Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
I hate it. It's just a habit of wanting to oversimplify life into a play or story with important characters.
Pet History Peeves
- Thread starter Lone Wolf
- Start date
I hate it. It's just a habit of wanting to oversimplify life into a play or story with important characters.
It depends on whether it's accurate or not. It seldom is.
_random_
Jewel Runner
Specifically, for me, the idea that the Gospels really just co-opted the story of Horus or Mithras or whoever, because just look at all these similarities! For one thing, those similarities aren't actually true, generally. But even if they were, what reason do you have to believe that there was direct influence on the Gospel writers there? What's going to motivate someone reasonably learned in Jewish scripture to, upon hearing those myths, syncretize them with a rather unconventional interpretation of traditional Messianic teachings and write this synthesis as a biography (not a mythic narrative) of a guy from Nazareth who died some 20-70 years ago?
Also, this little diagram, which touches on things mentioned before, deserves special mention:
Because not only did the Middle Ages apparently restrain people to the level of scientific knowledge found in Ancient Egypt, scientific progress is an exclusively western phenomenon and quantifiable, at all. On the blog post where that originated, the guy claims not to want to be treated by any religious doctors, for fear they'd decide to try faith healing him instead. That doesn't have anything to do with history, but it is kind of amusing to me to imagine how one would pro-actively avoid that.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Nowadays, number of publications is a rough way to quantify the amount of research done on a subject.
Yes! I've seen that before, and was wondering how anyone can take it seriously, since the data used is clearly derived from the gut feel of the maker.
It can be amazing how far some people go when they want to contrast science with Christianity. Here's a passage from a Java-programming book I read last spring, the other writer at least is a PhD and a grown man. He's also the/an inventor of three player chess. (translation is mine):
Vesterholm & Kyppö: Java-ohjelmointi said:
Note that what they have there is only marginally connected to the subject, and it isn't touched after that passage.
The point of that quote is, besides it being a bit amusing, that even grown up people in respectable position and with high education feel need to state such things. In this respect, this isn't just a history trope, but rather like history besserwisserism, created by the same hidden motive that makes people want to believe in conspiracy theories.
Although, it is a trope too.
Besserwisser is internationally used word, right? German for "better knower".
"Besserwisserism", I don't know if that's a word or if I'm using it right if it is, but what I tried to mean is when the will to be a besserwisser trumps the evidence. I think it's behind many conspiracy theorists, but it's related to history facts too:
Have you noticed that people require very little evidence for statements like "in fact in the Old West there were 90% less homicides than now". Already that the statement is contrary to the general beliefs suffices to many people. Of course often the contrary belief is correct, and I don't think it's stupid to believe mere statement, if it comes from an authoritative figure who looks like objective.
Two examples related to this thread: I take Thomas Kuhn's word and references as a guarantee that Galileo wasn't the pioneer of experimental science he is often portrayed as (he used nonexperimental methods and some experiments proved him wrong). However, I won't swallow what Cracked wrote about homicide in the Old West. It might be true, but it's not enough of evidence that they say "this is something on which most people are wrong".
"Besserwisserism", I don't know if that's a word or if I'm using it right if it is, but what I tried to mean is when the will to be a besserwisser trumps the evidence. I think it's behind many conspiracy theorists, but it's related to history facts too:
Have you noticed that people require very little evidence for statements like "in fact in the Old West there were 90% less homicides than now". Already that the statement is contrary to the general beliefs suffices to many people. Of course often the contrary belief is correct, and I don't think it's stupid to believe mere statement, if it comes from an authoritative figure who looks like objective.
Two examples related to this thread: I take Thomas Kuhn's word and references as a guarantee that Galileo wasn't the pioneer of experimental science he is often portrayed as (he used nonexperimental methods and some experiments proved him wrong). However, I won't swallow what Cracked wrote about homicide in the Old West. It might be true, but it's not enough of evidence that they say "this is something on which most people are wrong".
Eirene.And who would you say was better?
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
As much as I like Justinian, I have to side with Basil II for what he (allegedly) said upon the destruction on a monastery that opposed him "I have turned their refectory into a reflectory, because all they can do now is reflect on how to feed themselves".
You could make the case, sure. I would make the case. But a lot of people would disagree. I just don't see how Ioustinianos I could be considered such a bad Emperor. Probably Prokopios' fault.
Snerk.How about Basil the Macedonian? Anyone who can make his predecessor lose both hands and feet just through a slip in the bath must be pretty decent.
Basileios I is kind of an interesting case. Bit of a vulture, really. For all the hullabaloo about him, his military accomplishments were pretty minor. Economically/fiscally, he mostly ended up repairing the damage Michael III did - damage that he himself had facilitated earlier on. He was pretty bad at managing his family life, although there's a lot to be said for organizing a more or less orderly succession to one's son (assuming, of course, that Leon was his son and not, say, Michael III's). And, of course, it's hard to see him having had much of a positive impact on the lives of most of his citizens, unlike, say, Theophilos, or Eirene.
I mean, other than the promulgation of a legal digest that was rapidly superseded during Leon's reign, a minor naval expansion, and some slightly advantageous campaigns in the north and east, what exactly did Basileios do?
It was a monastery (St. Basileios, ironically) established by the minister Basileios Lakapenos, who had dominated imperial politics early in the Emperor's life. Lakapenos funded it largely with embezzled treasury funds, and the story goes that when Emperor Ioannes I found out about Lakapenos' corruption, the minister had him poisoned in order to preserve the secret, whereupon he effectively became regent for the young Basileios II and his brother. So after a fashion, the Emperor was just reclaiming state funds that had been misappropriated, and depriving his former chamberlain's political allies - the monks - of their patronage.
I blame Basileios II for the charlie-fox that was the eleventh century, though, so yeah.
Well, I guess he stabilised the realm for Leo the Wise to take over, but other than that, he wasn't a bad ruler. Leo VI had the distinction of inspiring a doomsday cult based on his writings, Alexios I had his own daughter write the Alexiad about him and Empress Zoe's family relations typified the phrase 'Byzantine intrigue', but I agree that providing an orderly transition to a stabilised realm as Basil I did is worth easily half a dozen cruddy people.
Similar threads
- Locked
