Is history totally fake?

Oh yes - but then I stand by the claim that most French or German people know about as much about Charlemagne, Franks et al as most British people do about Alfred the Great and Vikings.

Flying Pig said:

Oh yes - but then I stand by the claim that most French or German people know about as much about Charlemagne, Franks et al as most British people do about Alfred the Great and Vikings.

Click to expand...

Are you sure one is reliably connected to the other? I mean we essentially have Ms. Palin on the record as deeming early US/colonial history to be the most the significant thing that ever happened to mankind while knowing nothing about it.
And she sure isn't alone with that sort of sentiment, not in the US and not in most other places either.

My point was that the period previously known as the 'dark ages' is pretty much unknown to most people, even though the scholarly terminology has changed. In other words, whether continental scholars have been quicker to embrace the idea that 'dark' is an atrocious way to categorise several centuries is largely unimportant to the actual public's understanding of said centuries.

metatron said:

Are you sure one is reliably connected to the other? I mean we essentially have Ms. Palin on the record as deeming early US/colonial history to be the most the significant thing that ever happened to mankind while knowing nothing about it.
And she sure isn't alone with that sort of sentiment, not in the US and not in most other places either.

Click to expand...

That's just basic nationalism, is it not? Assume your nation's history is by far the most important there is, whilst simultaneously knowing nothing but the absolute basics of that history, and even less of any other nation's history. Also, if you don't love it, leave it.

I doubt this has any connection to the so-called Dark Ages, nor to scholarship in the slightest. It's just typical poor history education, which is the norm in at least the Western World.

Flying Pig said:

My point was that the period previously known as the 'dark ages' is pretty much unknown to most people, even though the scholarly terminology has changed. In other words, whether continental scholars have been quicker to embrace the idea that 'dark' is an atrocious way to categorise several centuries is largely unimportant to the actual public's understanding of said centuries.

Click to expand...

James Stuart said:

That's just basic nationalism, is it not? Assume your nation's history is by far the most important there is, whilst simultaneously knowing nothing but the absolute basics of that history, and even less of any other nation's history. Also, if you don't love it, leave it.

I doubt this has any connection to the so-called Dark Ages, nor to scholarship in the slightest. It's just typical poor history education, which is the norm in at least the Western World.

Click to expand...

Yeah... uhm... this isn't about scholarly opinion.

People in the UK seem (or seemed) to be very familiar with this concept of the "dark ages", many seem to actively believe into this. Presumably this is a result of the "poor history education".
People here largely don't and didn't. Presumably this is a result of the "poor history education".
Now, if you absolutely insist on looking into scholarly opinion (which is irrelevant to the argument i originally made) you may start with the fact that history teachers and their biases don't fall from the sky but come from a place where scholars tought them how to be history teachers.

metatron said:

Yeah... uhm... this isn't about scholarly opinion.

People in the UK seem (or seemed) to be very familiar with this concept of the "dark ages", many seem to actively believe into this. Presumably this is a result of the "poor history education".
People here largely don't and didn't. Presumably this is a result of the "poor history education".
Now, if you absolutely insist on looking into scholarly opinion (which is irrelevant to the argument i originally made) you may start with the fact that history teachers and their biases don't fall from the sky but come from a place where scholars tought them how to be history teachers.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Granted, that might be because I've butted into a conversation between you and Flying Pig.

But in my experience, Americans seem to be the only people these days who care much for the concept of the 'Dark Ages.' I see it mentioned on American television from time-to-time (notably *Stargate SG-1*, which mentioned them more than once). Obviously history teachers are continuing to teach bad history because they themselves were taught bad history; in my experience, at least in this country, that has more to do with a poor curriculum than any fault of the teachers themselves. And that curriculum is designed by politicians or ideologues, not educators. That's why the education system is poor.

Also, my point was that the point you made, about Palin, was more a product of nationalism than anything else. The bit about the 'Dark Ages' was essentially a sidebar.

The American education system is moving away from the concept of the "dark" ages. Teachers now explain that these times were only bad times for Europe and while they might exaggerate the bleakness of those times, it is still an improvement. I prefer the more neutral term the middle ages.

Is all written history an unbiased and reliable source of information and reference? Absolutely not.

daft said:

Is all written history an unbiased and reliable source of information and reference? Absolutely not.

Click to expand...

Is any?

Is any?

Click to expand...

Exactly what I suggested about you in another thread.

You are one of these people who think that most of history is vague and blurred, and that we shouldn't even try to find out how things really were.

Terrible attitude, but with such attitude you can say anything and claim that it's right.

People in the UK seem (or seemed) to be very familiar with this concept of the "dark ages", many seem to actively believe into this

Click to expand...

Today Dark Ages are called Dark Ages mostly because there are few written sources from that period. Much of knowledge about that period is from archaeological finds, but written sources from that time are in scarcity. If you are implying some other explanation why this period is called Dark Ages (for example because people were so oppressed, or so stupid, and everything was so miserable, etc.) then you are wrong. This is not the case today.

Another period called Dark Ages was in Ancient Greek history. It was called dark for the same reason - scarcity of written accounts from that period.

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

But as a matter of fact there was a decline of material wealth in many places during that period. For example from early Anglo-Saxon England there are just 3 or maybe 4 (IIRC) helmets. From Wales, Scotland and Ireland - zero. This compared to a large number of helmets excavated from archaeological sites of Roman and Celtic Britain. You look at the Sutton Hoo helmet and you think it's impressive, but check how many of similar helmets were found in entire Britain. A few. This decline is confirmed by written sources - e.g. Welsh chronicles mention Welsh warriors using very old, rusted post-Roman helmets.

Of course in some parts of Europe Roman culture survived, and was eventually adopted by new barbarian kingdoms.

Surprisingly, I never heard 'Holy Roman Empire' pass once at history lessons during High School.

Click to expand...

Maybe because for most of its history - when it was a patchwork of many independent small realms - it was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.

Only at the beginning of its existence the HRE could be called a centralized empire.

But let's remember that the HRE itself emerged from the fragmentation of the Frankish Realm. It was another stage in the process of fragmentation.

Owen Glyndwr said:

ITT: Mouthwash struggles with the revelation that history is not objective.

Also some Assassin's Creed-level conspiracy theory bull[feces]

Click to expand...

The difference, of course, is Assassin's Creed never claimed they were telling the truth, unlike this guy. "this work of fiction was produced by a multicultural team of various faiths" or whatever is at the beginning of every AC game.

This guy somehow thinks he's the real deal though, that's what sad. I would be much more forgiving of his beliefs if he could produce an awesome video game, book or movie out of it. But sadly "all history is fake" doesn't make much of a premise.

caketastydelish said:

The difference, of course, is Assassin's Creed never claimed they were telling the truth, unlike this guy. "this work of fiction was produced by a multicultural team of various faiths" or whatever is at the beginning of every AC game.

This guy somehow thinks he's the real deal though, that's what sad. I would be much more forgiving of his beliefs if he could produce an awesome video game, book or movie out of it. But sadly "all history is fake" doesn't make much of a premise.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's rather the joke.

The point is that me and you (and most of the rest of the world) are laughing, but the guy with this theory genuinely thinks it's the real deal.

This thread reminded me of this article: Did a Pope and an Emperor Team Up to Erase 300 Years of History?

I would assume the answer is "no."

Pope Sylvester II and Holy Roman Emperor Otto III were two powerful men and two ambitious friends. Just how ambitious? There is a (very controversial) theory that between them, they forcibly ushered in a new millennium... 300 years early.

...

The point is, both of these men knew how to self-mythologize, which is why Heribert Illig, a German systems analyst, believes that the two changed the date in order to make their ascent to power even more symbolic. It's possible that the two came to power at the middle, or end, of the seventh century AD, and simply rewrote the dates to make it look like they were on the brink of a new millennium.

Illig has a few interesting pieces of evidence to support him. There are allegations of widespread document fraud in several manuscripts written at the time, which seem to date from the seventh century. Byzantine documents from this era were transcribed from one kind of script to a new, more efficient script, and the originals were thrown away. Perhaps they were thrown away to conceal gaps and inconsistencies in the historical record.

...

And then there's Charlemagne. Tall, strong, handsome, powerful, good, and the first Holy Roman Emperor. He was almost a King Arthur figure, a figure that was just secular enough to tie people together without displacing the religious authority of the pope. Of course he had some flaws. He was unable to learn to read, although he always wanted to. If only some learned Holy Roman Emperor could take up his mantle and improve on his reign, particularly if that man was crowned, like Charlemagne, on Christmas day.

Click to expand...

While this seems like complete nonsense, can someone with more knowledge tell me how easy it is to debunk it. The most obvious thing would be the complete lack of reason for the Byzantines to be a part of this conspiracy (which seems necessary unless Byzantine records are a lot more spotty than I imagine they would be). But what about Arabic sources, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, etc. It seems a 300 year gap would be noticeable in one of these sources. Thoughts?

ETA: The comments alone are enough to debunk it. I think we all agree this idea is nonsense (same with the idea in the op). However, it is an interesting thought experiment on how tenuous our connections to the past are. If someone deliberately changed something, you have to be on guard to catch it because our usual ways to understand history are through these sources.

According to Mouthwash's Wikipedia link Gary Kasparov worshiped this guy and helped make him more famous than he deserved to be. I honestly don't understand how anyone can be so smart yet so stupid at the same time.

It usually takes someone really smart to believe something really stupid. Convincing yourself of something so stupid takes a lot of cleverness.