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

Nickolai77

New member
Apr 3, 2009
2,843
0
0
Just to expand upon some points that have already been touched upon:

1)People in the past never thought the Earth was round The Ancient Greeks proved the Earth was a sphere by cleverly calculating the angle of the earth's shadow- and from that gave an impressively accurate estimation of the Earth's circumference. But even if some people didn't know about the Ancient Greeks, it was common knowledge to sailors that if you sailed to the horizon, a man on deck would lose sight of the coast but a man in the crows nest would still be able to see land- hence the Earth must be spherical.


2)Christianity is not a cause behind the Dark Ages: On the contrary, Christian monks copied and made more copies of ancient manuscripts so that they could be preserved for future generations. In many cases, the original ancient manuscripts have been long lost but thanks to the Christian monks we are a lot more knowledgeable about the ancient world than we would have otherwise been. In fact, we wouldn't half of what went on in the Dark Ages if it wasn't for Christian monks- No Anglo Saxon Chronicle, Beowulf or the Norse Sagas from which we know about their god's.

3)Christianity did not simply suppress science: In the 12th century a monk called Thomas Aquinas researched the philosophy of Aristotle, a figure who's works had been rediscovered due to the Crusades in the Arab world. He synthesised Aristote's theory of nature with that of the Bible to create what's known as the Aristotelian Philosophy, showing that the Church was able to adapt to new developments in thinking. The trouble is that the Church chose not to adapt to the latest developments in philosophy in the Rennaisance when it's own clergymen like Copernicus and other thinkers like Galileo started to find evidence to suggest Aristotle was wrong, perhaps because the Church felt less secure following the rise of protestantism in Europe and became more conservative.

3a)In any case, the Church throughout history has played an active part in promoting education, many of Europe's modern universities trace their history back to being theological colleges. In the 11th century the Church ruled that all clergymen should remain celebrate, hence instead of farthers passing their learning onto their sons who would join the clergy, the Church had to establish colleges to educate recruits in reading, writing and scripture- and such institutions later evolved, taking on non-clergy students and offering more subjects. Following the invention of the printing press, a desire for individuals to read the Bible for themselves served a a major motive behind learning to read, and hence the development of mass print culture in 16th century Europe.


Other quickfire points:
-"Viking" is a loose umbrella term which chiefly but not exclusively refers to the Norwegians and Danish peoples in the early middle ages, who were themselves distinctive peoples. Hence the Vikings essentially wern't a homogeneous culture- and neither did they wear horned helmets!

-You shouldn't directly equate Celtic druids with being priests or mythical magicians like Merlin, they wern't just priests. They were lawmakers, judges, philosophers and advisor's to king's- essentially a class of "intelligencia" which performed all the educated functions an advanced society like the Celt's required.

-The Romans also made a big deal about the Celt's doing human sacrifice, but in reality Celtic sacrifices were uncommon occurrences, and the number of people the Romans sacrificed to their god's and to the crowds in amphitheatres dwarfs the number of people the Celt's sacrificed.

-This has been mentioned but it deserves a mention it again- there's nothing particularly amazing about the katana- it's a great cutting weapon but it won't cut through armour and probably not chain mail if it's of a half descent standard. A lot of popular perceptions of the Samurai stems from the 19th and 20th Japanese cultural imagined nostalgia.

-Up until the modern era, disease was generally a bigger killer in armies than enemy swords, arrows or bullets. Most of medieval warfare was not set piece battles but long, drawn on siege warfare and the most effective way to take land was not by force but by marriage.
 

The Funslinger

Corporate Splooge
Sep 12, 2010
6,150
0
0
TopazFusion said:
Boudica said:
Sorry, are you going to make any sort of genuine contribution any time soon? I do believe the point of the forum is discussion on the topic, not internet memes and smart alec remarks repeated from the schoolyard. If you want to faff about and quote for the sake of rhetoric, I suggest 4chan.
You know, I'm half tempted to save this here post, and quote it back to you every time you do this yourself (which, by the way, is frequently).

Or do you subscribe to the "do as I say, not as I do" philosophy?

The irony is enough to choke on.
Mildly amusing side note:

Boudica said:
You're telling me better safe than sorry is not more safe than it is sorry?

What's that? An internet meme? But I thought those were supposed to be dumb and immature!
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Boudica said:
LetalisK said:
Boudica said:
For whatever shortcomings and errors you see the man having and making, I like parts of him and support a portion of his ideals. You're going to have to live with that.
No, I'm pretty he doesn't. I'm pretty sure he's going to go about his merry way, living a happy and normal life, secure in the knowledge that he's right and you're just ridiculously obstinate.
Oh yes, throw a tantrum and call me stubborn because I refuse to change my ideals and opinions. Exceedingly mature of you.
Seeing any disagreement with you as that person throwing a tantrum and immature seems to be a theme with you. I should have expected nothing less.
 

Yeager942

New member
Oct 31, 2008
1,097
0
0
Kathinka said:
Devoneaux said:
Kathinka said:
C. Cain said:
Kathinka said:
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)
Their willingness to surrender is irrelevant; even if it was the case. The Allies wanted Japan to surrender unconditionally. And I'm pretty sure that that criterion was not met by Japan's peace offer.
it actually was, with a single remark: they wished for the emperor to remain in office, as a point of national honor. this was accepted by the americans anyway, later after the surrender actually happened. so if it would have been really just about ending the war, they could have done it the week before already. in the japanese calculations around the actual surrender, btw, the nuclear bombing played only a very small role. the main reason for the japanese surrender was the soviet invasion of manchuria.
Okay, with all due respect i'm going to have to ask that you provide a credible source to back up what you're saying.
no offense taken, it's your right.
from the top of my head (although there are numerous others) i firstly think of the strategic bomb survey of '46. if even the US military itself says in hindsight that it wasn't necessary it should get one thinking.
i know it's not how it's taught in american high school history, but on an academic level there is really not much of a discussion about it.
patriotism should not distort historic facts, but sadly, it happens every day.
That's not how its taught at all in American high schools. My class went into great length as to why the bomb was necessary or not, with ample facts being brought into both sides.

OT: One thing that is glanced over a lot is how warlike and violent many Native American tribes were. I'm not saying that America's military expansionism was right or justified, just that the fact that important details about some Native American cultures like the Comanche are sidelined for the sole point to portray them as victims.
 

Soushi

New member
Jun 24, 2009
895
0
0
Winston Churchill was not some kind of grand hero figure. He was a verbally abusive, uncouth, rude, loud-mouth drunk. His oft-touted noble decision to stay in London during the blitz was a foolish one, as Britain very well may have collapsed had he been killed by a random bomb. Brave, yes, foolish, hell yes. He didn't even do his own speeches on the radio, but rather they were orated by Norman Kelly.

His decision to bomb Dresden was rooted in a thirst for revenge rather than any real military advantage. He fire bombed a city that was a civilian center and a medical evacuation station. Dresden's industry had already been all but destroyed and the German 'troops' that were killed were mostly too badly wounded to even hold a gun and were being shipped back to Germany for medical care and retirement. He dropped so many incendiary explosives that heat sucked people and homes up into the sky and burned them alive. It was an evil, despicable attack, so much so that even some of his war advisors and secretaries questioned him and his motives both before and after the fact.

He was also a genocidal cretin who wanted to exterminate the German people, and not just the Nazi's, i mean he wanted to murder every last man woman and child of Germany simply because they were Germans. He called for an attack on Germany way before they even became a threat, which is often portrayed as being some kind of clairvoyance on his part, but rather was rooted in his complete hatred for the German people.

Finally, after the war, Churchill was responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people in the Mau Mau Rebellion and various other colonial uprisings, out of a stubborn refusal to allow the already failing British empire to dissolve peacefully. For a man who jumped up and down and screamed about how evil Hitler was for trying to found a German empire, Churchill was awfully eager to use tactics of terror and brutal repression to keep his own empire from falling apart.

Winston Churchill was an evil despicable liar in an age of evil despicable liars.
 

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,940
0
0
Shadowstar38 said:
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.
Ah yes, we should've accepted military garrisons in our own homes, steadily increasing and punitive taxes on essential goods, and no presence in Parliament to dispute said treatment. Britain had a habit of treating their colonies like second-class citizens, see India. Just because England's "better now," doesn't mean they weren't arrogant and selfish at one point in history.

As for Edison, correct.

As for Lincoln, that has been disputed since it came up. At worst, he was conflicted. He supported emancipation partially for political reasons, yes, but human beings can have more than a single motivation. Jury's out.
 

IrenIvy

New member
Mar 15, 2011
187
0
0
Catholic Inquisition is often misrepresented as more cruel than it was - while it surely wasn't all roses and daisies, Protestants did quite a lot of witchhunt on their own, as far as I know
 

renegade7

New member
Feb 9, 2011
2,046
0
0
Edison did not invent anything.

Jesus was not white- he would have been middle eastern.

Few of the founding fathers were Christian. They were all free thinkers of some variant.

Lincoln was actually kind of a racist dick.

And even as an American, I think the revolutionary war was a little unnecessary. We could have been a part of a world spanning empire and society would in my opinion be a little better off today because of it. Instead it turned into a bunch of rednecks screaming "OMG TAXES BWAAAAAAH!!!". Did they deserve representation? Of course, those laws affected a lot of people so it stands to reason that they should have had a say. Did they need to go to war over it? No. And guess what's happening today? The average American has basically not a word in how he or she is taxed.
 

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,940
0
0
The Assassins of Assassin's Creed fame were real, but were not a multicultural group of multiple faiths and creeds. They were, in fact, Nizari Ismailis, in other words Shi'ites. Otherwise, aside from the magical McGuffin and the roster of Templars, the game is surprisingly well-researched.
The Illuminati were rounded up and executed. Anyone using that name is simply a copycat.
 

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,940
0
0
renegade7 said:
Edison did not invent anything.

Jesus was not white- he would have been middle eastern.

Few of the founding fathers were Christian. They were all free thinkers of some variant.

Lincoln was actually kind of a racist dick.

And even as an American, I think the revolutionary war was a little unnecessary. We could have been a part of a world spanning empire and society would in my opinion be a little better off today because of it. Instead it turned into a bunch of rednecks screaming "OMG TAXES BWAAAAAAH!!!". Did they deserve representation? Of course, those laws affected a lot of people so it stands to reason that they should have had a say. Did they need to go to war over it? No. And guess what's happening today? The average American has basically not a word in how he or she is taxed.
Alright. I'm done slapping myself now.

Who's claiming Jesus was anything but Jewish? I've yet to hear anyone actually say it that had more than three teeth.

Most if not all founding fathers were Christian, but also Freemasons. Freemasons learn thee habit of referring to their religions rarely and vaguely in order to coexist peacefully with other members from other faiths. Lack of reference to specific Judeo-Christian tenets and names was more common courtesy than agnosticism, as no atheist was and still is permitted membership. Benjamin Franklin was Christian. He was also quiet about it.

Unjustified whining about taxes? Oh, you mean those steep taxes on essential goods. But you leave out so much, like the garrisoning of troops in people's homes. And the nonexistent presence of Americans in Parliament. Essentially, British citizens were being treated like parasites simply because they lived an ocean away from the main island. Britain didn't just raise taxes a little, they occupied the colonies with an armed presence and made it expensive to live, just because someone had to pay for the war with France and America was closer, so England could treat it like the Colony's war instead of theirs.
 

ccggenius12

New member
Sep 30, 2010
717
0
0
Kathinka said:
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)
Hmm, PBS said they'd dropped the bombs to end the conflict immediately. Japan was ready to surrender, on the condition that they keep their emperor. While there was a bunch of hemming and hawing about the specifics of that, the western front was won, and we dropped the bombs to end it right then so Russians couldn't turn their attention to the Pacific. Basically, we used the nukes so that the Reds wouldn't have a claim to the spoils from the Pacific Theater.
 

RoBi3.0

New member
Mar 29, 2009
709
0
0
Hannibal942 said:
OT: One thing that is glanced over a lot is how warlike and violent many Native American tribes were. I'm not saying that America's military expansionism was right or justified, just that the fact that important details about some Native American cultures like the Comanche are sidelined for the sole point to portray them as victims.
Face with the ever increasing lose of their homeland to people not really keen on sharing, I think we can forgive them for being a little warlike.

As if Americas and West Europeans at the time were not anything but warlike. Tribes were warlike but obviously not the the extent the "white folk" were. Native Americans were occupying North America long before Europeans showed up. I seriously doubt Americans of today would be anywhere as accommodating as The Native Americans were should someone sail up to the East Coast and start building settlements.
 

Yeager942

New member
Oct 31, 2008
1,097
0
0
RoBi3.0 said:
Hannibal942 said:
OT: One thing that is glanced over a lot is how warlike and violent many Native American tribes were. I'm not saying that America's military expansionism was right or justified, just that the fact that important details about some Native American cultures like the Comanche are sidelined for the sole point to portray them as victims.
Face with the ever increasing lose of their homeland to people not really keen on sharing, I think we can forgive them for being a little warlike.

As if Americas and West Europeans at the time were not anything but warlike. Tribes were warlike but obviously not the the extent the "white folk" were. Native Americans were occupying North America long before Europeans showed up. I seriously doubt Americans of today would be anywhere as accommodating as The Native Americans were should someone sail up to the East Coast and start building settlements.
That's not my point. I'm saying that many tribes were just as capable of war and brutality. Read about the cultures of the Comanche, the Sioux, and the Iroquois. We're all humans, and bloodshed is in our nature. I'm saying that this fact gets left out in the sole pursuit of portraying Native Americans as helpless victims.
 

Faerillis

New member
Oct 29, 2009
116
0
0
Boudica said:
Faerillis said:
Boudica said:
Devoneaux said:
Boudica said:
Magicite Spring said:
Boudica said:
If you take offense to someone saying which political figure they feel could have made the best leader of a country under different circumstances, you're far too sensitive.
In my English class a couple of years ago, we had a German exhange student. Unfortunatly, the day she started we were in the process of watching "The Pianist", which, in case you haven't seen it, is about a Jew hiding from the Germans during WW2. She ended up crying and running from the classroom because this movie affected her so much.

Basically, Germans hate Hitler and what he did and I happen to agree because he did terrible things. No matter how much of a great leader he was, and what his policies were, he did terrible, terrible things and you can't just ignore that. That is why he will never ever be Germany's greatest leader.
You pretend to say that like it's a fact. Last I checked, our measure of greatness is subjective.
That's just it, the measure you're judging him by is provably incorrect. His economic strategies were -terrible-. This isn't a matter of opinion, they are provably terrible.
What don't you understand? You're arguing like I'm yet to come across some piece of information. I know the man. I know the Nazi Party. I know the history. I like some aspects of the most former and think he could have been great.
And we are saying you're completely wrong, every fact disproves everything you're trying to say. It's like saying the Earth is Flat; frankly it's not a fucking debate, your opinion doesn't hold up with actual fact.
Unless you suddenly came across a way to disprove opinion, you're doing a lot of barking and no biting. Notice where I said I like some aspects of the most former? That means there's things about the man and his leadership that I like. You can disagree with them, you can dislike them and you can oppose that opinion, but you cannot say it is a fact that my liking of him is any more wrong or incorrect than my liking of the colour pink.

For whatever shortcomings and errors you see the man having and making, I like parts of him and support a portion of his ideals. You're going to have to live with that.
First off you assume that saying something is an opinion makes it unassailable; you're wrong. It's Ernst Zundel's opinion that there are secret antarctic nazi ufos (no, really look it up), that doesn't make it any less stupid or incorrect. I don't know where this asinine idea that Opinions are unassailable simply because they are subjective/personal, but it is fallacious and the last bastion of a failing argument.

Hitler had ONE positive aspect, his oratory skills ? no one would argue that the man was great at public speaking. His economic, societal, and military ideas have all been shown to fail MISERABLY. That one positive aspect wouldn't be in the genes that created him (as you tried many pages ago to claim) as his public speaking was something he trained.
 

RoBi3.0

New member
Mar 29, 2009
709
0
0
Hannibal942 said:
RoBi3.0 said:
Hannibal942 said:
OT: One thing that is glanced over a lot is how warlike and violent many Native American tribes were. I'm not saying that America's military expansionism was right or justified, just that the fact that important details about some Native American cultures like the Comanche are sidelined for the sole point to portray them as victims.
Face with the ever increasing lose of their homeland to people not really keen on sharing, I think we can forgive them for being a little warlike.

As if Americas and West Europeans at the time were not anything but warlike. Tribes were warlike but obviously not the the extent the "white folk" were. Native Americans were occupying North America long before Europeans showed up. I seriously doubt Americans of today would be anywhere as accommodating as The Native Americans were should someone sail up to the East Coast and start building settlements.
That's not my point. I'm saying that many tribes were just as capable of war and brutality. Read about the cultures of the Comanche, the Sioux, and the Iroquois. We're all humans, and bloodshed is in our nature. I'm saying that this fact gets left out in the sole pursuit of portraying Native Americans as helpless victims.
Helpless no, victims yes. Their cultural inclination for war making should not really come into play when talking about how they had practically everything stolen from them. Never once have I read anywhere that Native American were 100% peaceful. So I am kind having a hard time understanding what your point is. Are you trying to say that because some tribes had an extremely war like culture that they deserved to have there lives land and culture stolen from them, or somehow that fact makes it okay.
 

tmande2nd

New member
Oct 20, 2010
602
0
0
Well for Canada:

We are NOT a nation of peaceful middle power loving people.
We are a nation founded by aggressive greedy traders, and imperialists.

Who sired a new race, butchered a few more, then pushed to the Pacific. The English were racist imperial drunks who liked slaughtering other people. The French were racist angry drunks who liked snubbing other people.

We did not assemble as a nation to win the war of 1812 since there was no Canada. Then we stabbed our native "allies" in the back. We have always been a strong supporter of either Britain or the US, or whoever held or economic package by the balls.
Our nation has held a very long and nasty racist history, even up to today.

Our Prime Ministers slavishly fawn over parts of the country and spit on others (Trudeau), are very corrupt and terrible people, or both.
We lie better then the American's about our past, and try making ourselves into noble heroes out to save the world.

Canada is simply one giant whopping lie covering various sins.
But its not that bad of a place to live, and I would rather live here then in the "Glorious People's Dictatorship of God and Oppression" that seem to be popping up everywhere.

Damn going to college made my cynical.
 

clippen05

New member
Jul 10, 2012
529
0
0
I like how Boudica went MIA after everyone stopped putting up with her double standards.

OT: The fact that people believe France is a nation full of cowards. Sure, I like to make the joke too, but its really not factual. The battle of Verdun where 1 million soldiers died has shown that the french have had there fair share of bloodshed. While they have lost a number of battles, they have won just as many, its just most of their victories weren't that recent. (Losing Franco-Prussian war and WW2 in comparison to winning the Crimean war, the Hundred Years War [sort of], and most notably the War for American Independence)
 

PhiMed

New member
Nov 26, 2008
1,483
0
0
thebobmaster said:
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.
Stalin explicitly stated that he was not interested in a war with Japan. America did the Allies' fighting in the Pacific Theater largely by themselves. Now, this was mostly because they didn't just finish fighting a war in their own back yard, but still, people who argue that America didn't do anything to win World War II are essentially saying that the Pacific Theater didn't matter.
This is an odd proposition, because most people who make that accusation accuse America of distorting history to elevate their own culture. Asserting that the Pacific Theater doesn't matter (implicitly or explicitly), however, is just about the most Eurocentric notion I can possibly imagine.
 

Deimateos

New member
Apr 25, 2009
88
0
0
That none of this factual history book is history:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Jy8OAAAAIAAJ&num=20
Take a read, it's full of people I'd never been taught about in any of my history classes.

DugMachine said:
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.
While he wasn't as frothing mad as some racist of the day, he was definitely a white supremacist.
http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/debate4.htm

In the speech he made it clear he thought we were inferior beings not deserving of real equality in American society, he just noted that he didn't think we should be slaves. It's also kind of funny that one of the counterarguments he had to dismiss was that he really just wanted to free the slaves so he could have a black wife to bang (and highlights America's ongoing obsession with legalizing sexual control over our consenting adults).
 

SkellgrimOrDave

New member
Nov 18, 2009
150
0
0
All things are the common misconceptions

1. Because one side is wrong, that makes the side opposing them right. See the Arab-Israeli conflict. Both sides are wrong.

2. Hitler was the architect of the holocaust. Nope, that would be Mr Reinhard Heydreich, and Heinrich Himmler.

3. The holocaust was the only civilian genocide in the second world war. While the intention of the holocaust actually created the term "genocide", the Japanese experimentation camps on chinese civilians was also going on. Unit 731. Google and weep for humanity. Also weep when you realise that whlie Joseph Mengele was executed, the commander responsible for unit 731 was let off scott free in exchange for details and research notes. Like how to make Agent Orange, Napalm, and other wonderful things.

4. Vikings were brutish murderers and rapists. Nope, largest empire in the dark ages in western Europe bar Carolus' kingdoms, sophisticated metalworking and shipbuilding, and founded the kingdom of novgorod.

5. Katanas are the best sword. Nope, in fact you hit a katana side on with another sword, it'll probably shatter. Well made ones take a very sharp edge and a great cutters, but they can't cut through armour through lack of weight, and can only really block with the back of the blade.

6. We're more intelligent than our ancestors. Yeah, we aren't, they aren't surprisingly advanced when we discover an ancient clockwork mechanism, we're just too arrogant to realise thtat what we achieve actually isn't very impressive. Ancient Rome is just the same as any modern city, but we've got different engines. That's about it.

7. X historical figure was wonderful. Nope, they all had flaws, made mistakes, were prejudiced, racist, sexist, whatever they were. Nobody's perfect, all of history's great figures are no exception. Churchill hated Ghandi, Ghandi was a massive racist, etc etc etc.

8. Hitler was some kind of genius who masterminded successes. No, no, no. Hitler actively inhibited Germany during the Second world war, dismissing commanders he disagreed with who had far greater strategems than he, and eventually had an assassination attempt tried on him BY HIS OWN COMMAND STAFF. He was a lucky man who bungled almost everything given to him. Downfall does a good job showing him for who he was at the end, drug addled, diseased, old man who has loved ones and doesn't care for the slaughter of hundreds.

9. Knights are slow and cumbersome. Armour is worn and gives great mobility. If it was cumbersome, you ended up dead. Jousting armour for tournaments may have been slightly inflexible, but battlefield armour would have been like a tailored suit, and all the weight is evenly spread out over the body, so it just makes you very muscular. Which in turn makes you faster. So Knights would be lightning quick and very, very dangerous.