Talk:Colossus of Rhodes/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

"The Colussus of Rhodes probably did have a boner not stand astride the harbor entrance as shown here"

Then why use that picture? Mintguy

The caption polus text should explain the historic image, fixed in the European imagination. --Wetman 08:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

_____ The section subtitled 'Fate' makes no sense to me at all. It starts off by describing the statue, then says something about the use of ramps that doesn't make sense: "...and bronze plates attached to the bars formed the use of a large earthen ramp." Then it says: "Construction had offended Helios, and they declined to rebuild it." Something is wrong with this sentence IE it seems to be missing a large amount of information between someone being offended, and then someone refusing to rebuild it. Was it smashed down?

Quite right, Garbled. The article had been heavily vandalized by deletions from Anons. (see History). I've returned it to my former edit. --Wetman 08:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It's likely that it looked more like the Statue of Liberty, a big pillar shape, rather than a figure standing with feet apart. See this image for example: [[1]] from [[2]]http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/wonders/colossus.html Fine Arts 18:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, if I had the insane amount of money that, say, Mr. Gates had, I'd donate the amount needed to rebuild this.

"...In 1989, a stone construction resembling a gigantic human fist was found in the sea of Rhodes. It was supposed that it was the first discovery of a part of the Colossus. However it was decided that it was only stone and mud debris thrown in the sea by a bulldozer..." Since the Colossus of Rhodes was bronze, this bears no relation to anything... --Wetman 05:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but it is directly relevant to the article. I actually remember that story, so shaggy dog or not, it received global coverage. If nothing else it serves to illustrate how much confusion there still is about the statue. --Centauri 08:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If it received global coverage, then no doubt the episode will be mentioned somewhere on the Internet. If not, it should be here at Talk until some source for this assertion of a "stone" colossus can be found. --Wetman 15:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Why should whether it is "on the internet somewhere" matter? Who made any "assertion" about a stone colossus? --Centauri 03:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

it says 1993 in the very beginning.(Anon. High Schooler teen)

As fast as it's vandalized it's cleaned up. --Wetman 23:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Media reports in 1989 initially suggested that large stones found on the seabed off the coast of Rhodes might have been the remains of the Colossus; however this theory was later shown to be without foundation."

GROAN! --24.46.164.83 23:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember seeing a documentary about the Seven Ancient Wonders, on the History Channel maybe, saying that the world's supply of bronze was exhausted to create this statue, and after its destruction by the earthquake, the bronze was melted down and used to make weapons and the like. True? If so, should something like this be added to the article?

07:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The article contains the phrase "and an engineering analysis proved that it could not have been built with its legs apart without collapsing from its own weight", with no citation on who did the study or when it was done. Frankly this sounds to me a whole lot like the engineering studies of the late 19th century that proved bumblebees can't fly. I have no doubt such a study was probably done at some point. But it was probably done by someone with no construction experience whatever as a term project or the like. I think we should have a citation, if anyone can find one.

(When the Statue of Liberty was refurbished a few decades back, a bunch of engineers did an FEA study and concluded that it could not possibly have stood for more than a few years after having been constructed. Amazingly they decided to doubt this conclusion and then included the copper skin as well as the frame in the computations, and discovered the skin actually added strength to the statue. Duh. I suspect a similar analysis was used for the Rhodes statue.) Loren.wilton (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement -> "Before its destruction, the Colossus of Rhodes stood 70 cubits tall, over 30 metres (100 feet), making it the tallest statue of the ancient world.[1]" <- is not correct and needs to be verified. Perhaps some citations should be given.

Its well known fact that Buddha Statues in Afghanistan were far taller standing at 55mtrs. Though the tallest one was demolished in 2001, still some others remain and further research can be done on the subject.

---

Buddha statues in Bamiyna (Afghanistan) were upset by Kushans, a Turkish type people known as Yueh-Chih in China moved from Central Asia to Bactria, defeating the Greco-Partians dinasty in such area in 76 AD. Then statues of Buddha were not carved out in the times of the Colossus.

Siddhārtha Gautama dead aprox in -480 BC, two centuries before Colossus, but buddism did not arrived Afghanistan until first century AC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Buddhism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Bactrian_Kingdom 81.32.170.176 00:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Miguel A. Roman

The Buddha "Statues" technically are not statues which are "free standing three dimentional works of art". Sculptures that are supported by attachment to a vertical stone background are called

Bas-relief sculptures not statues. Wayne (talk

) 10:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

From Macedonia?

I thought Alexander was from Greece, better change it before the Greeks do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.22.231 (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Alexander of Macedon.--Wetman (talk

) 19:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Myth or Hoax?

I heard that the whole idea of the Collossus was potentially an ancient myth and it may not have existed at all, is there any foundation to this? •Elomis• 21:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The ruins of the Colossus were a major tourist attraction for almost a millenium so there are plenty of eyewitness reports. Wayne 02:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but all those so-called witnesses are dead. Plus, they all lived way, way long ago. And everyone knows that way, way long ago didn't exist either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.106.213 (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

At the time, an oracle had prophesieed that if the statue were to be rebuilt, it would cause bad luck to the city. Therefore, the statue was left on the ground not rebuilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbui20 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What is actually known about the Colossus,

1. Chares of Lindos build it between 292BC and 280BC,
2. It was paid for by the spoils left behind by Demetrius Poliorcetes who tried to take over the city, who had build some extraordinary siege towers to do so.
3. In 226 AD there was a earthquake that destroyed the statue.
4. Somewhere between the year 50 an 79 Pliny the Elder visited the island, and remarked that it was huge what he saw laying there on the ground, and that he probably had problems getting his arms around the thumb, How big was Pliny, I am over 6 feet tall and my neighbor can walk with his head tall underneath my stretched arm, and
5. in 654 the remains where sold of as scraps.

That's all the facts there are. There are some secondary sources that gives us some information, but most of that is hear say, no eyewitness accounts, even the 900 camels are doubtful. One thing that is very likely to be true, they found the head of a statue of Helios, only a small one but for sure Helios, because it has holes in its head to put the bronze sunrays in. It is from the same period as the Colossus was, and very likely that the face of the Colossus looked like this statue head. And almost everything I did read on this discussion page is bickering about nothing, and almost everything else on the main page is speculation, and it would be great is that would be clear there. --Gesina11 (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Like all the wonders of the era, the Colossus was a tourist draw. Merchants sold miniature souvenir statues. I suppose tens of thousands of them. I don't know what these were made of, but if anything other than sun-baked mud, you would have thought that a few might have survived so that we would have a pretty good idea of what it looked like. Apparently not. Student7 (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Should there be something concerning how the Colossus has inspired similar 'statues' in works of fiction. The Titan of Braavos from A Song of Ice and Fire comes to mind as being obviously inspired by the Colossus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.193.51 (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

When I attempted to contact the editor about the semi-protect, he wrote me that he was not an admin and had no control over protection status. And provided no further information as to why the article was semi-protected or who even asked for it. So I edited it out seeing that the article is not under attack nor has it ever seemed to be. I assumed that some other article was intended.

It was reverted. I am perplexed. It is great to protect articles against obstinate and persistent vandalism. This is not the case here.

Why is it semi-protected? Student7 (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A imagined drawing of the Colossus has a light burning as if it were a lighthouse. The text does not suggest this, however. There are other drawings. Student7 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This section, (which as of now still needs to be cited), is currently in the "Construction" portion, but I believe that it would be better suited (after some minor rewording) to the "Destruction" section:

A computer simulation of this construction indicated that an earthquake would have caused a cascading failure of the rivets, causing the statue to break up at the joints while still standing instead of breaking after falling to the ground, as described in second hand accounts. The arms would have been first to separate, followed by the legs. The knees were less likely to break and the ankles' survival would have depended on the quality of the workmanship.[citation needed]

Maybe something like this:

A computer simulation of the Colossus indicated that an earthquake would have caused a cascading failure of the rivets, causing the statue to break up at the joints while still standing instead of breaking after falling to the ground, as described in second hand accounts. The arms would have been first to separate, followed by the legs. The knees were less likely to break and the ankles' survival would have depended on the quality of the workmanship.[citation needed]

Any thoughts? Vyselink (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That representation is probably wrong. The statue had one foot on land and the other one on the sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.140.199.186 (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The entire poem is quoted as though it were the main topic. Actually, the Colossus is, or is supposed to be.

After mentioning the Greek statue, the poem goes on about other topics:

...Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

This has a lot to do with the Statue of Liberty but nothing to do with the Colossus. But when I tried to rm this non-

) 23:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The poem suddenly and unappropriately tips the balance from information about the Colossus of Rhodes to matters of immigration to the USA. I would suggest, at most, briefly summarizing the gist of the poem while referring to either the

appropriate section of the Statue of Liberty article, where there is a photograph of the plaque with the full poem; or more sensibly, to the article on the poem itself. --Orehet (talk

) 10:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Leading picture should reflect most likely statue posture suggested in text: *not* astride the harbour entrance

It has been mentioned in other sections on this Talk page, but I'm putting this as a new section to make this more visible.

The article mentions that the conjecture of the harbour-straddling Colossus is fanciful. It even offers a picture of a posture considered rather more likely by modern analysis. In that case it makes no sense for the picture at the top of the article to show the harbour-straddling version. It does make sense to show the latter elsewhere in the article, to illustrate notable (mis)conceptions of the statue. By somewhat exaggerated comparison: surely the article on Vlad the Impaler should not have a picture of a Hollywood Dracula as its leading image? How about moving the Barclay engraving to the top of the page? --Orehet (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

According to the article, the Colossus was built from 292 to 280 BC (this is 12 years). The statue stood for only 56 years until Rhodes was hit by an earthquake in 226 BC.

The time frame from 280 BC to 226 BC is 54 years, not 56 years!

The following site: http://www.colossusofrhodes.com/ agrees with the 12 year building duration, but gives the final year as 282 BC. It also agrees with the 56 year duration and the earthquake in 226 BC. MarcM1098 (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Polybios talked about 66 years (LXVI)! [Book 5, 88, 1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.143.71.39 (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The introduction states that the text is Ancient Greek, but it uses the Modern Greek Alphabet. Roger -Dot- Lee, Aviation Geek, perpetual student, amature scientist (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Warumwarum (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"The base pedestal was at least 60 feet (18 m) in diameter and either circular or octagonal. The feet were carved in stone and covered with thin bronze plates riveted together. Eight forged iron bars set in a radiating horizontal position formed the ankles and turned up to follow the lines of the legs while becoming progressively smaller. Individually cast curved bronze plates 60 inches (1,500 mm) square with turned in edges were joined together by rivets through holes formed during casting to form a series of rings. The lower plates were 1 inch (25 mm) in thickness to the knee and 3/4 inch thick from knee to abdomen, while the upper plates were 1/4 to 1/2 inch thick except where additional strength was required at joints such as the shoulder, neck, etc."

are there any RS for this info? (sorry, my browser is acting up and is loading random pages, so i can't check all the sources on this page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.54.6 (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone looking at depictions of the Colossus of Rhodes will think of the

) 14:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Circular argument: we believe SOL a copy of COR, SOL has seven rays so COR must have seven rays. totally unsupported IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The article claims that the Colossus is being rebuilt and cites a Guardian article from 2008. Are there any other sources supporting this or providing any further information? Even if it were true, I would imagine it has been canceled or postponed at this point, considering Greece's financial situation. Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That 2008 announcement was the latest incarnation of wishful thinking by the Mayor of Rhodes. Many times, over at least 30 years, mayors of Rhodes have dreamed of boosting tourism by rebuilding the Colossus, and each time the project has been halted before it began, either by lack of money or reluctance of the Ministry of Culture, or (usually) both. I can't find any announcements that the 2008 proposal has been shelved, although I'm sure it has been. If you can find a source, by all means add it to the article. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 15:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A more recent proposal here: http://uk.businessinsider.com/new-colossus-of-rhodes-2016-1?r=US&IR=T --ERAGON (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

They do seem serious (website is here), and unlike the original Colossus, this one would actually straddle the harbor entrance! We will see if they are able to raise $250 million, plus whatever the inevitable overruns total up to, Gaudi-style (local donations) -- and then actually get the thing built. But stranger things have happened. Once they move past the pipe dream/soliciting donations stage, it might even merit a mention in the article. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a section with a list of all the various rebuild projects?--ERAGON (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Consider rewording?

Caution: this article attracts vandals. Consider keeping it on your Watchlists.

Re-paraphrasing:

Changed the paraphrasing of "The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor". Direct quote from the chronicle is^[1]:

"In this year Mauias took Rhodes and cast down the Colossus of Rhodes 1,360 years after its erection. It was bought by a Jewish merchant of Edessa, who loaded the bronze on 900 camels."

Up for deletion?

Suggest the sentence "There is compelling evidence that long before the Arab invasion all traces of the Colossus had already disappeared." is deleted as there are no references for this claim. ((One year since citation needed)).

Strange link to Nebuchadnezzar's dream

The last sentence in this section: "The stereotypical Arab destruction and the purported sale to a Jew possibly originated as a powerful metaphor for Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the destruction of a great statue, and would have been understood by any 7th century monk as evidence for the coming apocalypse." is IMHO rather suspect/strange.

The biblical account of Nebuchadnezzar's dream describes a statue with the following traits:

• Head of gold
• Breast and arms of silver
• Belly and thighs of brass
• Legs of iron
• Feet part of iron and part of clay

In Daniel 2, Daniel explains the dream to Nebuchadnezzar as being representations of various kingdoms: The head of gold is Nebuchadnezzar's own kingdom. After his kingdom there should be a more inferior kingdom (silver), then the third kingdom of brass, fourth of iron and clay, etc. It is never stated by Nebuchadnezzar nor Daniel that this is an actual statue. On the contrary.

How one then, by this, can claim that the destruction of the statue: "would have been understood by any 7th century monk as evidence for the coming apocalypse" – is IMHO highly speculative.