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

[FluffyWelshCake]

Machiavelli was not a scheming little rodent. Rather he was a typical career diplomat who just so happened to witness such intrigues. Later in life he wrote down what he saw and his theories that came about from them. The problem is, he wrote two major books and most people only bother to read one of them, i.e. the notorious one.
Ultimately what he wished to do was to compare despotic and republican forms of government. The Prince concerns the former, whilst 'Discourses on Livy' discusses the latter. It is simply incorrect to have read 'The Prince', and then claim understanding of Machiavelli and his motives. Since, what typically happens is that people seem to imagine 'The Prince' as a guide book on how to be evil.
It is nothing of the sort, rather it is a warning of the demands on any individual should they seek absolute power. He goes into great lengths to reveal the violence, deceit, and treachery required to acquire and maintain such authority.

He wrote the book for an Italian audience to solve a dire Italian problem: Italy disunity was causing never ending warfare and intrigue that was destroying Italy as a center of importance in Europe.

In his mind the Princely minster was a necessary evil to crush all those vying factions and finally reunite Italy before it was too late. His book and the whole world view he espoused was to accomplish that end, he never intended it to be applied to any other situations.

And then Italy became a puppet between France and the Hapsburgs, then a sideshow and took the long way around to unity only to become the weakest of the Great Powers half a millennium after his time.

With Cavour being that 'Prince'. Yet the problem being, though the north (Piedmont, Lombardy, Venice etc) was increasingly modern and well developed, the south was another matter. The Kingdom of Naples was an incredibly backward region, whatever way one would look at it. Socially, economically, politically. I once remember some person compared it to contemporary Egypt. Thus, Italy was never had the unity and strength that the other great powers would possess.

Ah look, it's the guy who thinks that Jesus was white. Goodbye intellectual integrity. Anyway, Hitler never grew disenfranchised with Catholicism as far as I know considering how much support they gave him, and I really doubt that Hitler considered Catholic education a problem with how similar it is to Nazi education.

 

[beastro]

You do know he was Hebrew don't you? You do know that the Hebrews hated him because he wanted to change their outdated system and that the Romans only gave the Hebrews permission to crucify him, don't you? Just because a group of people wanted you dead later doesn't mean you were once one of them earlier.

wut

"He was Hebrew. The Hebrews wanted him dead. He wasn't a Hebrew."

I seriously have no idea what you are arguing. Jesus had brown skin. Jesus was a Jew. The Jews weren't pleased that a prophet of their God was hanging around in brothels and claiming to be both the son of God and God himself. Jesus was becoming popular and, like all the other messiahs of the time (there was a lot of them) the Romans were displeased with his growing fame and killed him. They killed a lot of supposed heathens.

What are you trying to argue? That Jesus was white because he lived in an area Rome claimed?

Galilee was an Aryan region at the time (beginning over half a century before Jesus' birth, that's at least a generation), hence the argument Jesus could have been white. Generally these arguments are dismissed because they were shared by Nazi propagandists.

All scholars have been able to agree on is the fact he was Jewish. As this is passed down the mother's side, and it is accepted that Mary was a Jew, this is accurate. It's more than possible Jesus was of mixed race.

This argument is trivial.

Being a Christian my viewpoint differs it matters to me, but it's not a point that needs arguing with me, but I'm well aware that the biggest debate amongst scholars into Christ's life and the whole "Historical Jesus" matter is if He even existed to begin with.

To such people what ethnicity He may have been is putting the cart before the horse.

 

[GrimTuesday]

You do know he was Hebrew don't you? You do know that the Hebrews hated him because he wanted to change their outdated system and that the Romans only gave the Hebrews permission to crucify him, don't you? Just because a group of people wanted you dead later doesn't mean you were once one of them earlier.

wut

"He was Hebrew. The Hebrews wanted him dead. He wasn't a Hebrew."

I seriously have no idea what you are arguing. Jesus had brown skin. Jesus was a Jew. The Jews weren't pleased that a prophet of their God was hanging around in brothels and claiming to be both the son of God and God himself. Jesus was becoming popular and, like all the other messiahs of the time (there was a lot of them) the Romans were displeased with his growing fame and killed him. They killed a lot of supposed heathens.

What are you trying to argue? That Jesus was white because he lived in an area Rome claimed?

Galilee was an Aryan region at the time (beginning over half a century before Jesus' birth, that's at least a generation), hence the argument Jesus could have been white. Generally these arguments are dismissed because they were shared by Nazi propagandists.

All scholars have been able to agree on is the fact he was Jewish. As this is passed down the mother's side, and it is accepted that Mary was a Jew, this is accurate. It's more than possible Jesus was of mixed race.

Except the Aryans weren't actually white, they were more akin to Indians (from India) than white people. The whole Aryan=white thing is a bit of silly Nazi/white supremacist bullshit.

 

[beastro]

Machiavelli was not a scheming little rodent. Rather he was a typical career diplomat who just so happened to witness such intrigues. Later in life he wrote down what he saw and his theories that came about from them. The problem is, he wrote two major books and most people only bother to read one of them, i.e. the notorious one.
Ultimately what he wished to do was to compare despotic and republican forms of government. The Prince concerns the former, whilst 'Discourses on Livy' discusses the latter. It is simply incorrect to have read 'The Prince', and then claim understanding of Machiavelli and his motives. Since, what typically happens is that people seem to imagine 'The Prince' as a guide book on how to be evil.
It is nothing of the sort, rather it is a warning of the demands on any individual should they seek absolute power. He goes into great lengths to reveal the violence, deceit, and treachery required to acquire and maintain such authority.

He wrote the book for an Italian audience to solve a dire Italian problem: Italy disunity was causing never ending warfare and intrigue that was destroying Italy as a center of importance in Europe.

In his mind the Princely minster was a necessary evil to crush all those vying factions and finally reunite Italy before it was too late. His book and the whole world view he espoused was to accomplish that end, he never intended it to be applied to any other situations.

And then Italy became a puppet between France and the Hapsburgs, then a sideshow and took the long way around to unity only to become the weakest of the Great Powers half a millennium after his time.

With Cavour being that 'Prince'. Yet the problem being, though the north (Piedmont, Lombardy, Venice etc) was increasingly modern and well developed, the south was another matter. The Kingdom of Naples was an incredibly backward region, whatever way one would look at it. Socially, economically, politically. I once remember some person compared it to contemporary Egypt. Thus, Italy was never had the unity and strength that the other great powers would possess.

Ah look, it's the guy who thinks that Jesus was white. Goodbye intellectual integrity. Anyway, Hitler never grew disenfranchised with Catholicism as far as I know considering how much support they gave him, and I really doubt that Hitler considered Catholic education a problem with how similar it is to Nazi education.

The main thing Adolf took from his Catholic background was a heavy dose of guilt sexual repression.

At best he was a lapsed Catholic who gave no heed to it what so ever, at worst he used it was a tool just like he used everything(and everyone) else.

 

[Stasisesque]

You do know he was Hebrew don't you? You do know that the Hebrews hated him because he wanted to change their outdated system and that the Romans only gave the Hebrews permission to crucify him, don't you? Just because a group of people wanted you dead later doesn't mean you were once one of them earlier.

wut

"He was Hebrew. The Hebrews wanted him dead. He wasn't a Hebrew."

I seriously have no idea what you are arguing. Jesus had brown skin. Jesus was a Jew. The Jews weren't pleased that a prophet of their God was hanging around in brothels and claiming to be both the son of God and God himself. Jesus was becoming popular and, like all the other messiahs of the time (there was a lot of them) the Romans were displeased with his growing fame and killed him. They killed a lot of supposed heathens.

What are you trying to argue? That Jesus was white because he lived in an area Rome claimed?

Galilee was an Aryan region at the time (beginning over half a century before Jesus' birth, that's at least a generation), hence the argument Jesus could have been white. Generally these arguments are dismissed because they were shared by Nazi propagandists.

All scholars have been able to agree on is the fact he was Jewish. As this is passed down the mother's side, and it is accepted that Mary was a Jew, this is accurate. It's more than possible Jesus was of mixed race.

Except the Aryans weren't actually white, they were more akin to Indians (from India) than white people. The whole Aryan=white thing is a bit of silly Nazi/white supremacist bullshit.

Indeed. I was just pointing out why that argument is bandied about. I was hoping referencing Nazi propagandists would have made it clear that the argument is flawed at best and insane at worst.

 

[beastro]

You do know he was Hebrew don't you? You do know that the Hebrews hated him because he wanted to change their outdated system and that the Romans only gave the Hebrews permission to crucify him, don't you? Just because a group of people wanted you dead later doesn't mean you were once one of them earlier.

wut

"He was Hebrew. The Hebrews wanted him dead. He wasn't a Hebrew."

I seriously have no idea what you are arguing. Jesus had brown skin. Jesus was a Jew. The Jews weren't pleased that a prophet of their God was hanging around in brothels and claiming to be both the son of God and God himself. Jesus was becoming popular and, like all the other messiahs of the time (there was a lot of them) the Romans were displeased with his growing fame and killed him. They killed a lot of supposed heathens.

What are you trying to argue? That Jesus was white because he lived in an area Rome claimed?

Galilee was an Aryan region at the time (beginning over half a century before Jesus' birth, that's at least a generation), hence the argument Jesus could have been white. Generally these arguments are dismissed because they were shared by Nazi propagandists.

All scholars have been able to agree on is the fact he was Jewish. As this is passed down the mother's side, and it is accepted that Mary was a Jew, this is accurate. It's more than possible Jesus was of mixed race.

Except the Aryans weren't actually white, they were more akin to Indians (from India) than white people. The whole Aryan=white thing is a bit of silly Nazi/white supremacist bullshit.

Read what he said, not just the words he used.

Everything you lectured him about was already in his post.

 

[beastro]

Why'd the Romans be killing fellow heathens when it was the Jews who were causing the trouble?

So sloppy you be silly goose~

No no no, you see, to a Roman, the Jews were heathens, with their bizarre monotheism. Their culture didn't even include Juno, Apollo, or Minerva. How blasphemous.

Heathen in the older sense of the word is interchangeable with Pagan.

The Romans allowed every culture in their Empire to worship whatever God or Gods they wished.
The problem was the Jews with their mono-Theism would not recognize the divinity of the Emperor, which is what got them into trouble repeatedly.


Maybe you all should take a history lesson, with the exception of Boudica. Seriously.

Jesus was not white. There is no reason whatsoever to conclude this, except your own racist bias.

There was also that little thing about Judaism being nationalist which led much the population to look on Rome as nothing but an invader no matter how well they were treated. They'd moved in to crush and occupy a free and independence Jewish state, they wanted nothing else but that restored. Being a client state of a foreign power was not on the table save for the Power That Be in the Sanhedrin.

 

[beastro]

Mussolini didn't make the trains run on time. He was just very good at making it look like he did so when foreign journalists appeared.

Mussolini was a fucking asshole. Hearing stories from my grandmother, he basically told Italy to go fuck themselves, he had other things to take care of. That's why essentially every Italian family have their own garden, to grow their own food. Then again, my grandmother is getting pretty old, so...

If she was living in the south, then yeah, she would have got fucked over extra-hard by Mussolini. He not only stopped spending money on vital development from the south to bring it out of the dark ages, he also ordered them to produce wheat, which they couldn't grow in the dry conditions and which Italy still needed to import after he made a big drive to increase grain production anyway. To make matter worse, if she wanted to escape, migration had been banned, so she'd have to move to an over-populated, under-developed city and live in squalor until the war started and there was a nice air raid to blow her to smithereens.

Another win for Command Economy!

 

[rdaleric]

One historical event that often gets taught with incorrect facts (in the U.K., and in my personal experience) is the assassination of JFK. Part of the blame has to rest with Oliver Stone, for fabricating (or repeating false)events, such as the "magic bullet" theory and lowering the amount of time Oswald had to fire off his bullets. I know Stone never tried to present his film as truth or investigation, but it has been absorbed into culture.

 

[Stasisesque]

You do know he was Hebrew don't you? You do know that the Hebrews hated him because he wanted to change their outdated system and that the Romans only gave the Hebrews permission to crucify him, don't you? Just because a group of people wanted you dead later doesn't mean you were once one of them earlier.

wut

"He was Hebrew. The Hebrews wanted him dead. He wasn't a Hebrew."

I seriously have no idea what you are arguing. Jesus had brown skin. Jesus was a Jew. The Jews weren't pleased that a prophet of their God was hanging around in brothels and claiming to be both the son of God and God himself. Jesus was becoming popular and, like all the other messiahs of the time (there was a lot of them) the Romans were displeased with his growing fame and killed him. They killed a lot of supposed heathens.

What are you trying to argue? That Jesus was white because he lived in an area Rome claimed?

Galilee was an Aryan region at the time (beginning over half a century before Jesus' birth, that's at least a generation), hence the argument Jesus could have been white. Generally these arguments are dismissed because they were shared by Nazi propagandists.

All scholars have been able to agree on is the fact he was Jewish. As this is passed down the mother's side, and it is accepted that Mary was a Jew, this is accurate. It's more than possible Jesus was of mixed race.

It's also most likely Jesus wasn't white.

Don't shoot the messenger, you wanted to know what the other guy was arguing, I have explained. Nazism, and White Supremacism dating as far back as the 2nd century are responsible for the argument that Jesus could have been white. After the Nazis decided Nordic races were the Proto-Aryans, any reference to an Aryan Galilee automatically equalled 'white'. Some scholars still do argue the fact that the Romans had invaded, claimed and started to colonise the area as proof Jesus was white. They are often laughed at.

Jesus was Jewish, because his mother was Jewish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God_(TV_series) This is an excellent series if you can get your hands on it.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

I think Hitler was a great leader. He did a few things during the 30's that he shouldn't have (like dissolving the SA with a knife and locking up the socialists) but underneath the mess there was a fantastic leader. He gets misrepresented and demonized much more than he might deserve.

If he hadn't come into power during the depression, if the upper class had been slightly more varied in ethnic makeup, if the socialists didn't cave to public pressure and open the door for him... Under different circumstances, Hitler may have been the greatest leader Germany had ever known.

this is true, despite what i assume is an attempt to troll. Hitler took a disenfranchised nation who essentially went through the Great Depression ten years early, and made it STRONG again. He fixed the economy, the infrastructure, and paved the way for a military and scientific strength germany hadn't had since before the first world war. Sadly, he chose to build this power on racism, conquest, brutality, and his own private religion. He then mired Germany in an unnecessary war and reduced his people to eating sausages stuffed with newspaper.

So, good start, but flinched the landing

 

[RESURRECTION21]

that v.i. lenin was a bloodthisty madman nope that was stalins gig lenin did want was best for russia and he did not do to bad a job to bad he died and that madman stalin took over if that had not happened the ussr may have been stiil here today

 

[RESURRECTION21]

I think Hitler was a great leader. He did a few things during the 30's that he shouldn't have (like dissolving the SA with a knife and locking up the socialists) but underneath the mess there was a fantastic leader. He gets misrepresented and demonized much more than he might deserve.

If he hadn't come into power during the depression, if the upper class had been slightly more varied in ethnic makeup, if the socialists didn't cave to public pressure and open the door for him... Under different circumstances, Hitler may have been the greatest leader Germany had ever known.

lol what this must be a joke

 

[DugMachine]

My friend also claims that Hitler really wasn't at fault and that some other guy named Himler or some shit was the real monster. Hitler was just a poster boy according to my friend.

He's one of these people who spouts bullshit and doesn't really know what he's talking about but he's impossible to argue with because he never shuts the hell up and admits he's wrong... like a certain someone in this thread..

Anyways, confirm/deny this?

 

[Stasisesque]

My friend also claims that Hitler really wasn't at fault and that some other guy named Himler or some shit was the real monster. Hitler was just a poster boy according to my friend.

He's one of these people who spouts bullshit and doesn't really know what he's talking about but he's impossible to argue with because he never shuts the hell up and admits he's wrong... like a certain someone in this thread..

Anyways, confirm/deny this?

Confirm and deny. Heinrich Himmler is the one responsible for the concentration camps, thus the man who ordered the deaths of 6 million Jews, gays, Romani gypsies etc. So yeah, he was a very, very bad guy. Definitely a monster.

Himmler ignored orders from Hitler, and at one point tried to organise peace talks. He was eventually fired.

It doesn't mean Hitler wasn't a monster too, though.

 

[DugMachine]

Confirm and deny. Heinrich Himmler is the one responsible for the concentration camps, thus the man who ordered the deaths of 6 million Jews, gays, Romani gypsies etc. So yeah, he was a very, very bad guy. Definitely a monster.

Himmler ignored orders from Hitler, and at one point tried to organise peace talks. He was eventually fired.

It doesn't mean Hitler wasn't a monster too, though.

So what role did Hitler have with the concentration camps? That's the whole deal with my friend, because of this Himmler guy my friend believes Hitler is demonized for no good reason.

 

[Stasisesque]

Confirm and deny. Heinrich Himmler is the one responsible for the concentration camps, thus the man who ordered the deaths of 6 million Jews, gays, Romani gypsies etc. So yeah, he was a very, very bad guy. Definitely a monster.

Himmler ignored orders from Hitler, and at one point tried to organise peace talks. He was eventually fired.

It doesn't mean Hitler wasn't a monster too, though.

So what role did Hitler have with the concentration camps? That's the whole deal with my friend, because of this Himmler guy my friend believes Hitler is demonized for no good reason.

Well, it is generally believed Hitler ordered them built. Or at least, he ordered the formation of the death squads (they had a proper German name, but... I can't spell it) and the concentration camps were built as an efficient way to keep unsavoury individuals in a convenient location.

Whether or not Hitler was... encouraged by his cabinet to make these orders is something people have been debating since the end of the war. But think of it this way: Hitler was more than happy to be the face of Nazi Germany, and under this, so many atrocities were committed. I doubt many people unworthy of demonisation would be okay with that position.

 

[DugMachine]

Well, it is generally believed Hitler ordered them built. Or at least, he ordered the formation of the death squads (they had a proper German name, but... I can't spell it) and the concentration camps were built as an efficient way to keep unsavoury individuals in a convenient location.

Whether or not Hitler was... encouraged by his cabinet to make these orders is something people have been debating since the end of the war. But think of it this way: Hitler was more than happy to be the face of Nazi Germany, and under this, so many atrocities were committed. I doubt many people unworthy of demonisation would be okay with that position.

Well you just dropped a load of knowledge on me! Thank you