Historical "facts" and popular representations of histrical figures that are wrong

[GrimTuesday]

I am a big fan of history, I love reading about it, and learning new things. However, this love of history has lead to me getting annoyed when people start saying things that aren't really true, bust have been sold to them as truth. For example, when people talk about Richard the lionheart, people often talk about him as if he had some great love for England, or that he was a good king. Neither of these are actually true, Richard the Lionheart hated England he hated how rainy and cold it was, he spent something like 6 months of his reign in England although a big portion of that was because he was off killing Muslims in the Third Crusade. In addition he didn't even speak English, preferring to speak French (His mother was French and he much preferred France to England). He also left England with tons of debts, forcing his brother to clean up the mess.

So what commonly held historical "facts" and portrayals of historical figures and events do you know to be wrong?

 

[Shadowstar38]

Edison didnt invent shit.

Linchon didn't give a fuck about slaves

The Americans were being a bit unreasonable about the whole Revolutionary war thing.

 

[Overusedname]

There's evidence to suggest that the current Dali Lama might just desire to reinstate his countries caste system in which he was privileged and wealthy while the rest of the country just sort of existed to be poor and serve him and his colleges.

He MIGHT want that, mind. He might not. But it's important to remember the society he came from. I personally think he just might be a genuinely good guy who wants peace and order in the world, but hey, ya never know.

Watch the Penn and Teller's Bullshit episode on this guy to find out some more.

 

[GrimTuesday]

Edison didnt invent shit.

Linchon didn't give a fuck about slaves

The Americans were being a bit unreasonable about the whole Revolutionary war thing.

Haha, someone who agrees with me about the Revolution. People don't seem to realize that one of the "intolerable acts" was paying for the French Indian war, which prior to, the American colonists weren't paying much in the way of taxes, and another one was basically saying that Quebec was a safe place for Catholics.

Spoiler: this is what it did

The province's territory was expanded to take over part of the Indian Reserve, including much of what is now southern Ontario, plus Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and parts of Minnesota.

The oath of allegiance was replaced with one that no longer made reference to the Protestant faith.

It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.

It restored the use of the French civil law for private matters while maintaining the use of the English common law for public administration, including criminal prosecution.

Restored the Catholic denomination ability to tithe.

 

[DugMachine]

My uncle told me something about how Abraham Lincoln was actually really racist or something. No idea if that's true or not but it seemed far fetched to me so I just agreed with him so he'd shut up.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

America is responsible for winning World War II/America had nothing to do with winning World War II.

That's right, those are both false. Britain was holding out against Germany and Italy, this is true. Russia dedicated a lot of manpower, and the failed invasion of Russia weakened Germany, also true.

However, Britain didn't have the resources to fight against Japan. Meanwhile, Russia lost a lot of manpower in that failed invasion, so they would have had problems with an attack on Japan as well.

On top of that, without the atomic bombs that the U.S. developed, the back-up invasion plan would have resulted in many more deaths on both sides.

So it's not true that America is the only reason the Allies won World War II, but they were a large help.

 

[JaceArveduin]

On top of that, without the atomic bombs that the U.S. developed, the back-up invasion plan would have resulted in many more deaths on both sides.

Of course, if memory serves, we had a few (former) German scientists helping us on that on.

 

[LetalisK]

That modern psychology was founded by Sigmund Freud or that his theories are still relevant to this day. He didn't and they're not. Freud's lasting contribution to modern psychology is popularizing it and some of his counseling methods.

 

[Keepitclean]

The first one I could think of was that Napoleon was short. He wasn't, 5'7" was average for his time and he was seen in public with his guards who were well above average.

 

[Wyes]

Swords were not common battlefield weapons; they were not heavy; they were cutting weapons, not bludgeoning weapons.

As someone else said above, Edison didn't invent shit. Tesla, however...

Other than that, I probably don't know enough about history to make anymore informed comments.

 

[Lethos]

My uncle told me something about how Abraham Lincoln was actually really racist or something. No idea if that's true or not but it seemed far fetched to me so I just agreed with him so he'd shut up.

It's sort of debated. There's evidence to suggest that he did genuinly care about the plight of the slaves, but there is also evidence to suggest he was just going with the flow. He certainly didnt seem to care that much in the run up to election, however that might of been him simply trying to appeal to the moderates.

America is responsible for winning World War II/America had nothing to do with winning World War II.

That's right, those are both false. Britain was holding out against Germany and Italy, this is true. Russia dedicated a lot of manpower, and the failed invasion of Russia weakened Germany, also true.

However, Britain didn't have the resources to fight against Japan. Meanwhile, Russia lost a lot of manpower in that failed invasion, so they would have had problems with an attack on Japan as well.

On top of that, without the atomic bombs that the U.S. developed, the back-up invasion plan would have resulted in many more deaths on both sides.

So it's not true that America is the only reason the Allies won World War II, but they were a large help.

Just before Germany surrendered, London got hit by a Vengance missile, the first ever interballistic missile. Churchill and Stalin were still at each others throats (they absolutely haaaaated each other) and Japan was doing pretty well for itself in the East. Even ignoring the huge amounts of money and munitions the States gave to the allies before entering, anyone who says the war would of been won without the States is vastly overestimating the capabilities of the other allies nations.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Genghis Khan wasn't a mindless Barbarian who raped and pillaged his way across Asia.

He was VERY happy to let you think that, however, since it made you and your city that much more likely to surrender without a fight. The Mongols were actually using some of the best tactics devised by man up to that time, much better than the European knights they would go on to face, which tactics were, "charge straight in for honor and hope for the best."

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

America is responsible for winning World War II/America had nothing to do with winning World War II.

That's right, those are both false. Britain was holding out against Germany and Italy, this is true. Russia dedicated a lot of manpower, and the failed invasion of Russia weakened Germany, also true.

However, Britain didn't have the resources to fight against Japan. Meanwhile, Russia lost a lot of manpower in that failed invasion, so they would have had problems with an attack on Japan as well.

On top of that, without the atomic bombs that the U.S. developed, the back-up invasion plan would have resulted in many more deaths on both sides.

So it's not true that America is the only reason the Allies won World War II, but they were a large help.

It can be safely said that America won the war in the Pacific while the USSR won the war Europe (they were facing 80% of the German forces at any given time).

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

On top of that, without the atomic bombs that the U.S. developed, the back-up invasion plan would have resulted in many more deaths on both sides.

Of course, if memory serves, we had a few (former) German scientists helping us on that on.

True. But the team who created the atomic bomb was predominately American. As well, many of the Germans who worked on the bomb came to America for safety, becoming citizens and Americans in the process.

America is responsible for winning World War II/America had nothing to do with winning World War II.

That's right, those are both false. Britain was holding out against Germany and Italy, this is true. Russia dedicated a lot of manpower, and the failed invasion of Russia weakened Germany, also true.

However, Britain didn't have the resources to fight against Japan. Meanwhile, Russia lost a lot of manpower in that failed invasion, so they would have had problems with an attack on Japan as well.

On top of that, without the atomic bombs that the U.S. developed, the back-up invasion plan would have resulted in many more deaths on both sides.

So it's not true that America is the only reason the Allies won World War II, but they were a large help.

Just before Germany surrendered, London got hit by a Vengance missile, the first ever interballistic missile. Churchill and Stalin were still at each others throats (they absolutely haaaaated each other) and Japan was doing pretty well for itself in the East. Even ignoring the huge amounts of money and munitions the States gave to the allies before entering, anyone who says the war would of been won without the States is vastly overestimating the capabilities of the other allies nations.

Fair point. I'm not saying that the U.S. didn't help out a fair chunk. But Britain was holding out for over two years before we officially joined. One missile hitting isn't proof they couldn't have continued, especially since Britain's navy was absolutely crushing the German navy.

America is responsible for winning World War II/America had nothing to do with winning World War II.

That's right, those are both false. Britain was holding out against Germany and Italy, this is true. Russia dedicated a lot of manpower, and the failed invasion of Russia weakened Germany, also true.

However, Britain didn't have the resources to fight against Japan. Meanwhile, Russia lost a lot of manpower in that failed invasion, so they would have had problems with an attack on Japan as well.

On top of that, without the atomic bombs that the U.S. developed, the back-up invasion plan would have resulted in many more deaths on both sides.

So it's not true that America is the only reason the Allies won World War II, but they were a large help.

It can be safely said that America won the war in the Pacific while the USSR won the war Europe (they were facing 80% of the German forces at any given time).

Very well put, though Normandy was, IIRC, a joint British-American attack, with little in the way of Russian assistance. I could be wrong, though.

 

[SckizoBoy]

The first one I could think of was that Napoleon was short. He wasn't, 5'7" was average for his time and he was seen in public with his guards who were well above average.

It was due to confusion in French units, as he was 5'2" in French measure... Nelson was the short one: 5'4".

Very well put, though Normandy was, IIRC, a joint British-American attack, with little in the way of Russian assistance. I could be wrong, though.

I think the point was that by the time of Overlord, Germany had effectively lost the war as the Soviets were pushing them back very far and fast in the east, so it was more a case of liberating France and racing to Berlin for a piece of the pie...

 

[MiskWisk]

The movie 300 is a thorn in my side. As someone who had looked into the battle of Thermopylae, it got a little bit frustrating with the poor representation of the phalanx, giving the persians elephants, gunpowder, that massive guy, the last stand only containing 300 Spartans (when in reality, there was around two thousand people in the last stand), no mention of Admiral Themistocles, the reasoning for Spartans not sending the full force and the representation of Spartan training as being solely about strength, when in fact they were trained to win at all costs (the right of passage was to murder a slave without being caught, requiring stealth over brute force).

Annoyingly, there are people I know who believe that film was accurate.

 

[Kathinka]

americans claiming that the atomic bombs were necessary to defeat japan without an invasion. it's history revisionism at it's best, japan had already signaled willingness to surrender prior to the bombings but was ignored. the consensus among historians is pretty much that it was to field test those things and to intimidate the soviets, which were perceived as a growing threat.
also, slightly related: pretending like the germans would have won the war in europe without american assistance. no. just...no. (pacific is a different deal though)

 

[Frission]

The movie 300 is a thorn in my side. As someone who had looked into the battle of Thermopylae, it got a little bit frustrating with the poor representation of the phalanx, giving the persians elephants, gunpowder, that massive guy, the last stand only containing 300 Spartans (when in reality, there was around two thousand people in the last stand), no mention of Admiral Themistocles, the reasoning for Spartans not sending the full force and the representation of Spartan training as being solely about strength, when in fact they were trained to win at all costs (the right of passage was to murder a slave without being caught, requiring stealth over brute force).

Annoyingly, there are people I know who believe that film was accurate.

I'm more burned but by the portrayal of the Athenians myself. Do you know why the Persians had to go south? It was because they were being decimated by the Athenian Navy. I personally thought the movie was pure right wing propaganda when Athens was introduced as some weak willed democracy that would collapse on itself. Athens ended up being stronger than Sparta.

That movie was awful.