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

[cookyt]

It's worth more than the opinion of someone on an internet forum, which is what you're using to display your 'facts.'

So if the student had posted the exact same information "on an internet forum" it'd now be worth less? Your logic is flawed.[/quote]

Except the information in question is a fully-cited (three page bibliography), academically reviewed, 131 page report supporting American imperialism prior to WWII, while everything you've said this far has no basis to go off of. Also, you're ignoring the first reference he gave which also supports his argument. Also, you're misdirecting the question by changing it from "why don't you cite something" to "thesis' are not proper citations." Why not answer the original question? Do you have a solid citations for anything you've said thus far, or all conjecture.


OT: I dislike that Guy Fawkes has been taken up as some symbol of anarchy and freedom from totalitarian rule when the Gunpowder Plot he led to blow up British Parliament was just a front to establish an even harsher theocracy. Namely, he wanted to put British under Catholic rule again.

 

[In Search of Username]

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?

When a period of history becomes well-known enough for people to think they know it without having ever been taught it or read about it, they're bound to get a hell of a lot wrong. Although they were right about the next king, John, I suppose - he was a turd.

As for my historical 'fact', General Custer was a fucking idiot, not a heroic martyr.

 

[Tropicaz]

Hitler is portrayed inaccurately in most historical accounts. There. Done.

Great job, wasn't so hard, was it?

Now back up what you are saying with factual information from a credible source that utilizes proper citations.

I didn't know we were required to do that. I was just following your lead;

Not sure if this is common knowledge or not but for a brief time, America did have it's own little empire. It didn't come close to the size of say The british empire, but up until the end of world war two I believe, with a few minor exceptions with things like the panama canal, America did indeed impose itself on other people for economic gain.

Or are there credible sources and citations in there that I can't see?

You provide sources when called out on, such as now. Here i'll give you one:

http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/mod/1901platt.asp

Your turn.

Oh, you're not going to do it for any of your other comments? Also, what about citations? I only see a source there. It's almost like you're making this up as you go.

Oops, my baaaad!

http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/etd_hon_theses/123/

There you are, now, once more. Your turn.

Edit: Furthermore, i'll provide support for other posts when called upon, but don't let that distract you from your complete lack of support for anything you have said thus far. ;P

Since when was one student's thesis a go-to citation worth... anything? If you're going to try and hold me to your rules, you have to do better than that.

It's worth more than the opinion of someone on an internet forum, which is what you're using to display your 'facts.'

So if the student had posted the exact same information "on an internet forum" it'd now be worth less? Your logic is flawed.

No, what that guy has done is written a published thesis with lots of references. Had that guy written a 6 line section about something, given no references, then yes, i would say it held less weight. If he published the thesis on a forum, then I would say it was just as relevant.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The pyramids were originally white with gold capstones, the gold was stolen over the years and the white rock was eroded.

And also nicked. If you look at the pyramids today they are mostly smooth near the top, because nobody has bothered to climb all the way up the take building materials like they did for lower down.

 

[Tropicaz]

Do you have a solid citations for anything you've said thus far, or all conjecture.


OT: I dislike that Guy Fawkes has been taken up as some symbol of anarchy and freedom from totalitarian rule when the Gunpowder Plot he led to blow up British Parliament was just a front to establish an even harsher theocracy. Namely, he wanted to put British under Catholic rule again.

Come on, you have to admit, that's pretty funny--spending a paragraph talking about references, sources and conjecture, before then making several statements with no citations.

But the difference is, he can get some solid citations, whereasyou're going to continue dancing around the issue that you have none.

 

[DugMachine]

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.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races ? that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

Yeeep. He was racist.
But so was almost everyone in is time. The moral zeitgeist marches on.

Huh, well then. Learn something new everyday!

 

[cookyt]

Do you have a solid citations for anything you've said thus far, or all conjecture.


OT: I dislike that Guy Fawkes has been taken up as some symbol of anarchy and freedom from totalitarian rule when the Gunpowder Plot he led to blow up British Parliament was just a front to establish an even harsher theocracy. Namely, he wanted to put British under Catholic rule again.

Come on, you have to admit, that's pretty funny--spending a paragraph talking about references, sources and conjecture, before then making several statements with no citations.

Ask and ye shall recieve:

[The Gunpowder Plot was] the prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands during which James's nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, was to be installed as the Catholic head of state.

Granted, that's taken from Wikipedia, but you could get the same information from plenty of other history text books. Now, are you going to keep partially quoting people just so you don't have to directly answer their questions?

EDIT:

Here's an essay from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.

http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/themes/92/92749.html

The main point is that the Gunpowder Revolution was a ploy led by dissatisfied Catholics to try to instil a Catholic Head of State. It also states that it's odd that it's been remembered given how it failed miserably, and that people have, over the years, put their own spin on the story to support their own political and sociological ideals.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The pyramids were originally white with gold capstones, the gold was stolen over the years and the white rock was eroded.

And also nicked. If you look at the pyramids today they are mostly smooth near the top, because nobody has bothered to climb all the way up the take building materials like they did for lower down.

I imagine there's a rather large penalty for stealing bits of the Pyramids. Why would you even...

Nowdays perhaps, but lots of old monuments have been recycled by locals.

And...lots of tourists/pilgrims like taking bits of whatever they came to see. Saint Simeon Stylites sat for decades on a 15 metre tall pillar, for example, but it's not there anymore due to pilgrims, IIRC.

 

[Xangba]

Lincoln was not a paragon of slaves, hell he didn't even care about them. The whole thing was a political move for reelection and to try and be more favorable with Britain. Blacks were also treated like absolute shit in the North as well.

Ben Franklin's kite experiment was about lightning, not discovering electricity. And his key got a charge from the air, not lightning striking the kite.

Knights didn't need a crane to get on their horses, the armor wasn't as heavy as many people believe.

Columbus didn't have trouble getting support because people believed the Earth was flat, they all thought his calculations for how far India was were wrong. And they were.

The Constitution was written on parchment, not freaking hemp you potheads.

 

[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.

depends on what era and what nation. in mid to late medieval era it was pretty dam rare to see a sword in a actual battle. than it came back in style after armor went out of style thanks to advances in gun powder. very popular with the romans.

When you get around to military sabres, yeah.

Also I wouldn't really call a gladius a 'sword' as most people think of them. They were largely short range stabbing weapons.

Otherwise yeah, pretty much.

 

[silver wolf009]

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.

Pretty much correct. They offered a surrender that allowed them to keep much of their gains and what not, which didn't really fly with America.

Expanding on the Lincoln thing.

Northerners were actually really racist, they were all for racial inequality, just not slavery. In fact, at the outset of the war, Lincoln allowed a few choice states that joined the north to actually keep their slaves.

Yeah, but that was a political move to keep those states on the union side more than being motivated by racism.

And while the Civil War didn't start because of slavery, Lincoln definitely grew to disapprove of the system, and in the end, knocked it down. So I guess you could spin it as being a war about slavery, just not at the get go.

OT: The idea that the fall of Rome signaled the fall of the Roman Empire in its entirety. Really, it just moved east. The people we call the Byzantines called themselves Romans, and really were Romans, just eastbound of Rome.

 

[triggrhappy94]

I remember reading recently that one year after Reagan left office, when he had to testify in the trials of some of his friends for the whole Iran-Contra thing, he was described as being confused and possibly senile.

 

[cookyt]

Lincoln was not a paragon of slaves, hell he didn't even care about them. The whole thing was a political move for reelection and to try and be more favorable with Britain. Blacks were also treated like absolute shit in the North as well.

If I remember correctly, The Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free all slaves, just the ones in the states who had seceded from the Union. It had no immediate effect because Lincoln had no direct control over what the Confederate States did and the states which still had slaves but where part of the Union were not affected. Overall, it was just another political ploy to turn the civil war into a war about slavery, and to gain the favour of European countries which had long since abolished slavery.

 

[DugMachine]

Holy balls derail lol. It's like Boudica just comes into topics to rustle everyone's jimmies with her 'opinions' (on history like wtf?) but you step foot into a gender thread arguing against modern feminist tactics or sarkesianfuckface and you're wrong and never going to be right. lolkay

 

[Lord Kloo]

WW2 was won with a mix of American industrial might, Western Allied military campaigns in W. Europe and N. Africa and bombing in Germany and most of the ground war was won with the massive Soviet war machine.

America wasn't essential in 'winning' the war, but without them Britain would have starved and the Russians would probably still be fighting Germany today over some god-forsaken stretch of Siberia. Actually I take it all back, without America's lend lease program we probably would have lost the war in W. Europe and would be speaking either Russian or German depending on how the Eastern front went

In other news

Yeah I can't think of much else..

Other than the Templars weren't really evil, they just charged lots of money for their services and ended up getting most of their organization arrested, tortured and executed on charges of heresy because the King of France owed them lots of money, thats a pretty shit evil organization if ever I saw one.

Also because its being mentioned a lot, Hitler was probably one of the most cunning and brilliant political minds of the 20th C. but he was a shit war leader basing his strategy on killing who he liked the least first (ie Russia, damned communist untermenschen) instead of crushing threats (ie Great Britain, god bless their little fluffy Aryan socks, how could anyone possibly kill them) that lead to Germany's downfall, he had time to see the end of Britain if he'd put enough resources to it before going at Russia

 

[The Funslinger]

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.

I think you are misunderstanding something here. I, and others on here, are not arguing that he could have been great. But you said in your very first post here that he was great. And that is something I, and others here, disagree with.

Yes. And? I think he was a great leader (could have been a lot better). You don't think he was a great leader.

Am I supposed to switch sides because you show me things I already know? Tell me a game you love and I'll tell you it's actually not good and then list several reasons why. Will you change your mind? No. Because you like the game and therefore obviously disagree with me lol.

Me? Agreeing with Boudica on an issue?

This is going to be an interesting day.

On topic, as far as the leading part goes, he really knew how to do it effectively. On the military side, I feel like he sucked hard, which I suppose is a very good thing for the world as a whole, but as far as internal politics go, he really knew how to get his country's shit in gear.

Oh, sweet Jebus, he did suck.

He prioritized the movement of Death Camp residents to more camps further from the front lines (to cover up in case the war went south) over the movement of troops and supplies to the front lines against the Russians.

If he hadn't done the latter, likely he wouldn't have needed to do the former. It's popular opinion that if it weren't for that ass backwards decision, the Russians would have been broken before they got near Berlin.