Historical Myths II

[bombshoo]

One that always irritates me -

Myth: The Mayans were one big happy empire, just like the Romans or Persians or Chinese or something; i.e., there was a "Mayan Empire".


I've even heard professional historians and history professors call the Mayans an "Empire" (although usually such academics specialize in non-MesoAmerican history...), although to my understanding the Mayans were just a bunch of city-states and although some of these city-states exerted considerable influence and domination at times, they never were able to actually unite all the Mayans under one "Empire".

I acutally see Greece (Pre-Macedonian) referred to the same way pretty often. I think a lot of people assume if an older civilization was "great" it must have been an empire.

 

[Morningcalm]

Historical myth: The Keshik was a major military unit of the Mongolian army, and the best trained archers (as presented in Civ 5's civilopedia, for example). In actuality, the Keshik or "keshig" was the Khan's personal bodyguard, made up mostly of loyal people who had sworn to follow the Khan personally, and did not go into battle with other troops. They were not the lightly armored cavalry archers, which were the real mainstay of the Mongolian army, though they are represented in this way in the Civ games. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kheshig

 

[Leoreth]

On the matter of Civ UU's, many people believe the Praetorian Guard to have been an elite unit on the battlefield as well.

Another myth (I don't know if we had it in the old thread already): The Battle of Lepanto was decisive for the control of the Mediterranean. Many who emphasize this point want to imply that either the Ottomans were close to controlling the entire sea before the battle or the Ottoman navy was completely destroyed for some decades.

The Spanish must have been very surprised when they lost Tunis to them only three years later

 

[LightSpectra]

Lepanto, though, did have very positive effects on the Portuguese spice trade, which was then part of the Spanish dominions. So it's not as if the Ottoman maritime power was permanently crippled, but it was decently hampered.

 

[W|M]

There's also the myth that Urban Cohorts fought regularly on the battlefield, and that the Egyptians always used a lot of Chariots in their armies before the Romans conquered them.

 

[Leoreth]

Lepanto, though, did have very positive effects on the Portuguese spice trade, which was then part of the Spanish dominions. So it's not as if the Ottoman maritime power was permanently crippled, but it was decently hampered.

Yeah, but it's regularly styled as if the naval fate of the Occident, or at least its part at the Mediterranean, somehow depended on it. Considering how the siege of Vienna is treated, the Ottomans seem to be a regular victim of this.

There's also the myth that Urban Cohorts fought regularly on the battlefield, and that the Egyptians always used a lot of Chariots in their armies before the Romans conquered them.

Did they still use some before the Persians conquered them, though?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Probably not. Chariot Warfare had been dead for centuries. The Neo-Assyrian Empire relied on mounted archers and found them to be far more effective and for lower cost. Occasionally, you'll see things like the scythed chariots used against Alexander, but I'm willing to bet that's more the exception that the rule (even then, I tend to suspect those were played up for dramatic effect, but I haven't read the sources, so I don't know).

 

[cybrxkhan]

Concerning what I remember, chariots were still used up to and including the Classical era, but only in very limited forms - either as the Scythed chariots (as Louis XXIV mentioned), as a ceremonial thing (i.e. leader goes around in chariot to look cool), or in a few cultures that still kept them for whatever reason. I think the Chinese were still using them during the Qin and early Han dynasties, but I could be wrong.

 

[GamezRule]

Myth: Jesus fit the Biblical description of the Messiah.

 

[Ajidica]

Myth: Jesus fit the Biblical description of the Messiah.

But he did fit the description! Just look at what everyone wrote about him afterwards proving him as the messiah!

 

[GamezRule]

If you believe in the virgin birth, you have already disproven it. The Messiah must be a paternal descendant of King David!

 

[Lord Baal]

I acutally see Greece (Pre-Macedonian) referred to the same way pretty often. I think a lot of people assume if an older civilization was "great" it must have been an empire.

The Aztecs get this treatment even more oftn than the Greeks and the Mayans, in my experience.

 

[Plotinus]

There is hardly any biblical description of the Messiah for Jesus to fit. The Messiah is hardly mentioned in the OT. The myth is that the Jews were all waiting for a Messiah, who had been prophecied in the. OT. In fact messianic speculation was a fairly marginal element of Judaism in Jesus' day (and has remained so ever since).

 

[LightSpectra]

Myth: Jesus fit the Biblical description of the Messiah.

Indeed.

If you believe in the virgin birth, you have already disproven it. The Messiah must be a paternal descendant of King David!

Both Mary and Joseph were descendents of David; so Jesus is a genetic descendent through Mary, and His adoption to Joseph accounts for the paternal line.

But he did fit the description! Just look at what everyone wrote about him afterwards proving him as the messiah!

Would you have preferred if they proclaimed Him to be the Messiah before He was conceived?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

There are a few myths about the French Revolution that annoy me.

First, that July 14 celebrates the storming of the Bastille. It is actually the celebration of the Fete de la Federation, which was a big feast that celebrated the establishment of Constitutional Monarchy in France, and was held on the one-year anniversary of the storming of said fortress-prison.

Second, relating to the first. There is a popular conception that leads to all French Revolutionaries being regarded as Montaignard Jacobins. There were, in fact, many political parties and clubs that rose and fell over the course of those revolutionary years, and the Jacobins only really led for a relatively short amount of time. The Montagnards, as parts of other groups, for a bit longer.

Third, relating to the second. The Revolution was a great rising up of all people who lacked seigniorial status, demanding the head of the king and queen and the establishment of a liberal republic. In fact, much of the progression of the early revolution was very ad hoc, and the Third Estate General Assembly was far more interested in things like fixing the broken tax and financial systems, writing a constitution, and eventually creating a Constitutional Monarchy, though they dragged their feet on a lot of that quite a bit. It was only after the King proved himself willing to sabotage their plans, and the rise of problems such as the Vendee revolt and the September massacres, that led to popular support for the Jacobin Club and the rise of the republic.

 

[civ_king]

Myth: The price of bread in the French Revolution went up because the king was a douche.
Fact:The 1783 volcanic eruption caused crop failure and the crop failures in 1788-89 because of aftereffects of the volcano probably doubled bread price

Myth: Marie Antoinette was a spendthrift whore who didn't given one centime about the French peoples.

Um...

 

[cybrxkhan]

Third, relating to the second. The Revolution was a great rising up of all people who lacked seigniorial status, demanding the head of the king and queen and the establishment of a liberal republic. In fact, much of the progression of the early revolution was very ad hoc, and the Third Estate General Assembly was far more interested in things like fixing the broken tax and financial systems, writing a constitution, and eventually creating a Constitutional Monarchy, though they dragged their feet on a lot of that quite a bit. It was only after the King proved himself willing to sabotage their plans, and the rise of problems such as the Vendee revolt and the September massacres, that led to popular support for the Jacobin Club and the rise of the republic.

When I learned about the fact that them French were thinking of making a Constitutional Monarchy first, I was very surprised. Then again, considering the fact that even a few of the American Founding Fathers themselves were considering a monarchy, it's not really surprising.

Also, from what I remember, most of the leaders of the revolutionaries were the educated and wealthy upper-middle and lower-upper class anyways, constituting a very, very small percentage of the "common" population.

 

[Ajidica]

Myth: The price of bread in the French Revolution went up because the king was a douche.
Fact:The 1783 volcanic eruption caused crop failure and the crop failures in 1788-89 because of aftereffects of the volcano probably doubled bread price

Louis XVI was also an idiot. His fun with Mapeau Parliaments and general incompetance annoyed just about everyone. He wasn't mean-spirited, just incompetant. That said, even a strong king like Louis XIV would have been hard-pressed not to find himself holding his head had he been in the situation of Louis XVI.

 

[Dachs]

Concerning what I remember, chariots were still used up to and including the Classical era, but only in very limited forms - either as the Scythed chariots (as Louis XXIV mentioned), as a ceremonial thing (i.e. leader goes around in chariot to look cool), or in a few cultures that still kept them for whatever reason. I think the Chinese were still using them during the Qin and early Han dynasties, but I could be wrong.

Chariots were still useful as stable missile platforms and for shock value against poorly formed infantry. Plenty of Hellenistic monarchs used them to varying effect; the fact that Roman and Greek historians considered "figuring out a way to neutralize chariots" to be a particularly noteworthy part of a given general's resume (like Sulla's, for instance) speaks to their continued perceived usefulness, even in a niche role.

 

[sophie]

Myth: The price of bread in the French Revolution went up because the king was a douche.

As with many of your myths; not really very popularly held, or at least not in my experience.