Pet History Peeves

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It's possible to be less biased, however. I hate this sort of false equivalency that claims that since everyone's biased, everyone's biased equally.

And I hate this statement that since something is supposedly "informed by ideology" that it must be so biased as to be ignored. All methods of historical analysis are informed by ideology, because each is a different school that looks at different parts of history through different lenses. It would be like complaining that philosophers are "informed by ideology," just as ridiculous a statement, it's almost a tautology.

There's looking at the same event or persons from ideological parallax, and there's skewing or re-inventing the facts to fit your ideological agenda. But again, that abuse can happen in any method, with any person, because even if your analysis is less "ideologically informed" than another's, you're still informed by your own personal prejudices and other influences on your decision-making about what is and is not important, what is and is not biased, and other things, which are informed in turn by culture and your education, which are informed by ideology at their base. So there's no escaping it. Pretending that one has no ideological bias is disingenuous at best, and actively harmful at worst.

 

[History_Buff]

The implications are that the same families have been ruling the same domains for at least more than 6k years. And in some cases longer. Now if some other family took over at some point and just adopted the name, that's not stated. But as far as I could tell they were implying unbroken bloodlines. At one point the books mention that a certain lord's family is considered beneath the real noble families because they are newcomers who've only ruled the same place for 600 years. And so are not worthy of being taken seriously by their betters.

To be fair, that's not really that implausible. The sheer length of it is bizarre, but if they truly have been stuck in that weird medieval technological state for 6 thousands years, having one family rule it for so long seems possible. I mean, Queen Elizabeth is in fact a direct descendant (in the sense that you can definitely trace it) of William the Conqueror, and also of the Kings that came before him.

 

[Cutlass]

To be fair, that's not really that implausible. The sheer length of it is bizarre, but if they truly have been stuck in that weird medieval technological state for 6 thousands years, having one family rule it for so long seems possible. I mean, Queen Elizabeth is in fact a direct descendant (in the sense that you can definitely trace it) of William the Conqueror, and also of the Kings that came before him.

Which doesn't add up to 500 years. Much less far over 10 times that.

 

[History_Buff]

I meant the current Queen Elizabeth. So 1000 years, since her decedents will almost certainly still be Monarchs come 2066.

 

[Arakhor]

To be fair, that's not really that implausible. The sheer length of it is bizarre, but if they truly have been stuck in that weird medieval technological state for 6 thousands years, having one family rule it for so long seems possible. I mean, Queen Elizabeth is in fact a direct descendant (in the sense that you can definitely trace it) of William the Conqueror, and also of the Kings that came before him.

According to this family tree, the current Queen's Saxon ancestry descends through Mathilda of Scotland, the mother of the Empress Mathilda and thus the maternal grandmother of Henry II. Alfred the Great dates back to AD 879 and Cerdic of Wessex dates back to AD 519, which is a 'direct' descent for almost 1,500 years at best.

 

[Lord Baal]

The oldest family tree in existence is that of Confucius's family, which dates from 600 BC to present. And that doesn't account for possible bastards.

 

[Cutlass]

And that's only a couple of them. Not dozens of noble lines many 1000s of years old.

 

[Phrossack]

And I hate this statement that since something is supposedly "informed by ideology" that it must be so biased as to be ignored. All methods of historical analysis are informed by ideology, because each is a different school that looks at different parts of history through different lenses. It would be like complaining that philosophers are "informed by ideology," just as ridiculous a statement, it's almost a tautology.

There's looking at the same event or persons from ideological parallax, and there's skewing or re-inventing the facts to fit your ideological agenda. But again, that abuse can happen in any method, with any person, because even if your analysis is less "ideologically informed" than another's, you're still informed by your own personal prejudices and other influences on your decision-making about what is and is not important, what is and is not biased, and other things, which are informed in turn by culture and your education, which are informed by ideology at their base. So there's no escaping it. Pretending that one has no ideological bias is disingenuous at best, and actively harmful at worst.

I'm not saying that anyone's totally unbiased. I'm simply saying that being less biased is both possible and desirable. That's all. The fact that bias always exists in some form is not an excuse to make no attempt to mitigate it.

 

[History_Buff]

According to this family tree, the current Queen's Saxon ancestry descends through Mathilda of Scotland, the mother of the Empress Mathilda and thus the maternal grandmother of Henry II. Alfred the Great dates back to AD 879 and Cerdic of Wessex dates back to AD 519, which is a 'direct' descent for almost 1,500 years at best.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the in-world histories of Westeros are accurate. I'm just saying it's semi-plausible. More plausible than a 700 foot wall of ice that, when asked how it was built, people shrug and say "magic, I guess."

 

[Dachs]

According to this family tree, the current Queen's Saxon ancestry descends through Mathilda of Scotland, the mother of the Empress Mathilda and thus the maternal grandmother of Henry II. Alfred the Great dates back to AD 879 and Cerdic of Wessex dates back to AD 519, which is a 'direct' descent for almost 1,500 years at best.

There are problems with the historicity of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and its at least partially manufactured king-line, but still.

 

[Arakhor]

There are problems with the historicity of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and its at least partially manufactured king-line, but still.

That would be a little too much to hope for, I guess.

 

[sydhe]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the in-world histories of Westeros are accurate. I'm just saying it's semi-plausible. More plausible than a 700 foot wall of ice that, when asked how it was built, people shrug and say "magic, I guess."

I thought it was explicitly stated that it was raised by magic. Which is presumably why it stayed up all summer long.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

To butt in on the ASoIaF/GoT discussion, it is implied that parts of the histories are falsified. At one point one character compares different sources and notes that they contradict each other and the numbers don't add up. I've forgotten the details and I'm a bit shaky on the precise numbers, but it's mentioned that while the Night's Watch should have had about a thousand Lord Commanders in it's history, other records can only confirm only six hundred or so.
It's less cracy than the Bible or other middle eastern texts that mention kings -not dynasties, kings .i.e. one person- that have ruled for thousands of years.

 

[Dachs]

It's less cracy than the Bible or other middle eastern texts that mention kings -not dynasties, kings .i.e. one person- that have ruled for thousands of years.

Yeah, that's not actually in the Bible.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

The line of Elendil lasted unbroken for over 900 years, that's hard to beat...

 

[History_Buff]

To butt in on the ASoIaF/GoT discussion, it is implied that parts of the histories are falsified. At one point one character compares different sources and notes that they contradict each other and the numbers don't add up. I've forgotten the details and I'm a bit shaky on the precise numbers, but it's mentioned that while the Night's Watch should have had about a thousand Lord Commanders in it's history, other records can only confirm only six hundred or so.
It's less cracy than the Bible or other middle eastern texts that mention kings -not dynasties, kings .i.e. one person- that have ruled for thousands of years.

And pretty similar to the 7 Kings of Rome. It's clearly a narrative structure, but since they don't really have good records or an academic history discipline, everyone just goes with it.

Actually, did most Roman scholars realize that the 7 Kings were probably made up? Perhaps not the people, but the descriptions of their reigns and personalities, and the whole 7 of them part.

 

[Lord Baal]

And pretty similar to the 7 Kings of Rome. It's clearly a narrative structure, but since they don't really have good records or an academic history discipline, everyone just goes with it.

Actually, did most Roman scholars realize that the 7 Kings were probably made up? Perhaps not the people, but the descriptions of their reigns and personalities, and the whole 7 of them part.

I think the fourth through seventh kings are historical - though likely embellished. The first three are clearly false. I believe the elites knew the legends were false, but believed them to be politically useful. I have no idea what the common people thought.

 

[aronnax]

"King X was a patron of the arts and cultivated an artistic era during his reign."

Words to that extent.

 

[Flying Pig]

Alright, what exactly is wrong with that?

 

[Plotinus]

Yeah, that's not actually in the Bible.

It's in other ancient Middle Eastern texts, though, as he implied, notably the Sumerian King List. Compared to that, the Old Testament is quite restrained.