Here we go again.
Misconceptions We Learn in School.
- Thread starter Fr8monkey
- Start date
How big do you think a gladius is? The 3.5 pound ones were 32 inches! Besides longswords were narrower than gladiithat seems hard to believe. but apparently the Roman gladius was about 3.5 lbs.. no self-respecting broadsword, maybe a rapier ?
define broadsword,
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I readily admit that I have no conception for weight in my hands at all. But when I thought about it, I figured that the rather large sword I have on my mantelpiece can't weigh nearly as much as a box of fries at work (which are 36 lbs), but then I had this revelation at 1 AM in bed, so it wasn't of much use to me.
Communisto
Condottiere
haha, I got a mental picture of you in bed and suddenly your eyes pop open and you're like "but of course!"
Godwynn
March to the Sea
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 20,524
You are missing a zero.
On the other hand, I believe that a sword that is ~2m long would be much more difficult to wave around even when its "only" 5-7 kgs, than a simple lifting-weight at 10 kgs...
Fr8monkey
Deity
That's why long blades are usually 2 handed... not because of the weight but that they are unwieldy.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
While we're on the topic The dimensions of William Wallace's sword:
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Yes it is, because the end of the Roman Empire induced the end of slavery and several technological advancements that were necessary to cope with a lack of a central authority.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
American Civil War edition!
1) Myth: The Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves.
Fact: Students are told that given that the Proclamation specifically excepted the border states and the Confederate States were under no obligation to listen to the president of the United States, that the Proclamation freed no slaves. This forgets the slaves that ran away to the Union side, as well as the slaves that were captured by evacuating Confederates as the Union moved further south.
2) Myth: The American Civil War was not caused by slavery.
Fact: Yes it was. The border states that aligned with the Union had some slaves, but they were not integral to their economies, unlike the South, who seceded in the order of how much they relied on slavery for their production. The South was outraged that an abolitionist won the presidency and fought for independence on the basis of preserving their institution of slavery, which was admitted by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens. The alternatives make no sense; the South had dictated tariff policy since 1828, and the notion of "contrary foreign/economic objectives" really boils down to the necessity for the South to acquire more slaves for economic growth.
1) Myth: The Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves.
Fact: Students are told that given that the Proclamation specifically excepted the border states and the Confederate States were under no obligation to listen to the president of the United States, that the Proclamation freed no slaves. This forgets the slaves that ran away to the Union side, as well as the slaves that were captured by evacuating Confederates as the Union moved further south.
2) Myth: The American Civil War was not caused by slavery.
Fact: Yes it was. The border states that aligned with the Union had some slaves, but they were not integral to their economies, unlike the South, who seceded in the order of how much they relied on slavery for their production. The South was outraged that an abolitionist won the presidency and fought for independence on the basis of preserving their institution of slavery, which was admitted by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens. The alternatives make no sense; the South had dictated tariff policy since 1828, and the notion of "contrary foreign/economic objectives" really boils down to the necessity for the South to acquire more slaves for economic growth.
An important point of distinction: at the time of the Roman Republic, Caesar was just another name and Augustus meant something like "revered one" (I'm too lazy to look it up now). They only became synonyms for the guy in charge after men with these names/titles were in charge.
I do agree with you on the Southern apologist myths.
Addition: the Emancipation Proclamation specifically avoided any sort of declaration on the status of slaves in states that were not "in rebellion" because the already-dubious legal force behind freeing slaves in states that were "in rebellion" (Presidential authority as commander-in-chief) would not have existed in loyal states. So Lincoln had to wait until the Thirteenth Amendment could be passed.
deanej
Deity
You kinda defeat your own point here. The reason the south left was indeed because Lincoln was elected, but the big factor there was that no southern states voted for him and he still got elected. In all previous elections, southern states were required to elect a president - they no longer were, and the south didn't like the fact that they virtually didn't matter any more.
While we're on the civil war:
Myth: The Civil War was caused by slavery.
Slavery was a factor, but as I outlined above, a bigger factor was declining southern influence on the federal government. In fact, the confederate states that left in the second wave of secessions did so in response to Lincoln's issuing of a draft.
Myth: Honest Abe
In reality, Lincoln was a bigger flip-flop than today's politicians. The only reason he got away with it was the lack of mass media - there was no way for people in one town to know what he said to another town.
Myth: The north fought the civil war to free the slaves.
Lincoln resisted making the war have anything to do with slavery for quite some time. The only reason he issued the Emancipation Proclamation was to improve morale in the north.
There is essentially no evidence for this, and there are voluminous amounts of evidence - in the forms of newspaper editorials and records of speeches delivered by fire-eaters and other slavers and diary accounts by contemporaries - to support the contention that secession was motivated by a fear of antislavery legislation. The fact that the southern states had effectively marginalized their votes by splitting their support is certainly relevant, but not the deciding factor.
deanej
Deity
By the rules of presidential elections, even if they hadn't been split, they still wouldn't have defeated Lincoln. And are you calling everything I learned AP US History wrong? The National Experience by Blum et. al. say's that I'm right.
Don't count the electoral vote, count the popular vote. Factor in campaigning, as well. Treating "northern states" as a bloc and "southern states" as a bloc is further unhelpful, for what it's worth.
Dude, it's an AP class. In high school. You're lucky if you get much of anything right at all. Protip: this is a thread called misconceptions we learn in school.deanej said:
High school history textbooks are usually poor sources of information on anything except high school-level history.deanej said:
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Primary sources back up the idea that the main cause of secession was slavery. Economic analysis of history combined with some (but not all) pre-war issues and plenty of post-war propaganda have led people to credible alternative explanations that would be fine if it weren't for the fact that it contradicts their stated reasons for succession. Tariffs weren't a non-issue, but, even in the previous election, they had threatened secession if the Republican party had won and the sole reason was that they were opposed to any party with a single-issue being the ending of African slavery getting into power.
You can argue long term resentment was related to tariffs (although if you want to go long term, you could argue that the reason they complained about tariffs connected back to their slave economy), but there's no denying that the proximate reason for secession was the election of someone opposed to slavery.
You can argue long term resentment was related to tariffs (although if you want to go long term, you could argue that the reason they complained about tariffs connected back to their slave economy), but there's no denying that the proximate reason for secession was the election of someone opposed to slavery.
Similar threads
