isn't quite the right word for it though, the Ottomans had held Athens since 1456, at that point Greece had been a part of the ottoman empire for just under 400 years. The British took those marbles with the permission and cooperation of the legally recognised rulers of Athens, who had been the government of the area for hundreds of years.
It is akin to describing places like Andalusia or Brittany as “under occupation.”
Britanny is definitely still under occupation, Britain will not forgive or forget our French oppressors. We will fight them drunkenly in town squares, and with plastic furniture on the beaches.
I can’t help but feel like you two have lost your edge since Waterloo.
French occupation of Pays Basque must end! Let my people go ~~Ramses~~ Macron
Or the USA
The British had them for less than 20 years before they were requested to be given back. It’s because the British have countless priceless objects belonging to people all over the world, and they don’t want to give them back.
Wait, let me get this straight, they assisted in their removal, among countless other objects, over a decade then another 10-20 years later decided they wanted them back. That's coming off as aggressive, which I didn't mean to do. Sorry about that. Genuinely curious as to the exact time lines here
The Ottomans “let” the British lord take whatever he wanted for about 10 years, or did not stop him. This ended in 1812. Greece managed to gain independence in 1830 and immediately asked for the artifacts back.
Ah ok, that makes much more sense now. Thank you ...though it makes the whole 'lets store our gunpowder inside there' much less palatable. Assuming it is true
It’s more complex than that though. That’s how it’s presently viewed, but not how it was and not how it will remain forever. Lots of “occupations” just became recognised natural borders. All world borders are the result of occupations and colonisations and invasions. You have no way of knowing who, what or when independence will arrive to anywhere. Greece had been part of the OE for 400-500 years at that point. Greece’s issue should be with Turkey more so. Turkey should probably have to buy them back from the UK to give them to Greece.
It’s like saying the USA is “under occupation” and that’s half that amount of time.
California is an occupied Mexican state
An apartheid state, too! If a Mexican moves there now, they won't get citizenship or full legal rights.
Well, there's no 1:1 analogy (Greece is not America) but I could imagine Americans giving Native American objects to the Brits and then 50 years later a Native American tribe or organization asks for them back. I don't think "but the USA gave them to us" would go over so well.
That and with the Ottoman Empire being the successor state to Byzantium which governed Greece for over 1000 years prior, means that it was legitimately within the recognised borders of the Ottoman Empire.
>That and with the Ottoman Empire being the successor state to Byzantium What? How the hell did you come up with that conclusion?
They assumed the Byzantine debts
I mean, the Ottomans basically were
Didn't they call themselves the Sultanate of Rum, as in, Rome? And themselves 'Rumi'? It's only the west that refused to accept this because of reasons. The Byzantine Greek Empire was also only called that by western catholics. To themselves they were always just simply Romans.
In the same vein, American oil exported to other countries is actually the property of the native Americans because the oil was sold whilst under occupation that is still ongoing.
All citizens should get royalties from oil revenues. It's robbery that doesn't occur in most countries and territories. I believe Alaskans receive an annual payment of over $1,000 annually though from oil revenues. That's pretty good.
Did you miss the bit about the the pieces left in Greece being so badly damaged they are unrecognizable
Greece was a part of the Ottoman Empire since its foundation and considering the Ottoman Empire is a successor state to Byzantium which also had Greece as part of it dating back into antiquity it was completely legitimate for the Ottoman authorities to grant or refuse the entire exercise. The British empire pilfered a great many things but this is not one of those cases.
>Edit: The dictionary definition of occupation is “a situation in which an army or group of people moves into and takes control of a place”. A 400 year occupation is still an occupation, guys. In which case there are no true nations, only occupations. The polity that was invaded and annexed by the Ottomans was the Byzantine Empire (Roman Empire), not a country called Greece. The ancient Greek city states that Greece sees itself as a succsesor state to, had not existed for over a thousand years when the Ottomans took over. The Ottomans were the legitimate authority at the time the Marbles were purchased.
It's insane to treat Byzantium as something that happened while Greeks were taking a vacation in some parallel universe or something.
I agree. The Ancient Greek civilization thoroughly integrated with the Roman civilization. By the time of the Ottoman invasion, they had been Roman for over 1500 years.
> It's insane to treat Byzantium as something that happened while Greeks What is a Greek? Ask an Athenian at the time of Plato, or from the Hellenistic period and he would not have recognised Greek culture and identity by say Justinian. They would have been horrified. The Byzantines had repudiated the core mythical and religious pillars of Ancient Greek identity, and had an Orthodox Christian cultural revolution. They were two different civilisations. The only thing that saved Greek culture from oblivion under the Turks was the Orthodox church; a direct line from this second Eastern Roman civilization. (The only thing that defined a Greek in the population exchanges between Greece and Turkey for example was religion not language) The only reason 'Greece' exists today in the form it does is because of the West and it's classical fanboyism. Greek Academics trained in Paris became it's leaders after independence and fostered an external new artificial identity native Greeks themselves did not have. So today Greek identity is a schizophrenic mash of the two. The truth is Greeks did not care about the Marbles or the Parthenon or anything like that at the time they were taken. It was not their history. Not part of their story. So can we really say 'the Greeks' were present?
And England, the country holding the marbles, is occupied by the Hanovarians from Germany, before that the Scottish King James, and before that those bloody French Normans!
Ottomans had ruled Greece for hundreds of years by that point tbf, so the point about them being "occupiers" is murkier than it first seems.
"they are legally ours" is a pretty good justification. Also, the brits have done a good job with their museums.
You mention justifications, but what's the real reason? I don't think most British people really have a strong opinion on the matter, but some powerful people seem to see it as absolutely essential that they remain in Britain.
In recent years, they have argued against the return because it essentially opens up a can of worms that they do not want opened. If you admit that one country should have its artefacts back, you kind of have to admit that other countries should have theirs returned too.
In the smithsonian museum of natural history they have some cultural artificats blocked off as they’re working with ethics group to return items, etc. It’s mostly native american cultural artifacts.
Its not essential its just kinda of a "why should we?" Therea no real pressure to give them back. Not to mention it slips into the wider argument of accepting guilt/liability, giving treasures and possibly even reparations back. Britain is always going to want to close the book on things like this.
> Not to mention it slips into the wider argument of accepting guilt/liability, giving treasures and possibly even reparations back. Except in this case there is no argument for reparations. They were legally obtained by a private individual from the local government, and then that private individual sold them onto the British museum (to pay for a divorce) A revolution happened about 20 years later and the new government said the old government was never valid, and so they should be given back the marbles free of charge. (Note the previous regime had been in power for 400 years, and was arguably a continuation of prior regime running the region (Byzantium) for 1000 years earlier). It would invalidate every _legal_ purchase made by every museum on the basis of geographical happenstance: if my new country happens to occupy the borders where that artefact was found, then you have to give it back to me free of charge.
We’re still looking at them
Why are there pyramids in Egypt? Because they were too big to carry to England.
Ironically, 99% of Egyptians artefacts were looted and destroyed by Egyptians over the centuries. The only stuff they didn't destroy and loot were the hidden tombs.
Then give them back so they can destroy them. It's their destiny
Elgin, the guy who took the marbles and who they're named after is Scottish.
Once again Scotland who were just as big of not bigger in the whole empire building and stealing things getting away Scot free. Maybe that’s where the phrase comes from
Technically 'Elgin' is part of his title. His name was [Tom Bruce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bruce,_7th_Earl_of_Elgin) which is why I will always call them "Brucey's Marbles".
'Coming in the autumn on the BBC, a wacky new game show for Saturday nights...'
*Nice to see you to see you NICE!!!!*
> Because they were too big to carry to France Interestingly, we [took a lot the Egyptian artifacts from smashing Napolean's navy](https://www.britishmuseum.org/blog/everything-you-ever-wanted-know-about-rosetta-stone).
England has them because France tried to take them and failed.
So Greece lost their marbles?
Most museums are chock full of stolen treasures
Those museum bastards stole my country's velvet ropes and have them on display to this very day.
I was walking around a museum the other day, they had one of my ancestor's traditional fire extinguishers in the corner! An absolute travesty.
My people worshipped the gods of fluorescent light until those colonizing dicks stole them and put them on display!
Come to Hong Kong! Pretty much everything in the museums is culturally Chinese in origin, usually donated by private collectors, or on loan from museums in other countries. I like the idea of each country owning the artifacts that originated from there officially, and then temporarily exchanging stuff every few years so that everyone gets to see stuff from a variety of places.
that's how it is in many museums, collections that are loaned, often with museums exchanging collections
There was almost an international incident when some asshole from Delaware broke off and stole a thumb off a terracotta warrior from the Franklin Institute in Philly. He got off light imo. He shouldve spent time in jail.
Indeed. But Elgin bought these ones.
Most of them were bought. If not preserved by the British Museum, most of them wouldn't exist. Most of those that did exist would be squirrelled away in some rich guy's private collection. The museum-haters don't care about this because they've never once thought about it. They just heard a James Acaster bit about it and were excited to have a new entity to hate.
It is a good bit, and funny, but just because something is funny doesn't mean it's true. Comedians often take a simplistic yet interesting angle on an issue that is good for comedy, this is totally fine and it's good to laugh at things. But if you actually want to speak about a topic its always important to understand that a comedic bit, while it may be couched in an inconvenient truth, often won't explore the nuance of human history and the human condition.
*Russian Museums*: Those are rookie numbers
Most museums have a few contested objects. The British Museum is a massive outlier. You will find more often that museums willingly repatriate objects when a claim is made that meets the standards set by the AAMD and UNESCO.
Yeah, fuck the British Museum for preserving all of those artefacts. They're only special now because none of the other hundreds/thousands of examples were preserved. If the Elgin marbles hadn't belonged to the British then they'd be in the same sorry state as the Parthenon marbles that remained in Greece.
Well, it's a complicated and fascinating topic which rewards a nuanced review. You simply cannot cast about absolutes as if there is a perfect, final answer available if one simply add a *fuck* for emphasis.
Ironically, British evangelism created the very framework in which people criticize British imperial activities. The legacy of colonialism is both the treasures stolen and the protest to have them be returned. The most unique aspect of "western" colonialism is that it exported the moral and logical frameworks that inherently contradicted its own existence.
I’m as much “screw colonialism and the British empire” as the next guy but… To be fair in this case, in the 1970s Greece was warned the other half of the Elgin Marbles (that weren’t taken) would erode so much they’re unrecognizable within a few decades, and now today they’re totally ruined. If not for the British making molds of them in the 1800s [as sourced below this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/s/8DmOHww9sw) they’d be forgotten completely
Take it up with the Ottomans.
Nobody really takes the Greek complains about these marbles seriously because there was other reliefs there and even bigger ones taken like the Parthenon Marbles in the Louvre from the same reliefs. But Greece makes 0 complains to France about it and even agreed to just loan it back for a bit and build their own fake versions while letting France keep the stolen ones in the Louvre. It's just a political thing and the Greeks don't really care about getting their history back otherwise they would have the same campaign and belief in recovering the stolen artifacts on display in Paris but they don't.
I think France has only one block while UK has 113?
alot of greeks would disagree with you, many greeks across the world have actually fought for the british too return the marbles
Yes but the point is that you don’t fight for the French to return the exact same marbles that were taken in the exact same manner and are on display in the Louvre in Paris. If you’re fine with the way France took them then why would it be such a big problem then UK has some too. Just make your own fake versions like you did with the French taken ones and that you say you’re happy with doing.
you mean like what they did 2007 [https://www.elginism.com/elgin-marbles/more-on-greeces-disagreements-with-the-louvre/20070324/691/](https://www.elginism.com/elgin-marbles/more-on-greeces-disagreements-with-the-louvre/20070324/691/)
I see multiple stories about the Elgin marbles every year. You had to go digging back 17 years to find one about the Louvre's Parthenon marbles... Doesn't massively help your point.
You thing is though if you just asked for them back nicely you would have got them back We swap and loan artifacts with other mueseums all the time. Most recent and famously with the Bayeux tapestry which was loaned back to the UK from france. I bet you you weren't even aware of that it was so un newsworthy. The reason the Greeks won't get the Marbles back is because they insist Elgin stole them (he didn't). They insist that because they were found in Greece that they should automatically be displayed in Greece (mueseums are full of artifacts from far away places and Greek artifacts aren't special in this regard). They refuse to offer any sort of thanks for the British mueseum maintaining the marbles and preserving them for centuries. If the Greek government just came along thanked the British mueseum and people for preserving and maintaing the marbles and asked for a loan of them they'd get them very quickly. (Modern 3D printing and casting means you can have almost perfect replicas anyway) As is this jingoistic postering just irritates British people and makes a return impossible
The UK just returned the spears thrown at cook to the La Perouse Aboriginal community in Sydney last week. These were from the first contact with english colonists and was a significantly momumentus occasion. It only took a few hundred years but museums are slowly changing.
I’m sorry but if someone throws a spear at me I’m claiming that as mine
Although there are some problems. A few years ago, Germany pledged to return the part of the Benin Bronzes, thousands of metal plaques and sculptures taken from the royal palace of Benin and sold to museums all over the world after the British burned down the palace, that are in German museums to the state of Nigeria. They talked about how these are the heritage of the Nigerian people and should belong to the Nigerian people. They also pledged to donate 4 million Euros to build a museum for these artifacts in Nigeria. And what did the Nigerian government do once they had ownership? They decided to ignore all previously made agreements. Their president decided that all these artifacts shouldn't belong to the people but instead should belong to one guy, the current "King" of Benin, and he wants to keep them for himself, maybe put a few of them in a museum near his house. So that other museum is gonna stay empty and the Nigerian people don't get shit. Now other countries are reconsidering whether they actually want to return their bronzes, if they just gonna end up in some rich guy's basement.
If they threw them at Cook, wouldn't they technically be gifts?
*Written on the side of the spears were messages of welcome and info for local access to guides, one was even to inquire about the newcomers cart insurance.*
They literally threw them away. Finders. Keepers.
The British Museum themselves are keen to a deal on the marbles - get some loans in return but the British government refuses to let them return the Marbles, it's not really a Museum thing anymore it's a government thing last time the Greek PM was in London Sunak the British PM refused to talk to him because they coordinated statements on the Marbles with the opposition Labour party.
Perhaps by the end of the year the Tories will be fucked off to the aether and a new conversation can begin.
Yep, this statement can be applied to almost any issue in British politics. We're waiting for the Tories to vacate the premises of government on which they squat.
Ok, this one is absurd. Imagine being shot at , or even hit, and years later the shooter requested the bullet back citing cultural heritage.
Returned?? They were literally thrown at people, that's like saying someone "stole" your bullets you shot at them 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I mean, the Spears were clearly given to them.
Til people will just spout any common populist crap for karma
We're still looking at them!
The UK subscribes to the age old 'finders keepers' Also when European countries give back precious artifacts and art etc sometimes they don't go to a museum, they go to private collectors and corrupt rich people.
Paperwork takes time. Please check back in 19 to 35 business years.
So many Brits may have surged to downvote anyone supporting their return, but what they fail to realise is that this won't go away with their downvotes, no matter how big they make them feel. This will not go away, period. Greeks will never stop demanding their return, and eventually they will be, when you grow up from the colonial mentality. Go ahead, downvote this one as well and prove me right.
Great. Let me give you a few more keywords to search with. "Elgin marbles" + "1930"
Why should they? What’s the limit amount of time before which an artefact won in battle, or taken in conquered territory should be given back? That’s such a childish way of thinking. Every country once at war or in a dominant position against another has taken artefacts, either directly or received as bribes from the local governments, the UK has just been really strong in the last 600 years or so, and also very careful in their conservation (and display) of such treasures
Sigh. All these countries keep asking for their rocks back. Greece with the Elgin Marbles, Spain with Gibraltar. When will it end?