If you're going to post in a historical thread, it's usually a good idea to be clear about what you mean, especially if you're talking about something potentially contentious.
What is the most misunderstood historical event?
- Thread starter abradley
- Start date
If you're going to post in a historical thread, it's usually a good idea to be clear about what you mean, especially if you're talking about something potentially contentious.
sophie
Break My Heart
Plus you're reeeeaally overstating the importance of the Bishop of Rome in the wider Christian world pre-like...late 6th/early 7th century.
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
One of the myths that gets me is the role of longbows at Crecy and Agincourt. To hear most people opine on them, you'd think longbows were armor-piercing medieval machine guns that were invented in the Middle Ages, mowed down armored knights, and revolutionized warfare. In reality, long, powerful self bows have been around since the Neolithic era or before, they could rarely pierce armor except at very close range (and even then struggled), and did not at all revolutionize warfare. Few other than the English and Burgundians adopted them on a large scale and tactics and equipment across Europe didn't noticeably change to deal with them. Useful weapons able to weaken formations, kill or maim unarmored horses and men, and break up attacks, but not the Wunderwaffe they constantly get made out to be. Battles like Verneuil and Patay, in which armored cavalry whipped longbowmen, get ignored completely in the popular narrative.
Given that Guy Halsall refers to Peter Heather as P*ter H*ath*r as if his name were a dirty word, for the two to agree is quite telling.
civvver
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,855
Cool. See we need more of this and less mulsim vs christian debate
The roosevelt policies during ww2 were quite interesting as was the mao post.
I don't know tons about specific historical events but I've always had a fascination with the Mongols and been amazed in general by the west's lack of knowledge on anything in the far east. Like most of my peers don't have a clue who Kublai khan was, or know what the silk road was other than Marco Polo's name.
I guess I can't user the word misunderstood, but I'd say Genghis Khan and the entire mongol invasions are probably some of the least known major historical events here in the west.
For Christians I'd say it's the creation of the world. So many american protestants interpret genesis, translated into English, as literal and think god made the world in six modern, 24 hour days. And then they think they can read genealogies and determine the earth is like 5,000 years old. Pretty misunderstood event I'd say.
I haven't done enough study on it but the hebrew words for time were of an undefined amount, we have no idea the amount of "time" god took to create because time is a construct of man to describe the universe. Time is also relative. And there's some stuff in there about the spirit of god breathing on the water and all life starting in the oceans and migrating onto land as god continues to separate and create the animals. To me this sounds awfully in line with theory of evolution, life began as some bacteria and stuff in the water and evolved over vast amounts of time. Evolution and creation might actually be the same thing in my opinion, just depends on if you call the start the big bang or that moment when god said let there be light. I'm not a biblical scholar, just what I've picked up on in religion classes.
Nathiri
Commander
There is actually much evidence supporting creation in 6 days and the earth (and the universe) being 6,000 years old (for example, the magnetic field surrounding Mercury). Evolutionists tend to sometimes exaggerate just how long a certain rock was there and they ignore in some cultures dinosaurs were actually there living alongside humans. In Creation, the animals were created separate and different, some were in water, and some on land. Does it say that water animals become land animals?
A couple of notes regarding the Great Leap Forward and the resulting Great Famine.
1) A sizable percentage of the deaths was caused by droughts and floods, but nowhere near as high as China originally claimed. The majority are attributed to mismanagement, but that should be factored in.
2) The population of China was 658M at the time, so even if 30M died that is less than 5% of the population. It is still a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. But put that into perspective of the percentage of various countries which were killed during WWII, which caused nearly the same proportion of deaths in China:
Awesome. So apparently 350K dead in Greece are not even 0.5% of the 1940s population of Greece, making the latter be half a billion
http://necrometrics.com/ww2stats.htm
Necrometrics...
It's a real depressing realization when 400,000 deaths is considered a small number.
The amount of loss in that conflict is so freaking staggering.
Hey, the longbow scenes were rather cool in the Henry V movie!Cool. See we need more of this and less mulsim vs christian debate
There is ZERO evidence for a 6000-year-old Earth. For one thing, it would have come as quite an annoyance to the people back then who were going about their daily lives, and suddenly the universe gets created around them.
No, there were no humans living with dinosaurs. Zip. None. Over 60 million years separate the last dinosaurs and the earliest mammals that led to anything that would eventually evolve into us.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
I like Halsall a lot -his book on warfare and society in post-Roman Europe was brilliant- and his theories on the 'barbarians' make a lot of sense but I never really understood how he accounted for the Rhine Crossing in 410 and the Vandals eventually ending up in North Africa. The argument that there was no clear line between Roman territory and the barbaricum; which increasingly drew non-Roman polities into Roman affairs at the same time centralized Roman authority was breaking down due to politics and civil wars makes a lot of sense; but I still can't figure out how that works out with the Vandals. For dealing with the Vandals Heather, to me at least, makes more sense. (And assuming I am remembering Heather's arguments correctly. I read his book just about six years ago.)
I dunno, this seems like pretty convincing proof.Valka said:
Link to video.
Spoiler :
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
What defensive wars did Jesus fight? Specifically, why wasn't he taking up arms against the Roman conquerors instead of telling people to "render unto Caesar".
Unfortunately, the difference between several million (or even 4.6 billion) and 6,000 is considerably more than just 'exaggeration'. Mercury's weak magnetic field (for instance) is believed to be caused by strong electrical feedback caused by the solar wind, which is particularly powerful at 0.3-4 AU.
The best evidence of a 6,000 year earth is that the cognitive evolution of the human species has left many who believe that the universe is 6,000 years old.
But we know that the mental is much greater than the physical, so if at least some people believe in a 6000 year old earth then that makes it truer than any physical evidence.
Oh, wrong thread.
That's why I mentioned the Exodus. Not only is belief in it more ubiquitous, but I think it rather biases modern geopolitics
He posted on here briefly after Dachs copy-pasted one of his articles - from what I remember, he was talking about how it's almost impossible to tell the difference between a large barbarian army (with, after a few years in the field, associated wives, children, hangers-on, tradesmen, various civilians and so on) and a barbarian migration (in which, after a few years, most of the men will have had to become warriors at least some of the time), even for people actually looking at one - much less for historians. In other words, he was more inclined to talk about 'invasions' than 'migrations', or admit the blurriness of the categories.
Awesome. So apparently 350K dead in Greece are not even 0.5% of the 1940s population of Greece, making the latter be half a billion
http://necrometrics.com/ww2stats.htm
Necrometrics...
Just because a country isn't listed doesn't mean it falls below the last country on the graph...
As you might have noticed, both Romania and Hungary - which saw more deaths than Greece - also aren't mentioned. It is a selected list of countries, which exists to point out the excessive losses of a certain bunch of areas compared to some other nations involved.
Beyond that, your math is way off. If 350k were 10% of the population, the total population would be 3.5 million, if it were 1%, the population would be 35 million, putting 0.5% not at "half a billion" but at about 70 million. Way more than Greece did have, but then again, as pointed out above, Greece not being mentioned does not in any way imply that less than 0.5% of its population died during WW2.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Awesome. So apparently 350K dead in Greece are not even 0.5% of the 1940s population of Greece, making the latter be half a billion
http://necrometrics.com/ww2stats.htm
Necrometrics...
I don't have to mention that quote, now do I?
aelf
Ashen One
Okay, so your criteria for purveyors of truth is that they have to be famous and modern?
St. Paul is worth crap, then.
Nathiri
Commander
Jesus could of easily done so, but that was not what he came to do. He came to reorganise the church and then get crucified by the Jews, which would complete the task he was given. That quote you mentioned was in relation to paying taxes. The occupation by the Romans was actually long foretold back in the Old Testament and was for a purpose and it had to come about for many other events to unfold. Jesus also told his disciples this, "he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one (Luke 22, v36 KJV)." He also said in the previous chapter that war will be a common occurrence and will continue to happen until the end. While this verse alone does not say that a defensive war is any more right than another war, it does allow for the ownership of a weapon. In order to put all of it together, you have to compare all of scripture, which requires study.
