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

[TheOneBearded]

Off Topic: A while back you changed your avatar(screaming girl's face) to look like it, but drawn with some sort of red dye or paint. What exactly did you use to draw it? Seeing that it happened a little after your menst. blood thread, I am curious.

Screaming girl's face? It's Boudica! Your lack of knowledge on the most awesome woman ever disturbs me! But seriously, I made it in Photoshop to see what it would look like in menses. I liked it, so I made it my avatar and decided all my avatars would have Boudica's head in them

Well, I guess you do learn something new every day. A very tough woman she was.

 

[Myndnix]

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

Specifically, the white rock in question was marble, and certain pyramids were topped with jade as well as gold.

I'd weigh in on all the war history here, but I don't think there's anything that hasn't been said...

EDIT: Scratch that, the white rock was actually limestone.

 

[TheOneBearded]

Because people are a product of their time and place.

They did it no differently then people today making historical epics that have nothing in common with the era dealt with besides the wardrobe and setting.

Could you give me an example or two? I don't think I'm following.

 

[beastro]

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?

He basically wanted communism without the men doing the work getting the credit. It was a warped nationalism.

Honestly I think trying to "pin it down" like that is a mistake. Hitler, like just about every dictator that has ever existed, wanted power and didnt want to share it with anyone. Trying to exact his political motives from history and rumour is essentially impossible.

In the end communism and facism and most other dictatorships fail for the exact same reason. They are dictatorships. Every dictatorship ends. And the more the dictator wants to continue their rule the bloodier and nastier the war that comes after. Thats why democracy was invented so that there could be a smooth transistion of power from one dictatorship to the other. And it also gives the great masses the misguided impression that they have a genuine choice.

I'm fervently communist and believe it to be the great form of government one could have. Sadly, people treat it as a dictatorship (often at least a borderline military dictatorship, to boot) and its message is muddied.

There's never been true communism because people keep fucking it up lol. A girl can dream, though.

I completely agree on that. Communism would be the good way to run a society but it requires those who govern to be utterly selfless and make judgements based on the greater good of the people rather than on ANY of their own personal beliefs. Bad people for the job are already corrupt and most good people dont get there. The good people who DO get to the top of the greasy pole end up not being good people anymore.

Perhaps im too cynical but I genuinely dont think that ANY political regime can be good because its always run by a man or woman. Apart from the fact that the people who want power the most are the least appropriate ones to handle it. Men and women are human. The only things that seperates you and me from the position of US preseident of Galatic overload is ambition and oppurtunity.

Ambitious people want power and will sacrifice most things (or everything) to get it. That makes them more likely to get it. And then when they get there? MAYBE 1 in a thousand is a good decent kind of person. The rest are in it because theyre greedy (for money or power or whatever) and so make choices based on what THEY want.

No human society can be governed well and no human society can be GREAT (in my eyes) when you always get those kinds of people making the biggest descions.

It's about progress though, right? We've come a long way as a species over the last two thousand years--a long way. I believe we will achieve something like perfection eventually, and maybe not as far into the future as you'd think. Assuming we survive that long lol.

No, we haven't come a long way.

We are still the same creatures we were then and tens of thousands of years ago. The only thing that divides us from them is our collection and recorded knowledge and that is an extremely fragile thing. You lose that and it won't take many generations for state of civilization to irreparably degrade.

Um, "tens of thousands of years ago" we were barely human. Hell, not much longer than ten thousands years ago we only just began farming. You want to go back "tens" of thousands? Yeah, okay, you go Google what humans were like a good thirty thousand years ago and see if there's much of a difference between them and your average American lol.

You really have to learn that subtlety is a key facet of good trolling.

Just a quick heads up: calling someone a troll or accusing someone of trolling is against the rules. You've done it a few times already. Informing you so you can stop. I don't know if mods warn each instance or what, but yeah.

Then please think before posting. Many of the things which you've posted on here, especially you're early comments about Hitler, are extremely inflammatory.

Also, how can one not assume someone is a troll when they first claim to admire and support strong leader of the type like Adolf Hitler and then turn around and claim that they're a Communist, a political ideology that is strictly anti-hierarchical in nature?

Fascism is communism with a slightly warped idea of politics. Also, you want to try and say you can't admire someone and disagree with one of their beliefs? Well, I'm sure everyone you've ever thought was nice was perfect

Fascism was an ideology which espoused a melding of what ever one thought were the "good" qualities of the Free Market and Communism without including the the "bad" parts.

Nazism is distinct from Fascism.

There are no redeeming qualities about Hitler which are not distorted by his massively flawed ones.

Case in point: He loved his mother very deeply.... except he was a giant misogynist.

Anything one might admire about his character a political figure are things one might admire from a cult leader or sociopath.

Distinct in that Nazism was a form of Fascism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Anywho: again, unless you want to claim you must like the entirety of a person and their every belief to say that you like them without being branded a liar, I think I've dismissed your point.

I think the only person who'd take your position towards Hitler would be one who did it solely to get others backs up.

They are either of that category or fully support everything he did ideology included.

Sorry, are you going to go ahead and tell us that one cannot like someone without "fully supporting everything they did/do, ideology included"? Because I'd like to see you try.

Course not.

However not too many try and pick and choose what qualities they like and don't like from such a historical figure, especially when the ones you've stated that you admire are deplorable.

"I don't like it, therefore you cannot like it."

I don't see the logic.

Neither do I.

What I did say which you quoted is that if you honestly do admire those qualities in Hitler then it is a very sickening thing.

What qualities? You have to be a tad more specific. Sweeping statements tend to make your argument fairly empty.

How about you finally substantiate your side of the matter here:

I think he was a great leader (could have been a lot better).

What do you think was so great about him as a leader?

 

[Vivi22]

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.

300 gets a free pass with me for being ridiculously stylised. Though anyone thinks that it accurately reflects history is an idiot.

Agreed with you. It's also worth noting that the entire movie is a story being told by a Spartan to thousands of other Spartans to get them pumped up for the coming battle. A story about how the Athenians were so crucial to victory wouldn't be nearly as inspiring.

 

[SciMal]

Depending on what you see as "history", Jesus Christ wasn't a handsome, white, long-haired, bearded man. He was middle-eastern and would have had darker skin. Not sure about the hair and handsomeness though.

I think the image of a white Jesus only exists in the minds of those from European descent, particularly Americans.

Kind of weird when you think about it. I mean, the guy kind of lived in the Middle East. Why would he be white >_>

In the Italian Renaissance Jesus was depicted basically as Apollo, the same Sun God from Greek/Roman mythology. You can see him at the center below, arm raised, next to Mary (with her trademark blue clothes).

It wasn't uncommon to portray Jesus as white, blonde, incredibly muscular, etc. (even as a child). Whether it was spurred by the tendency to view white as "pure" or something else, I'm not qualified to answer.

But it's far from an American thing.

 

[beastro]

Because people are a product of their time and place.

They did it no differently then people today making historical epics that have nothing in common with the era dealt with besides the wardrobe and setting.

Could you give me an example or two? I don't think I'm following.

Tower of Babel, built like it would have been circa 1550.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tower_of_Babel_%28Bruegel%29

For a better idea, look at how most aliens are portrayed in such franchises as Star Trek and Star Wars. They're human, because if there is other life, right now we cannot comprehend what it's like and we only have ourselves to use as a template.

 

[Dangit2019]

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.

Damn, ninja'd on all 3.

Wait a second! Edison did invent something! First Death by X-rays! Genius!

 

[taciturnCandid]

That modern psychology was founded by Sigmund Freud or that his theories are still relevant to this day. He didn't and they're not. Freud's lasting contribution to modern psychology is popularizing it and some of his counseling methods.

Actally, according psychology class that I currently am attending, Freud's theories have made a comeback in recent years and is what is popular in research at the moment.

 

[BytByte]

I don't know how people view the pope, but some of them were the least holy beings on the planet when they ruled. Leo X and Alex VI blew away huge amounts of money for some of the most awesome parties in existence, with sloth and gluttony out the wazoo.

Also, Herbert Hoover was an okay president. Sure, he completely bumbled any and all help once the Depression hit, but if he was around when everything was hunkey dorey (like Monroe), he would have been viewed much more favorably.

 

[Kathinka]

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)

Until the fire bombings there was no pleas for peace. Once they started the only willingness Japan had was a restoration of status quo antebellum so that they could rebuild and start another war in a few decades time.

The consensus? Take a look at Downfall by Richard B. Frank. http://www.amazon.com/Downfall-The-Imperial-Japanese-Empire/dp/067941424X

Until the nukes came along the Japanese believed that all they had to do was hold on and the Allies would give up. Should they not, then national suicide was preferred. The whole focus of the leadership was to kill as many of the enemy as possible and welcomed an invasion even if it meant the extinction of their people.

Even with the fire bombings, the allies were still suffering casualties.

With nuclear weapons the Allies were suddenly able to simplify things: One bomber, one bomb to wipe out a whole city. They could sit back and obliterate these Japanese at their leisure with minimum risk.

Suddenly that didn't seem so fun which is when the Emperor made his move (And also almost failed due to an attempted coup by the army).

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.

Wasn't necessary?

Strictly speaking no, however the blockade and bombardment would take years to grind them down, they certainly sped things up.

Also, I find it interesting that you're from the Philippines. While your country had be liberated, much of the Far East still remained under the control of the Japanese and every month the same number of people who died in those two bombings died under their occupation.

Nuking two cities to quickly end a war and spare East Asia more grief was well worth the price, imo.

that is not correct. the japanese had already sued for peace prior with the only non-negotiable condition that the emperor should remain in office (happened anyway after the surrender) and it was only a matter of negotiations. even without the bombing there would have been surrender very soon. check the sources i posted earlier. the often quoted operation downfall looks terrible on paper, but there was never really at any chance of it actually happening.

also, i'm czech, not philippino. don't worry about it, the flags look a bit similar if you don't look closely.

 

[DanDeFool]

2: Samurai could, and showed quite often, they could run like little bitches when a battle wasn't going their way. During the siege of Osaka, in one notorious incident, a Tokugawa side general named Ia Naotaka actually started shooting at his own samurai to encourage them into the breach when they faltered.

So basically:

Spoiler

http://i639.photobucket.com/albums/uu111/FeRaHGo_2009/untitled-1.jpg

Well, whatever works.

 

[Lord Kloo]

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.

Thats true, I suppose it was the fact that he had no peer or equal in the government and therefore filled his ranks with sycophants that gave him such great power yet also meant he had no real expertise on how to use his power to the best effect

 

[clippen05]

Mine is the fact that the American Revolution was not very justified. As someone else mentioned one of the "Intolerable Acts" were created just to prevent tensions between Catholics and Protestants. Another, which was closing the Port of Boston Harbour, is completely justified as it was to punish the city for the Boston Tea Party until the city paid their dues. The Proclamation of 1763 was only made to prevent conflict between the native Americans and the colonists. But most of all, when Americans talk about the revolution, they talk about "No taxation without representation." The thing is, the British offered the colonists representation in Parliament, its just that their representation would have been negligible as they would get delegates based on population. Because the colonies were less populated than the home country, their proposals would get defeated in Parliament. But is that fair? I'd think so. Should a state like Rhode Island have the same sway as California? BTW, I was born and live in American although, I'd rather identify with my Polish heritage due to some of our country's past and present decisions.

 

[Lethos]

There was no such thing as a Vengeance missile. What i presume you mean is the Vergeltungswaffe 2 rocket, translated as 'retaliatory weapon 2', better known as the V-2.

Now, according to Wikipeida, 12,000 labourers were killed making the V2s, 5200 were completed and, in total, killed 7,250 Brits.

Yeah, they weren't much of a threat.

Is that what they were called? Never knew that. Are they called Vengeance missiles for slang or something then? I have definitely heard the term being thrown around a lot, even by some of my history professors.

Regardless, Britain was pretty much on it's heels by the this point in the war. Considering that our largest advantage was the Channel separating us from the mainland and a frickin' huge Navy to protect it, I'm hesitant to dismiss a weapon that can entirely bypass that.

 

[LetalisK]

That modern psychology was founded by Sigmund Freud or that his theories are still relevant to this day. He didn't and they're not. Freud's lasting contribution to modern psychology is popularizing it and some of his counseling methods.

Actally, according psychology class that I currently am attending, Freud's theories have made a comeback in recent years and is what is popular in research at the moment.

True, his theories are being re-evaluated by psychoanalysts using modern technology. However, I'm not convinced it has the depth of work needed to bring his theories out of historical antiquity.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

So it's not true that America is the only reason the Allies won World War II, but they were a large help.

Don't forget the stuff we gave to Russia:

Aircraft 14,795
Tanks 7,056
Jeeps 51,503
Trucks 375,883
Motorcycles 35,170
Tractors 8,071
Guns 8,218
Machine guns 131,633
Explosives 345,735 tons
Building equipment valued $ 10,910,000
Railroad freight cars 11,155
Locomotives 1,981
Cargo ships 90
Submarine hunters 105
Torpedo boats 197
Ship engines 7,784
Food supplies 4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment $ 1,078,965,000
Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons
Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons
Chemicals 842,000 tons
Cotton 106,893,000 tons
Leather 49,860 tons
Tires 3,786,000
Army boots 15,417,001 pairs

Sure it only amounts to about 4% of the stuff Russia actually built for themselves. But 4% in a war is a huge fucking deal. Not as much a deal as their 96% manufacturing. But a good help nonetheless Also it was like a good 25% of their air-force was planes gifted by us.

 

[Dalisclock]

For a better idea, look at how most aliens are portrayed in such franchises as Star Trek and Star Wars. They're human, because if there is other life, right now we cannot comprehend what it's like and we only have ourselves to use as a template.

Well, that and it's a lot easier on the makeup/special effects budget.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

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.

The enigma machine "history" is barking. There was an awful US film, of which I forget the name, that had the Yanks securing the device. In fact it was a Polish/English team that secured the device. In addition, a bit of "our own history" that is suspect here, the English didn't actually crack the code first, the Poles did, then the English cracked increasing levels of sophistication. Turing, the legend, formalised algorithms. He then killed himself due to being a depressive and gay, the abuse he would have received got for stating the latter triggered the former. Turing *worship* Poland *worship*. If you want to get revisionist about history and hate your past then England's abandonment of Poland to Stalin is pretty much unforgivable.

Don't remind me of the crap that Alan Turing went through. He got a bullshit deal, and did not deserve his fate.

But where are you getting me being a revisionist about history and hating my past? I never even stated which country I was siding with. If I'm British, I'm acknowledging that we did a great job holding Germany back from conquering Europe. If I'm American, I'm acknowledging we played the major part in the Pacific theater. As well, if I have misstated some information, please tell me how it actually happened. I'm always open to learning more.

 

[Da Orky Man]

There was no such thing as a Vengeance missile. What i presume you mean is the Vergeltungswaffe 2 rocket, translated as 'retaliatory weapon 2', better known as the V-2.

Now, according to Wikipeida, 12,000 labourers were killed making the V2s, 5200 were completed and, in total, killed 7,250 Brits.

Yeah, they weren't much of a threat.

Is that what they were called? Never knew that. Are they called Vengeance missiles for slang or something then? I have definitely heard the term being thrown around a lot, even by some of my history professors.

Regardless, Britain was pretty much on it's heels by the this point in the war. Considering that our largest advantage was the Channel separating us from the mainland and a frickin' huge Navy to protect it, I'm hesitant to dismiss a weapon that can entirely bypass that.

Another weapon that could bypass the Channel was the bomber aircraft, with which the Germans did a fair bit of damage. However, the RAF managed to fend off the Luftwaffe quite effectively, eliminating much of the threat from the air.