The Terrible History Thread

bad history does not necessarily make bad acumen . Take something ı saw last night . Lots of talk on the disturbances of Tunceli in mid 1930s and a 103 years old veteran was on TV . The odd thing being the footage accompanying . We have all seen pictures of men in chains , women and children under custody of soldiers with fixed bayonets , all real period and official to boot . The images last night were though about Cyprus 1963-74 . One image ı have grown with , the wife of a Turkish military doctor and her 3 children killed and placed in the bathtub , in their own blood , by the Greek Cypriots , and they were all found in the end , and military operations on the island . Do not call them TV programmers idiots , they are good in their straight behind the Iron Curtain propagandizing . Simply belittling 1974 , the only thing the Military has ever accomplished according to people of today - who are bending to the wind like the grass . Murderers of 1937 could not possibly have done anything good in 1974 . No problem , since America is being held responsible for everything done . Or undone . It will be awesome fun for the world to see Turkish jeeps and M-47 Pattons in action when George Patton was still in the US Cavalry .

in due reverance to US and its grand plans -which involve dissolution of this country and any traditions that suit grand plans not , the goverment generals did not make an appearence in celebrations of April 23 and yet they were fully around in the receptions where headscarved ladies were around . Considering the things said and done about the "great" danger of headscarves for Democracy , Secular Republic and this country , one can only say O America you are so mighty . Turkish generals are so scared of Turkish tanks , because you know they can be only used for undemocratic actions . We have now millions of Yeltsins who will jump on the tanks to give soul inspiring speeches .


bad history serves other designs , for a surprisingly high percentage . The rest ? The work of idiots ...

considering my future prospects involve naming things and 1701 is a given and everybody knows my idea about the 1702 , my piece on Gavin Menzies and the Chinese reach in the early 15th Century could have been interesting , if ı wasn't so engrossed in the Tolkien translation of an history book , as he is reported to have described the Lord of the Rings . ı made to page 350 or so ...
 
#5: Could be from looters or from other contamination (more likely given the absence of other evidence of contact)
Actually, there are no traces of cocaine or tobacco in Egyptian mummies. What was actually found were chemical indicators of nicotine, tobacco and coca, all of which can also be produced by the breakdown of some of the materials used in mummy wrappings, particularly papyrus. I've come across this same myth before, along with the explanation. Don't have a source, unfortunately, but then again, neither did this absolute hack-job of an article.

They had some article that was like "top 5 myths about Christmas" and every single one of them was very, very wrong. Cracked is a comedy website, taking it seriously about anything is a bad idea.
Didn't read that one. I don't take Cracked seriously, at least not without researching their conclusions first. I was very surprised at exactly how bad this was, since Cracked is usually reasonably good at this sort of thing.
 
An example: They say Alexander the Great is a Serb, which is so stupid and ignorant I wont even explain why.

Bah! Everyone know that Alleksandeuroseu Taewang was a Korean! :p
 
Lone Wolf said:
or this "book of Greek lies" from Slavic Macedonia (Macedonia rules, Greece sucks and has almost no real history)

Well, I guess we can find a consensus in this argument - both of them suck and have almost no real history. But to be honest, Macedonian nationalist BS must be famous only in Macedonia and in Greece, since so far I have encountered a lot more of Greek nationalist BS in the internet.

For example how Greeks consider Byzantine Empire as a 100% Greek state (while in fact it maybe was populated mainly by Greek-speeking people, but it was not founded by Greeks at all - it emerged from the Roman Empire). Or BS about Greco-Persian wars, or BS about Greece in WW2.

Another example is how Greeks still claim that at Thermopylae there were like hundreds of thousands of Persians (or even millions - as Herodotus claimed). While recently I have read an article about Achaemenid Persian Military, written by some Iranian professor. He wrote that the Persian army at Thermopylae numbered probably 70,000 infantry and 9,000 cavalry. He arrived at this figure (or quoted it from other historians, who arrived at it) basing on "careful examination of topography, logistics, organization of the spada, and official battle orders".

And there is still that myth that the last stand at Thermopylae (after the withdrawal of main Greek forces) was made by 300 Spartans. What about 700 Thespian and 400 Theban hoplites (+ maybe some light troops) and Spartan helots, who most likely stayed with their hoplites (and who allegedly numbered only 900 - but later at Plataea each Spartan hoplite had as many as 7 helots - which would account for 2100 helots at Thermopylae, if we accept the same, 7:1, ratio).

And yet another myth connected with this battle - the alleged moral superiority of the "Western" warriors over the "Eastern" ones (for me both Greece and Persia are "Eastern" - especially considering that the guy who wrote this BS probably lives in Britain or in the USA):

Thermopylae is famous because of the heroism of the doomed rearguard, who, facing certain death, remained at the pass.[107] Ever since, the events of Thermopylae have been the source of effusive praise from many sources; e.g. "...the fairest sister-victories which the Sun has ever seen, yet they would never dare to compare their combined glory with the glorious defeat of King Leonidas and his men."[117] A second reason is the example it set of free men, fighting for their country and their freedom:

"So almost immediately, contemporary Greeks saw Thermopylae as a critical moral and culture lesson. In universal terms, a small, free people had willingly outfought huge numbers of imperial subjects who advanced under the lash. More specifically, the Western idea that soldiers themselves decide where, how, and against whom they will fight was contrasted against the Eastern notion of despotism and monarchy — freedom proving the stronger idea as the more courageous fighting of the Greeks at Thermopylae, and their later victories at Salamis and Plataea attested."[118]

[118] http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson101106.html

Whilst this paradigm of "free men" outfighting "slaves" can be seen as a rather sweeping over-generalization (there are plenty of counter-examples), it is nevertheless true that many commentators have used Thermopylae to illustrate this point.[59]

While let's quote Herodotus:

"The Persians many times seized hold of the Greek spears and broke them; for in boldness and warlike spirit the Persians were not a whit inferior to the Greeks" - Herodotus, "The Histories", 9.62

In the same fragment (9.62) he mentions the Greek superiority in arms and armour - which was the real reason of Persian initial failures.

Persian armies were based on light infantry and light cavalry, while Greek armies were based on heavy infantry.

Regarding the "free people" versus "slaves" ideological agitation - in fact majority of the Persian army consisted of those ethnic groups, who were the most privileged, the most patriotic, and by no means they were slaves or members subjugated nations. The latter usually were obliged to pay tribute to Persepolis or provide weapons, horses and other military goods, instead of mobilizing soldiers for military campaigns.

All these myths surrounding Thermopylae, is a perfect example how people who do not understand how military things work (in this case they do not understand why Persian army was inferior to phalanx formation in face-to-face combat) exploit military things for ideological and political purposes.

============================================================

And here a fragment of a post from this forum, which also fits to this thread:

About Norwegian mountain troops:

They were often on Skis, but they also climbed mountains, etc.
In WW2 is when they saw heavy combat. I was at the site of a famous battle way out on the south west coast (inbetween Stavanger and Kristiansand). There was a plaque on this rock commorating a Norwegian mount unit that learned of a Nazi landing there and went on foot all the way from Oslo (over a 5 hour drive). When they got there there was an entire SS division (with all the fancy toys those boys always got). Out numbered 6 or 7 to 1, they fought the Nazi's to a standstill inflicting very heavy casualties eventually forcing the larger better equipped SS unit to withdraw. And they only 1 Norwegian mount trouper was killed in that fight. Then (still on foot) they returned quickly to Oslo to provide a rear-guard action to allow the King and the government to escape, because Norway had by this time been betrayed by Sweden and a large land invasion by Germans crossing from sweden was taking place. The unit did not survive this second engagement, but the King and the parliment did escape and Norway continued the longest resistance of the war (before Russia).

This post is 99% BS - just to mention that there was not any SS division involved in the Norwegian campaign, for a good start.
 
For example how Greeks consider Byzantine Empire as a 100% Greek state (while in fact it maybe was populated mainly by Greek-speeking people, but it was not founded by Greeks at all - it emerged from the Roman Empire).
While I agree that the Greeks produce nearly as much nationalistic crap about their history as the Poles do, this isn't really a fair criticism because it's founded on false pretenses. "Roman" and "Greek" are not contradictory categories.
 
While I agree that the Greeks produce nearly as much nationalistic crap about their history as the Poles do

Oh, but we (both Greeks and Poles) still can't even compete with the Americans on this field. ;)

At least the net worth of nationalistic crap produced by Americans is much bigger - each single crappy nationalistic movie produced by Hollywood both earned & cost more than all crappy nationalistic movies ever produced by Polish film industry. :)

"Roman" and "Greek" are not contradictory categories.

I know what you mean - that eventually all Greek subjects of the Empire received Roman citizenship. Precisely it was in 213 AD, IIRC.

Except of Greek slaves, of course. All free people in the Empire received Roman citizenship in that year.

But in such case I can say, that "Celts" and "Romans" are also not contradictory categories. Celts also got Roman citizenship in 213 AD.

And free people of all other nations living in the Empire.

===============================

Anyway - still "modern Greeks" and "ancient Greeks" ARE contradictory categories.

Which is the thing that Greek nationalists do not understand.
 
But "modern Greeks" and "ancient Greeks" are contradictory categories.
No, they're not. They don't have perfect overlap, but you can't say that there's zero continuity whatsoever between ancient Greeks and modern Greeks.
 
No, they're not. They don't have perfect overlap, but you can't say that there's zero continuity whatsoever between ancient Greeks and modern Greeks.

But in such case there is also some level of continuity between ancient Macedonians and modern Macedonians. They inherited some of genes of ancient Macedonians. Since Slavic people who migrated to what is now Macedonia, certainly interbreeded with local population.

And thus modern Greek "verbal aggression" against Macedonians who claim that they are descendants of Alexander, is wrong.

BTW - you didn't bother to reply to my point, that if "Greeks" and "Romans" in the Roman Empire were not contradictory, then also "Celts" (or any other nationality living in the Roman Empire) and "Romans" were not contradictory - since all free people lin the Roman Empire were granted citizenship in 213 AD.

And thus for example modern Romanians have got as much right to claim that the Byzantine Empire was a Romanian state (and remember - "Romanian" is not contradictory with "Roman", because of 213 AD and Roman citizenship edict) as modern Greeks. :)

=======================

To clarify - as you surely know, modern Romanians originate from one of ethnic groups which inhabited the Roman Empire, regardless of which of the two theories we accept (one says they came to area of modern Romania from southern Balkans - which were part of the Roman Empire, and later of Byzantine Empire -, another one says that they lived where they live since the Roman times - so roughly in the area of what was called Dacia back then).
 
But in such case there is also some level of continuity between ancient Macedonians and modern Macedonians.

They inherited some of genes of ancient Macedonians. Since Slavic people who migrated to what is now Macedonia, certainly interbreeded with local population.
Possibly. So they have just as much claim to the name "Macedonia" as do inhabitants of the Hindu Kush or the Egyptian chora. Which is kind of the Greek government's point, isn't it? At least modern Greeks speak a language that is recognizably related to ancient Greek, and at least they live in a place that has gone by the name "Greece" for pretty much all of recorded history.

Having said that, I think that both the Greeks and the Maks are being complete idiots about the whole FYROM thing - the Maks are inventing history, but at least they're (mostly) harmlessly trolling, whereas the Greeks are just being dicks. I guess it goes with the territory for those archaic ethnic-nationalist Old World countries.
 
At least with Greece and Macedonia they settle for just being dicks to each other. Better than the alternatives applied a little further north. Then again, considering how annoying Greek and Macedonian nationalists are, maybe not.
 
Possibly. So they have just as much claim to the name "Macedonia" as do inhabitants of the Hindu Kush or the Egyptian chora. Which is kind of the Greek government's point, isn't it?

And so we come to a final conclusion, that we are all successors of the Mongol Empire. Since - as you probably know - Genghis Khan had so many children (mainly from rapes) that today 1/10 (or something like this - I don't remember exactly, but a considerable %) people on this planet have some of his genes.

Well - we can at least say with 100% certainty, that more of modern Greeks descend from Genghis Khan than from Alexander the Great. :)

At least with Greece and Macedonia they settle for just being dicks to each other. Better than the alternatives applied a little further north

Why? Because of your innate believe that everything which is more to the north is worse? :)

At least modern Greeks speak a language that is recognizably related to ancient Greek

Well, probably it is more similar to ancient Greek than modern Lithuanian is to early medieval Lithuanian.

and at least they live in a place that has gone by the name "Greece" for pretty much all of recorded history.

Unless it was called differently by non-Greeks.

I guess it goes with the territory for those archaic ethnic-nationalist Old World countries.

Ah, now I remember. You called yourself a "civic-nationalist" or something like this.
 
And so we come to a final conclusion, that we are all successors of the Mongol Empire. Since - as you probably know - Genghis Khan had so many children (mainly from rapes) that today 1/10 (or something like this - I don't remember exactly, but a considerable %) people on this planet have some of his genes.

Well - we can at least say with 100% certainty, that more Greeks descent from Genghis Khan than from Alexander the Great. :)
Yeah, a dude with no grandkids isn't going to have any great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandkids either. :p

I was never particularly happy with that Činggis explanation. As far as I know, it's an urban legend that grew up because a large proportion of East Asian people have similar genetic information at some point; from there, it's the standard Cracked.com patented "hop, skip, and about five thousand jumps" to get to Činggis being the cause of all that.
 
Well - we can at least say with 100% certainty, that more Greeks descent from Genghis Khan than from Alexander the Great.
Yeah, a dude with no grandkids isn't going to have any great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandkids either.

That was my point. But you didn't have to reveal the secret to everyone, at least not immediately. :(

Anybody who really cares about with which modern ethnic construct Alexander the Great can best be identified probably sucks at history.

I know, I know the answer with which modern construct Alexander can best be identified! With gays!
 
BTW - you didn't bother to reply to my point, that if "Greeks" and "Romans" in the Roman Empire were not contradictory, then also "Celts" (or any other nationality living in the Roman Empire) and "Romans" were not contradictory - since all free people lin the Roman Empire were granted citizenship in 213 AD.
Exactly. A Celtic Roman was both. A Greek Roman was both. Roman wasn't an ethnicity.
Just like today you will find Japanese-Americans, etc who are Japanese (ethnically) and American citizens. Or how a Catalan living in Spain is also Spanish and an Englishman is also British.
 
We've listed a lot of sensationalist, nationalistic and liberal-right distortions. It's unfair to leftists (term used broadly here) not to list their distortions also. Anyone care to present a leftist distortion?

Meanwhile, talking about nationalistic distortions, I can say that this Russian old-style nationalistic book sounds precious. Unfortunately, there's no text on the Web, but we can enjoy the description:

• Was Ivan the Terrible Really a “Mad Butcher?”
• Wasn't Emperor Paul a “monster?”
• Was Tsarist rule completely “unlimited?”
• Was the peasantry under serfdom oppressed?
• Who financed the Bolsheviks?
• Did the Tsars really represent the Russian people?
• Where did Russian Liberalism actually come from?
Just in time for the 300th anniversary of Petrograd, a new book on pre-Bolshevik Russian history has been published in English. It is a defense of royalism from Kievan Rus' until the abdication of Tsar Martyr Nicholas II at the end of World War I. For English speaking readers, it is the only published account of Tsarist Russia that succeeds in demolishing the arguments of the kept Anglo-American historians on the “evils” and “tyranny” of the Tsarist government. This work is a concise defense of Tsarism and the notion of Orthodox Russia. Just after the “History Channel's” hatchet job on the Romanovs recently ran on American television, referring to the Tsars as “butchers” and “tyrants,” this new book could not be more useful.
 
Roman wasn't an ethnicity.

So German wasn't an ethnicity in the Middle Ages as well?

Was the peasantry under serfdom oppressed?

Depends where and when.

I've read that in the Russian (Muscovite) version of serfdom the status of a serf was more similar to that of a slave than in the rest of Europe.

But this refers to post-Mongol subjugation times.

However, in general, the life of serfs was certainly not as bad as according to modern "urban myths".

But they were poorer than free peasants, of course.
 
So German wasn't an ethnicity in the Middle Ages as well?
Deutschtum in the Middle Ages wasn't a civic nationality as modern American and Chinese or classical Roman are/were, but it's certainly reasonable to describe "German" as a layer of identity that can coexist with other layers of identity of varying importance during the Middle Ages.
 
The best treatment of ethnicity issues of Late Byzantium I've been able to find is Gill Page, "Being Byzantine: Greek identity before the Ottomans" (NOT a "terrible history" example!). It uses the texts of Byzantine historians from Choniates onwards and also utilizes a local chronicle of Morea to arrive at the conclusion that the Byzantines sometimes did use the word "Roman" to indicate the ethnicity of Orthodox Greek-speakers, and that there was a purely ethnic sense to this word (for example, it was permissible to speak about "Romans" who were in the armies of the Principality of Achaea, served the princes from French Villehardoiun dynasty, and fought against Nikaia). On the other hand, there was a political layer to that identity - for example, Byzantine historians of the post-1204 period make a conscious attempt to avoid using the word "Roman" for the inhabitants of the "Despotate" of Epeiros, despite them largely satisfying the "ethnic Roman" requirements. Also, the word "Romans" could be used in place of "Byzantine State" - so we had "Romans" signing treaties, waging war, etc.

The word "Hellene" was sometimes used to indicate Byzantines (Choniates uses it in his account of the Fourth Crusade, making an explicit connection between the Ancient and Modern (to him) Hellenes). Its use, however, was relatively rare. "Graikos" by that point (post-1204) was perceived as a Latin insult.
 
Top Bottom