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

[thespyisdead]

hmm... going to Roman times... Celts, namely the Gauls, were not as barbaric as , and do not my wording, the Romans depicted them. they were very cultured people who were just lagging behind in the cleanliness department the Romans would never admit this, but when they were bound to the boot of italy, they did quite vigorous trading

 

[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.

Yeah because John was such an amazing king. Also it's debatable as to if he was a good king. Personally I think he was he just died too soon. One of the reasons he wasn't in England was because John fucked him over, teamed up with Phillip and gave him a shit load of Angevin land while Richard was still on the Crusade that Phillip had left due to him being upstaged by Richard. If Phillip hadn't left, Richard would've continued onto beat Saladin at Jerusalem. Saladin even says this himself, his army was fed up, they wanted to leave and go back to their families. Also your forgetting the fact Richard got kidnapped by the Germans(or Austrians I forget) and was unable to leave until England paid the ransom. Once he returned he had to clean up the trouble that John had caused and was doing a good job at it until he died. He left England in secure hands of his counsel and don't you think if England was annoyed at him taking money to fight wars they would've done something, the lack of rebellions shows England was quite content with Richard. I personally think that if he hadn't died England would be a little bit bigger then it is today.

On topic, I had a good one but just forgot it...Fuck.

That's just not true. He was a shitty king who used his kingdom in England to raise money for his wars. He spent 6 months in England during his ten year reign and was quoted as sayong both that he hated England because it was "cold and always raining" and in raising money for the crusades, he is reported as saying that "[He] would have sold London if [he] could find a buyer." The fact is that he was a shitty king, though he was a great warrior. THe only reason England might be bigger today is if he had done some conquering to get away from the cold and wetness of England.

 

[beastro]

Amusing thread title given much of it's contents, btw.

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

Without US Lend Lease the war would have been stalemated with Germany overextended and Britain and the Soviet Union lacking a position to push back from.

It would have ended once Britain got around to developing nuclear weapons.

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

Cunning? Brilliant?

He was a gambler who didn't know when to quit.

End of story.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Yeah, that's right. I think it is a fact that Hitler is portrayed somewhat inaccurately and was a much better leader than many think he was. The valid criticism and hatred for he and his armies actions led to propaganda and typical war and post-war vitriol.

My post is exactly in line with the OP, so stand down.

Facts are not based on "What you think" or "What you feel" Facts are based on "What you know" Now either stick to the topic or leave. Facts are not (and let me repeat this, because it is important and cannot be overstated) NOT based on your personal opinion. Facts are based on information that can be proven beyond doubt as true and correct.

I thought we already this conversation. Weird.

Anyway -- it is a fact Hitler is portrayed inaccurately in most historical accounts.

You can tell me all you like that you don't agree, but I'm not changing my mind because you don't like his economics policies.

Ok then back up the claim that Hitler is misrepresented with actual sources, instead of just your opinion.

 

[Thespian]

-snip-

My point exactly. History doesn't care about your opinion and thoughts aren't fact. I'm fairly sure this thread was about things we knew, to the best of our knowledge, to be true - Not what we thought, presumed or theorized. One could even consider that posting one's opinions in a thread like this could be considered a mild form of spam. Funny, sensationalist spam does wonders for one's post count.

 

[beastro]

"America is and always has been a Christian nation!"

No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Oh it is.

It's also an atheist nation, a Jewish nation, a Hindu nation....

 

[beastro]

Also may I ask why so many of you are feeding a troll a banquet of a meal here (amongst many meals they're having on this board)?

I would assume that young people these days were not as troll naive as those of my day and would be able to recognize this from a mile away.

 

[Soveru]

The Galileo Affair was far more complex than most people believe. It is not as simple as "CHURCH HATES SCIENCE. CHURCH BADDDDDDD!!!!!!"

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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.

Do you have any credible sources to back up what you typed or are you going to continue to dodge providing proof of your claims about Hitler?

 

[beastro]

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

Sadly, he also killed a few figureheads instead of balancing power. He wanted to level everyone to equality and have only himself at the top. I'm quite down with the general idea of his form of government, but the whole murdering everyone in opposition thing kind of ruined it lol.

If he could have continued to use his cult of personality to influence Germany and didn't end up going down the, um, path that he elected, Germany could have been such a nice communist nation.

Sigh, time to bite and have fun with this one.

Equality?

The only equality Hitler wanted from those beneath him was create so many branches of government and so many people vying for power that everyone had to come to him to get things done over the bodies of everyone else and thus prevent any single person within the Party from rising up and channelling him.

It wasn't a good form of governing, it was the mentality of a gang leader keeping himself in power.

But this is just one of many bits of BS you throw out to chum the waters with.

 

[FFHAuthor]

Okay;

The Tet Offensive was a massive American Victory during the Vietnam war. (Destroyed the Vietcong, the NVA, and achieved a 180% spin in SOuth Vietnamese sentiments towards the war.)

The US won the Vietnam War. (We achieved all our Military and Political goals when we entered the war. South Vietnam only fell after the North Violated the Peace treaty and the Democratically controlled congress refused to provide aid to a US ally during a time of war...but South Vietnam still held out four a year on their own.)

The American Civil War wasn't about slavery it was about economics, and most southern leaders were interested in freeing slaves or were anti slavery. (Robert E. Lee freed his slaves the first chance he got, James Longstreet taught blacks how to read and write against southern laws, Nathan Bedford Forrest actually called upon the KKK to disband, Jefferson Davis had an adopted black son, just to name a few oddball points.)

FDR's New Deal and massive Government Recovery spending didn't do a thing to fight unemployment or combat the great depression. (conscripting 25% of the workforce into the military did, and turning most civilian industries away from civilian production to military production kept them from being considered a part of the regular economy.)

Richard Nixon was a fantastically popular US president. (Elected with massive electoral and popular vote majorities, even beating Ronald Reagan in winning percentages of the Popular Vote.)

Only three US presidents have been elected without wining a majority of the Popular vote. Evyerone knows about George W. Bush, but no one seems to mention John F. Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln.

 

[FoolKiller]

Lol.

This thread is the definition of ironic. All of history that is recorded is biased in many ways. Just read all the posts that have competing theories.

For my two cents worth, the US was more or less irrelevant in victory of the European front. The bigger issue for them was to make sure that the Russians didn't get further than they already did.

 

[Thespian]

Also, even if your grasp on how history works wasn't fundamentally flawed, you sure have a knack for avoiding all of the people disproving you by deflecting their questions

I also think it's a fact that pink is the best colour ;D

The prophecy is fulfilled!

 

[Thespian]

The prophecy is fulfilled!

Why you gotta quote me saying something I didn't say? Shit is cold, son![/quote]

Twas a mistake, the quote was from my post but I left one of your quote tags open.

Amusingly, my post is now doubly appropriate.

 

[Mr_Spanky]

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

Sadly, he also killed a few figureheads instead of balancing power. He wanted to level everyone to equality and have only himself at the top. I'm quite down with the general idea of his form of government, but the whole murdering everyone in opposition thing kind of ruined it lol.

If he could have continued to use his cult of personality to influence Germany and didn't end up going down the, um, path that he elected, Germany could have been such a nice communist nation.

Look im not sure EXACTLY about the definitions of communism and facism but isnt it pretty contradictory to say that Hitler, probably the most famous fasict who ever lived) could have been communist but for a few small differences?

On Hitler it is easy to say: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If he was a great leader he would have built and constructed and MADE things and changed the way the world viewed germany at the time. In essence what Nelson Mandella (in a very different set of circumstances) was able to do in South Africa. He changed the way people thought and made a country out of a civil war, atrocity filled cess pool of hate.

Hitler took a cess pool of hate and made it stink even worse. Great leaders make their countries great. Hitler plunged Germany into chaos and depression for decades. The wall only came down 23 years ago remember?

 

[beastro]

Lol.

This thread is the definition of ironic. All of history that is recorded is biased in many ways. Just read all the posts that have competing theories.

For my two cents worth, the US was more or less irrelevant in victory of the European front. The bigger issue for them was to make sure that the Russians didn't get further than they already did.

Considering that they weren't an issue with United States interests until the post-war started to become a forming reality and containing an expansionist Nazi Germany was the primary reason they got involved on the Allied side from the start, I find that an amusing view on the war.

Care to elaborate?