Real History Vs. Percieved History

[mitsho]

Ok, but then please not call it real history, but "scientific history". Or something like "the current state of knowledge based on historical scientific research" (with scientific not meaning natural science-things, but all tools of science (including social science and and and - I got a bit problem with the English terms...)

But then yeah, this discussion is interesting...

 

[Sharwood]

Call it "true history, so far as my ideologically viewpoint accepts it."

 

[choxorn]

Yeah, but the Canucks and Poms didn't get their capital city burnt down in an aggressive war they started. Epic Fail!

*ahem* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_York

I've gotten into so many arguments with Americans about this. "We've won every war we've ever fought!" "No, no you haven't dumbarse, you were stalemated in the first war you ever fought. Not to mention those whole Korea and Vietnam things."

Korea was more or less a stalemate, too. Vietnam, yeah, we lost that badly.

 

[Sharwood]

*ahem* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_York

Okay, not really proving me wrong there.

Korea was more or less a stalemate, too. Vietnam, yeah, we lost that badly.

Cue someone entering to say how you miraculously would have won both, if it weren't for libruls.

 

[Evie]

*ahem* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_York

You burned a provincial capital. Go you!

(Excluding London because that's no fun, the Governor General (ie, head of the Canadas) had his capital, and therefore the "national" capital in Quebec City. York was only the capital of Upper Canada (present-day Ontario)

 

[choxorn]

A Provincial Capital is still a capital. And, I think it deserves mention because that battle was the reason the Brits burned DC a year later.

 

[Evie]

A provincial capital is still a provincial capital, but it's a lot less of a national humiliation than having the federal one burned

 

[Communisto]

Yeah, but the Canucks and Poms didn't get their capital city burnt down in an aggressive war they started. Epic Fail!

I've gotten into so many arguments with Americans about this. "We've won every war we've ever fought!" "No, no you haven't dumbarse, you were stalemated in the first war you ever fought. Not to mention those whole Korea and Vietnam things."

Well, to be fair Toronto (then called York), the capital of Upper Canada was given a decent ass whoopin by the yanks.

But the fact remains that the Canadians managed to successfully repulse the American invasion. Pretty impressive considering the Americans thought that invading Canada would be "a simple matter of marching."

I guess they're still wandering around somewhere near Hamilton.

 

[Plotinus]

Someone mentioned the belief that people in Columbus' day thought the world was round (a myth that goes back to the nineteenth century). There are many such myths about the Middle Ages and Renaissance. One is that the church persecuted witches during the Middle Ages; in fact, not only did it not do so, but it officially denied that witches existed, and the persecution of witches was illegal. A related myth is that the "witches" who were persecuted in early modern times were actually pagans, practitioners of pre-Christian religions, and wise old herbalists. In fact of course this is no evidence whatsoever to support such a belief.

In general, it seems that most of the widely believed myths about history concern religion - I suppose because such myths reinforce people's own prejudices. For example, people who are prejudiced against Christianity already are more likely to believe the Dan Brown-style nonsense you see peddled all over the Internet about how Christianity as we know it was invented by the emperor Constantine. And they are more likely to believe the popular, but erroneous, view of the Galileo affair as a clash between rational, free-thinking scientists and oppressive, conservative religious authorities. Examples such as these show how people's views of the past tend to be determined by their interpretation of the present. The examples people have already given of nationalistic Americans believing that the US has won all its wars or fought only on the side of the good guys also illustrate this - these people don't study the historical evidence and reach that conclusion; rather, they start with the assumption that the US is always good and always prevails, and draw their conclusion from that.

 

[jessiecat]

Well, to be fair Toronto (then called York), the capital of Upper Canada was given a decent ass whoopin by the yanks.

But the fact remains that the Canadians managed to successfully repulse the American invasion. Pretty impressive considering the Americans thought that invading Canada would be "a simple matter of marching."

I guess they're still wandering around somewhere near Hamilton.

They didn't even get that one right. Did you know they only attacked the largely undefended York after they had arrived in their ships at Kingston and found Fort Henry far too well-defended for their liking? Then they went west to York where there was a good shipyard and a good size ship nearly built. But when they landed there, the British blew up the powder magazine, destroying the ship, the shipyard and dozens of US militia with it. So the Yanks burned down the town in retaliation. Not an outstanding day in the glorious annalls of US military history. Kind of a bummer day in all.

 

[Yeekim]

There are many such myths about the Middle Ages and Renaissance. One is that the church persecuted witches during the Middle Ages; in fact, not only did it not do so, but it officially denied that witches existed, and the persecution of witches was illegal.

Is this not only half-truth at best? A question you will probably find easy to answer: to whom this extract of a well-known medieval document is referring?

Spoiler :

In your presence, venerable father in Christ and in Our Lord, xxx, by divine mercy bishop of xxx, now Ordinary Judge and possessing territory in the city and diocese of xxx; and of the religious brother xxx, of the order of Preaching brothers, bachelor of sacred theology, vicar in this town and diocese and in this trial especially appointed by master xxx, distinguished doctor of sacred theology, of the same order, Inquisitor of Heretical Error in the kingdom of xxx by the Holy See; before you, competent judges, to the end that the woman commonly called xxx, found, taken, and detained in the limits of your territory, venerable father, and the boundaries of your diocese of xxx, surrendered, entrusted, delivered, and restored to you, her ecclesiastical and ordinary judge by Our Lord Christian King of xxx, to be dealt with by the law and corrected, as one vehemently suspected, denounced, and defamed by honest and sober people; to the end that she should be denounced and declared by you her said judges as a witch, enchantress, false prophet, a caller-up of evil spirits, as superstitious, implicated in and given to magic arts, thinking evil in our Catholic faith, schismatic in the article Unam Sanctam, etc.
...
Here follow the deliberations and conclusions reached by the Holy Faculty of Theology in the University of xxx, in judgment of the articles already transcribed concerning the words and deeds of xxx commonly called xxx: the entire deliberations and conclusions of the said Faculty and all which concerns this matter, the Faculty submits to the judgment of Our Holy Father the Pope and the Holy Council General
...
"That this woman is a liar and witch"
...
"This bishop, in conjunction with the vicar of the Inquisitor of Errors and Heresies, having called together a great number of solemn masters and doctors of theology and canon law, with all solemnity and due gravity, opened the proceedings against this xxx. After she had been questioned for many days by him, and by the Inquisitor, her judges, they submitted her confessions and statements to the mature consideration of the said masters and doctors, and in a general manner to all the Faculties of our very dear and beloved daughter the University of xxx, to whom the confessions and statements were sent. Following these opinions and decisions the judges found this woman superstitious, a witch, idolatrous, a caller up of demons, blasphemous towards God and His saints, schismatic and greatly erring in the faith of Jesus Christ"

Also, I believe you can identify the document the following extract is taken from:

Spoiler :

"It has indeed lately come to Our ears, not without afflicting Us with bitter sorrow, that in some parts of Northern Germany ... many persons of both sexes, unmindful of their own salvation and straying from the Catholic Faith, have abandoned themselves to devils, incubi and succubi, and by their incantations, spells, conjurations, and other accursed charms and crafts, enormities and horrid offences, have slain infants yet in the mother's womb, as also the offspring of cattle, have blasted the produce of the earth, the grapes of the vine, the fruits of the trees, nay, men and women, beasts of burthen, herd-beasts, as well as animals of other kinds, vineyards, orchards, meadows, pasture-land, corn, wheat, and all other cereals; these wretches furthermore afflict and torment men and women, beasts of burthen, herd-beasts, as well as animals of other kinds, with terrible and piteous pains and sore diseases, both internal and external; they hinder men from performing the sexual act and women from conceiving, whence husbands cannot know their wives nor wives receive their husbands; over and above this, they blasphemously renounce that Faith which is theirs by the Sacrament of Baptism, and at the instigation of the Enemy of Mankind they do not shrink from committing and perpetrating the foulest abominations and filthiest excesses to the deadly peril of their own souls, whereby they outrage the Divine Majesty and are a cause of scandal and danger to very many.
...
Wherefore We, as is Our duty, being wholly desirous of removing all hindrances and obstacles by which the good work of the Inquisitors may be let and tarded, as also of applying potent remedies to prevent the disease of heresy and other turpitudes diffusing their poison to the destruction of many innocent souls... decree and enjoin that the aforesaid Inquisitors be empowered to proceed to the just correction, imprisonment, and punishment of any persons, without let or hindrance, in every way"

 

[holy king]

And they are more likely to believe the popular, but erroneous, view of the Galileo affair as a clash between rational, free-thinking scientists and oppressive, conservative religious authorities.

hey, "the life of galilei" by brecht is still a good book.

 

[Plotinus]

[Yeekim] Yes, but both of those are from the fifteenth century, and not really medieval. In particular, the Malleus Maleficarum was a key factor not only in changing people's views on the existence of witches, but also in changing the popular understanding of the nature of witches (ie, previously they had been thought of as malevolent magic-users, but afterwards they were thought of as Satanists). So really these are illustrative of Renaissance and even early modern attitudes rather than medieval ones.

 

[Yeekim]

Yes, they are from 15th century indeed. However, earlier trials and even executions of witches by ecclesiastical authorities were not entirely unknown either. I believe this article from Catholic Encyclopedia gives quite a good overview of that topic, although I suspect it may not be entirely objective on such a sensitive matter.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15674a.htm

At any rate, it seems that medieval church was sceptical about certain powers mobs believed witches to hold, rather than denied their existence overall. After all, there are numerous references to witchcraft in Bible, where it is summarily condemned. So for me it seems a bit far-fetched to to say that "Church officially denied existence of witches". They simply were not especially bothered with persecuting them, certainly compared to early modern times.

 

[mitsho]

@yeekim It seems to me that what plotinus really means is that the popular belief is that "witch hunt = medieval" when in 'reality', the high time of witch hunting was not in the Middle Ages, but later like 15th, 16th, 17th century. To put it bluntly! ;-)

 

[West 36]

I think a big one, that Civ doesn't help with, is the view that history is always a forward moving, progressive line, where the subsequent time is more advanced than, and because of, the past. The truth is things don't go that way and history isn't this linear graph continually moving ahead.

 

[Agent327]

Someone mentioned the belief that people in Columbus' day thought the world was round (a myth that goes back to the nineteenth century).

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense: if Columbus thought the world was flat he should have sailed East (and I doubt Spain would have officially approved an expedition to the "edge of the world" for the same reason).

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe anyone to accept the world being flat: a ship sailing toward the horizon will appear smaller (finally the mast only being visible) before disappearing gradually (not falling of any edge). Ergo, the world is round. (The same thing can be witnessed on land with, say, a churchtower on the horizon when travelling away from - or toward - it. Again, this is only possible when the surface is curved.)

 

[privatehudson]

Lets see:

1) Dropping closer to Arnhem Bridge would have helped sieze it quicker/with more troops - in fact there would have been more veteran German troops on the route between the closer zones and the bridge than there was on the chosen route from the more distant drop zones. The woods between the distant drop zones and Arnhem also helped conceal where the drops took place and what the British target was

2) Pickett's Charge - Apart from the fact that Pickett was only in charge of one of three divisions involved in the attack its pretty hard to call an approach of nearly a mile in July weather a "charge". Other suggested names include the "Pickett, Pettigre and Johnson Assault" and "Longstreet's Assault".

3) Most of what has been written by the "Lost Cause" writers about the Civil War. You have to love how some of them managed to claim that Longstreet was a traitor, usually working backwards from the fact that if he betrayed the south after the war (in their eyes that is, by being friends with Grant and becoming a Republican) he probably did so during it too.

 

[Dachs]

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense: if Columbus thought the world was flat he should have sailed East (and I doubt Spain would have officially approved an expedition to the "edge of the world" for the same reason).

It actually looks like a typo to me.

 

[Masada]

witches

I've always taken the view that those in Rome did not have complete operative control over the whole of the Church hierarchy. I don't doubt that witch trials occurred before ecclesiastical courts, but I contend that generally speaking they were seldom sanctioned beyond a local level. It would have shown regional variations, even with the publication of the Malleus Maleficarum when attitudes hardened (it can't be solely attributed to it, but it marks a turning point) it still seemed to have distinctly regional flavor. Even then I think it tended to piggyback on other issues, tying itself to whatever narrative was going on.

The other fun one was how prisoners turned themselves over to Church justice rather than face Secular justice... in many cases

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe anyone to accept the world being flat: a ship sailing toward the horizon will appear smaller (finally the mast only being visible) before disappearing gradually (not falling of any edge). Ergo, the world is round. (The same thing can be witnessed on land with, say, a churchtower on the horizon when travelling away from - or toward - it. Again, this is only possible when the surface is curved.)

And yet they did, for a long time.

Galileo

Vernacular bad! Vernacular very bad! You can screw your backers once, twice, thrice, but don't then go and publish your works in the vernacular. No matter how pious you are.

Dante was surprisingly lucky to escape a similar punishment. His works were by no means Orthodox Catholicism, he held some fairly different opinions.