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

[tmande2nd]

Thanks to SkellgrimorDave for pointing out something.

We really are not that much smarter then our ancestors at all.
We still dont know how they built some things or figured other things out.

Hell the Phoenicians THOUSANDS of years ago were sailing huge distances.

Our ancestors were not stupid people, they just did not have the knowledge of science that we have today.
I mean it took until the last couple hundreds of years to even have a city CLOSE to the size of Rome, or what they had in China or South America.

It seems to be a cultural thing that people think they are smarter then their parents and etc.

 

[RoBi3.0]

All things are the common misconceptions


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.

I agree with you on most of your points but these 2.

Number 6 especially. Yes Rome is cool and was a huge accomplishment for its time, but to say they are on the same level of intelligence as current human civilizations is silly. It fails to account for 1,000s of years for scientific advancement. Romes knew nothing of Nuclear physics and a whole host of other things. They were significantly less advanced in architecture, metallurgy, and every other science know that the time. So no they were not just as intelligent. If you want to argue that they had the potential to be just as intelligent if given enough time, then fine, but I would respond with "duh, cause that is obviously what happened".

Number 7 is more me clarify this as well as asking from a citation. Yes, Churchill didn't like Gandhi much. I would think that didn't need pointing out. Gandhi was actively fighting albeit non-violently for Britain to get the hell out of India, at a point in History when Britain was dealing with a little something call World War II. Given the choice I am sure he would have rather dealt with India at a later point in time.

I would love for you to provide some citations to support your claim that Gandhi was racist. I have read quite a few quotes that showcase that he was not prefect. Particularly ones that expressed admiration for Hitlers ability to wage war in a way that reduced the lose of live as much as possible (referring to Blitz Kreig), but keep in mind that this comment was made before the majority of the details over the mistreatment of Jews and other minorities came into light.

 

[mlbslugger06]

America was not founded as a Christian nation. Jefferson, Franklin and most founding fathers were not even believers in a religion above perhaps deism or a skeptical agnosticism. (most would argue they would have been atheists had they access to more information we have today).

They never said anything of a nation under god, a predominant religion of the nation or a required reliance on religious texts for justice, morality or law. Jefferson in particular stood for the complete separation of all theistic beliefs and national concerns. He has several quotes stating his disdain for the religious indoctrination of the uneducated and vulnerable. The fact that people still claim the opposite of all this is ridiculous.

 

[irishmanwithagun]

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.

More annoyingly, in my opinion, was the off-screen portrayal of Athenians as "boy-lovers" when Spartans, not ony accepted homosexulaity in their society (in the Greek fashion of using it to enforce societal order), but also used PEDERASTY as a part of their regime for training soldiers.

 

[IamQ]

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.

Ladies, please, take it somewhere else. This train has already derailed into outer space, let's not take it any further, okay?

 

[irishmanwithagun]

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.

Actually, Hitler was a terrible leader and stupid miltary commander who relied on ideas from his lackeys and could have only come to power when the country was so desperate all it needed was someone to say "it's all everyone else's fault". His one talent was public speaking, which was what made the Nazi party famous.

 

[GrimTuesday]

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.

Actually, Hitler was a terrible leader and stupid miltary commander who relied on ideas from his lackeys and could have only come to power when the country was so desperate all it needed was someone to say "it's all everyone else's fault". His one talent was public speaking, which was what made the Nazi party famous.

That's actually incorrect about him taking ideas from his lackeys. In actuality, Hitler was a vain, arrogant man who thought he knew better than his generals. He insisted on micromanaging almost every facet of the war, often time overriding his generals despite their suggesting better, more militarily sound ideas. For example, at Dunkirk, for whatever reason, Hitler told his generals not to press the attack, and in that time, the Allied forces were able to evacuate the majority of the troops.

 

[gphjr14]

More annoyingly, in my opinion, was the off-screen portrayal of Athenians as "boy-lovers" when Spartans, not ony accepted homosexulaity in their society (in the Greek fashion of using it to enforce societal order), but also used PEDERASTY as a part of their regime for training soldiers.

It was actually frowned upon for a Spartan man to not take a younger male Spartan under their tutelage. At the time the movie was entertaining, then I turned 21 and it just became lame. Studying history makes most movies like this painful to watch.

 

[irishmanwithagun]

More annoyingly, in my opinion, was the off-screen portrayal of Athenians as "boy-lovers" when Spartans, not ony accepted homosexulaity in their society (in the Greek fashion of using it to enforce societal order), but also used PEDERASTY as a part of their regime for training soldiers.

It was actually frowned upon for a Spartan man to not take a younger male Spartan under their tutelage. At the time the movie was entertaining, then I turned 21 and it just became lame. Studying history makes most movies like this painful to watch.

There's a point when you realize that it's just the right-wing power fantasy of a hyperactive manchild in DESPERATE (I don't know how to get italics on this)need of ritalin and then it becomes a lot less entertaining. It's fascinating to see how many good films are ruined by people just not caring about what they could achieve with the project.

 

[Knight1172]

Contrary to popular belief, not all English people look like Jason Isaacs or Sean Bean, and most do not burn down villages or conduct weird science experiments, except on Sundays.

Hitler, as previously stated, was not the Architect of the Holocaust; but he was the final tick that allowed it's go-ahead and had direct knowledge of it, as proven and detailed by Richard J. Evans during the (rather hilarious) Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt. I'm sorry, I find it funny whenever someone goes up against the facts and loses so brutally.

Soviet Prisoners of War were treated horrendously, just as bad as the Jews. Millions died; not so much a misconception, but perhaps overlooked.

The Norman Conquest was not a complete cultural revolution for England; barely the top 10% changed, and everyone else just got a bit less land and a lot less rights.

Waterloo was not some exciting epic. It was a tragic, clumsy slogfest that was lost by Napoleon rather than won by the Allies. Oh, and the Prussians didn't 'ride in to the rescue', and very nearly abandoned Wellington completely. Instead, they tied up some of the finest troops the French had to offer at Plancenoit, and reinforced the Allied line after the Prince of Orange lost most of his men.

Vespasian's last words ('I think I'm becoming a God') were a dark joke, highly intune with his ambitious yet down-to-earth personality. It refers to Augustus being deified on his death. They were NOT a grand boast.

And last, but not least, the British Empire was not a beaming bastion of civilisation, but nor was it a horrid sty of greed and villainy. In places, it strip-mined and committed genocide purely for convenience, in others it fiercely defended the natives, invested colossal amounts of wealth into it's colonies and kept most of their possessions secure. As noted in Empire: How Britain Made The Modern World' by Niall Ferguson, it was all sacrificed to fight the Nazis.

Edit: Well, not really. It was kind of reluctantly and gruesomely let go when Atlee peaked into the treasury and realised '...You know we have literally NO money, right?'

 

[catalyst8]

The claim that the Biblical character of Jesus the Christ is an historical figure is laughable.

With absolutely no primary historical evidence to support his existence he should be considered as real as Krishna, Woden, & Marduk.

 

[Karfroogle]

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.

The movie was based on a graphic novel that was in no way meant to be realistic.

 

[Cabisco]

Firstly I'd like to say this is a wonderful thread and I've been spending a lot of time pouring through what everyones been putting.

As for my own, Richard III far from being the evil bastard depicted in Shakespeare was actually a pretty decent King, theirs even a society dedicated to restoring his name.

 

[Kashrlyyk]

...
"Japan tried to negotiate a peace that would have allowed them to keep pretty much all of the land they had conquered before the outbreak of the war....

Second time you claim that. Could you please provide a source?

They were willing to surrender, but not on terms that the Allies would have deemed acceptable.

So all you do is change it to "The bombs were necessary to get Japan to surrender with "acceptable" conditions"? And you think that is much different???

(I should clarify that when I said "AFTER tens, if not hundreds, of thousands had died from either the bombs themselves or the starvation." I was referring to conventional bombs, NOT the atomic bombs. My mistake for being vague.)

No, I understood that, it wasn't vague at all.

 

[clangunn]

mongol tactics work great in the steps and arid lands of the middle east, they worked horrible in the forested areas of Europe, why they never got past eastern Europe.

This may have been addressed already but this is actually something of misnomer. The "failed" expansion of the Mongol Empire into Europe actually was more directly related to severe infighting taking place in the the leadership of the Khanate which culminated in a competition for the throne of the Empire following the death of the Second Great Khan (Ogedei Khan, 3rd son and heir of Genghis). Ogedei's nephew, Batu Khan, was given overall command of the campaign in Europe and his sub-khanate the "Golden Horde" readily overcame all resistance moving through Eastern Europe until hitting central Europe by the winter of 1241. This campaign only ended because Ogedei Khan died that Winter, suddenly leaving an enormous power vacuum in Korakorum. Batu and all the top miilitary commanders in the field abandoned the campaign to get to the capital to try to grab power for themselves since most were direct decadents of Genghis Khan and as "princes of the blood" eligible to become the next Great Khan.

The European campaign was merely never relaunched following the power struggle. Each of the commanders went on to try to consolidate power over the course of the next decade and Western armies of the Mongol armies began moving back eastwards

Heck - even Encyclopedia Britannica cites: [http://books.google.com/books?id=ZKIxAQAAIAAJ&dq=Employed+against+the+Mongol+invaders+of+Europe,+knightly+warfare+failed+even+more+disastrously+for+the+Poles+at+Legnica+and+the+Hungarians+at+Mohi+in+1241.+Feudal+Europe+was+saved+from+sharing+the+fate+of+China+and+Muscovy+not+by+its&q=china+muscovy&hl=en]

Feudal Europe was saved from sharing the fate of China and Muscovy not by its tactical prowess but by the unexpected death of the Mongol's supreme ruler, Ogedei, and the subsequent eastward retreat of his armies.

 

[clangunn]

America was not founded as a Christian nation. Jefferson, Franklin and most founding fathers were not even believers in a religion above perhaps deism or a skeptical agnosticism. (most would argue they would have been atheists had they access to more information we have today).

They never said anything of a nation under god, a predominant religion of the nation or a required reliance on religious texts for justice, morality or law. Jefferson in particular stood for the complete separation of all theistic beliefs and national concerns. He has several quotes stating his disdain for the religious indoctrination of the uneducated and vulnerable. The fact that people still claim the opposite of all this is ridiculous.

So not a disagreement, but rather a point of clarification. A number of the deists among the founding fathers did indeed claim to be Christian. However, their form of "Christian" belief fundamentally differs from current Evangelic American denominations of Christianity - to the point that it may indeed be more accurate to describe them as skeptical agnostics. I think this is why the confusion persists.

This is because the fundamental basis of deism in the Enlightenment was that the World was understandable through the activity of "reason" alone. Many held that the more mystic aspects of Christianity were an unnecessary mythos. This is why Jefferson wrote an entirely separate version of the Bible which, in brief, eliminated all the magic crap.

Captcha "little bird told me"

 

[spielberg11]

Not sure if anyone's said any of these yet, but Marie Antoinette never actually said 'Let them eat cake', that was merely a satirical line in a play that was attributed to her, in the same way Tina Fey's 'I can see Russia from my house' is attributed to the actual Sarah Palin. In fact, although Antoinette was ignorant, at the beginning of her rule in France she was a little TOO generous, often handing beggars entire bags of coins.

Also, Richard III was probably not a hunchback, it's just that he screwed over the churches and the priests were the ones who recorded the history at the time.

And Captain Cook didn't 'discover' Australia, numerous other ships, mainly Dutch, had stumbled upon it before. It was more of a 'confirmation'.

 

[irishmanwithagun]

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.

Actually, Hitler was a terrible leader and stupid miltary commander who relied on ideas from his lackeys and could have only come to power when the country was so desperate all it needed was someone to say "it's all everyone else's fault". His one talent was public speaking, which was what made the Nazi party famous.

I mean during his days as a politician on the rise, before he deified himself.

 

[Fear of Intent]

i got a warning for commenting on a Zero Punctuation video i didnt finish watching but Boudica can completely derail this thread and where are the moderators now? just like the police i swear, always there to catch you speeding but takes em a half hour to respond to your 911 call, i was seriously interested in this thread until i had to shift through 5 pages of Hitler this Hitler that, i feel sorry for Roggen Bread and the thread poster,

On Topic,

when people say that the separation of church and state in the us is because the government didn't want to be controlled by the church, when in fact its the other way around, the church didnt want the government to tell it how to run its business

people blaming the crusades on god, they wanted power and money, and used god to get people to agree with the crusades, if i shot you who would you blame me or the gun, the used their faith as a tool, blame man

that the reason we have seasons is because the earth gets father away from the sun in winter months, when in reality its all about the rotation on the axis

and that Obama ruined the us economy, the budget was balanced by Clinton, George W Bush comes along, starts 2 wars spends an ungodly amount of money, and then when Obama gets in the economy is in shambles but its his fault? what?!

and a whole bunch of other stuff but thats it for now