Worst historical misconceptions in the internet?

[potatokiosk]

I've seen claims by Canadians that Canada won the Seven Years' War. Makes me think, "What Canada?"

 

[Stefan Haertel]

Actually traditional Iranians (persians) are blond and blue-eyed so he was right there.

He was talking about contemporary Iranians. I know all ancient Iranian people, including Scythians, Bactrians, Medes etc. were in fact blonde and blue eyed. But in 3000 years of history, people mix.

 

[Plotinus]

I did discover a website dedicated to proving that the Japanese are descended from the ten lost tribes of Israel. But I think this thread is meant to be about misconceptions found on the Internet, rather than attempts to argue for improbable claims. My favourite example of the latter is this...

 

[Gelion]

He was talking about contemporary Iranians. I know all ancient Iranian people, including Scythians, Bactrians, Medes etc. were in fact blonde and blue eyed. But in 3000 years of history, people mix.

Could I have a link to this blog? This stuff is very intreaging.

 

[pboily]

My favourite example of the latter is this...

whoa... that is one true believer...

 

[Stefan Haertel]

Could I have a link to this blog? This stuff is very intreaging.

I'm sorry, I can't find the link anymore. I didn't bookmark the site, as I stopped reading when the guy wrote that when somebody casted an Iranian Jew as an Iranian in some TV film, he wanted to say that Iranians have big noses.

Also, this person had a whole page criticizing a sentence in Wikipedia, while he could simply have edited it. This should tell you about the intelligence of that person. Honestly, this blog entry isn't worth reading, and I want the time back that I wasted on it.

 

[Ukas]

There were pitched battles with traditional formations during the Revolutionary War as well, whenever an actual army that could meet the British was at hand. Even so, although they start out as lines and they'll fire volleys at each other, I can't recall a battle where it was entirely that way. There's usually movement somewhere, at the very least, and charges, and flanks, and bayonet/melee fighting.

This poster you quoted is either inarticulate or doesn't know much about anything.

For myself, I'd have to say the misconception that the French never won a war. You'd just have to be hard pressed to find the victories!

I agree, probably his knowledge was limited to Mel Gibson's movies

It was the same in wars of the Napoleonic Era, those neat lines formed in the morning light fell into much more disorganized formations during the day, with groups retreating, advancing or holding certain places. Immediately when battle was ending it was sometimes difficult to resolve, who won and who lost.

The French had a very hard part in the First World War and they still won, so it's not even that difficult.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

My favourite example of the latter is this...

That is much older than the internet. There is in fact a very fun film on that called "Paul Is Dead". It's German, so I don't know if you will find it anywhere near you.

 

[7ronin]

I did discover a website dedicated to proving that the Japanese are descended from the ten lost tribes of Israel.

They aren't?

But I think this thread is meant to be about misconceptions found on the Internet, rather than attempts to argue for improbable claims. My favourite example of the latter is this...

Not only is it proof, it's undeniable proof (the best kind).

 

[Plotinus]

It's true! True, I'm telling you! That's why, when they come together, one and one and one is three!

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Any history associated with [insert race] nationalism. It's amazing what lengths amateur historians associated with these groups will go to try and prove that all civilizations were a result of [insert race].

 

[Ukas]

It's not that amazing, after all some professional historians will go lengths to prove their theories - which often are quite imaginative.

Recently I watched a documentary about this female historian trying to find descentants and proof of female amazon warriors. She travelled to the Far East, and found a kid from a village, who had a bit blonde look along with other stuff, which with a very good imagination resembled stuff in old amazon warrior pictures she had. She was immediately sure, that the kid was a true descendant of the amazon warriors and that they truly existed in the first place.

Week before that I saw a documentary about Nazi archeologist travelling to Nepal in 1938 or -39 to find proof of the aryan race. What amused me was that both went to Nepal to look proof of their odd racial theories, the female historian and the Nazi group were as scientific in their approach, and as quick to draw results too.

When female historian was in the village, I was waiting when she will resort to frenology to fill her theories.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

That Rommel was a Nazi.

 

[Ukas]

That Rommel was a Nazi.

Rommel supported Hitler and the party, but saying he was a Nazi is just an example of provocative exaggeration.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Rommel supported Hitler and the party, but saying he was a Nazi is just an example of provocative exaggeration.

As he was forced into committing suicide by the Nazi party for his opposition to both Hitler's actions and to the party's interference in military matters, to hear him called a member of the organization that caused his death does seem to me to be a 'historical misconception'. I suspect that he would strongly object to being called a Nazi too.

Link:

"Never a member of the Nazi party, he had become increasingly outspoken in his criticism of Hitler's leadership. On Oct. 14, 1944, he was visited by two German generals investigating the cases of officers suspected of complicity in the July 20 plot against Hitler's life. He was given, on orders from Hitler, the choice between taking poison and having his death reported as resulting from his wounds, or facing trial by the People's Court. He elected the former course, ending his life in the generals' automobile near Ulm, Germany, on Oct. 14, 1944."

 

[Ukas]

I agree, he never was a member of the party and his views in 1944 were strongly against Hitler. He had lost faith by then but nevertheless he was a supporter Hitler and the Nazi system earlier. Before the war he was a military instructor of Hitler Youth! and also he was the commander of Hitler's bodyguard battalion.

These are posts were not given to the most generals in the Wehrmacht, who had stronger anti-Nazi sentiments.

Nazi organization was a criminal, arbitrary, deluted and psychotic system, which killed many of its loyal followers - so if Rommel would have been a Nazi he would have experienced a quite common faith of a Nazi loyalist, and definitely had been in a good company in that sense.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

@ Ukas - That was the irony of it. Rommel was the exception to the rule, the one man that received his promotions due to his leadership skills and his battlefield prowess, and not from his party contacts. Yes he commanded Nazi units and Hitler's bodyguard, but don't you see that for a non-party member to receive such a position that the promotion would be based on competence and not political favoritism?

If I were the leader of Germany I would want my very best man to lead my personal bodyguard too, party connections be damned.

By calling him a Nazi you would then imply that the positions he was granted may have been politically based and not purely from the man's competence for the post.

If I earned my post because I truly deserved it and not through some political club favoritism and then was later incorrectly labeled as a member of that club I would want to object and say "No, I'm not a Nazi! I earned my promotions."

It's a difficult concept to explain so I hope that made some sense.

 

[Xshayathiya]

I'm sorry, I can't find the link anymore. I didn't bookmark the site, as I stopped reading when the guy wrote that when somebody casted an Iranian Jew as an Iranian in some TV film, he wanted to say that Iranians have big noses.

Also, this person had a whole page criticizing a sentence in Wikipedia, while he could simply have edited it. This should tell you about the intelligence of that person. Honestly, this blog entry isn't worth reading, and I want the time back that I wasted on it.

Well, Iranians do have big noses. But i've never heard that originally we were blond with blue eyes. That's a bit rediculus. If we all originally were blond/blue, you would think there would be a higher ratio of people in Iran with those features in present day. From all historical accounts i've read, we've always had a majority of people with brown eyes and hair.

If the ancestors had blond/blue features, why dont we see these in Indians either? That theory sounds pretty made up to me.

PS while we're on the subject, I'd like to put the Persian/Arab misconception up there. Its pretty widespread. See the Civ III and IV civilopedia entries. And most websites describe Prince of Persia as "Arabian Nights Themed". Dont even get me started on what's wrong with the phrase "Arabian Nights".

 

[Gelion]

Well, Iranians do have big noses. But i've never heard that originally we were blond with blue eyes. That's a bit rediculus. If we all originally were blond/blue, you would think there would be a higher ratio of people in Iran with those features in present day. From all historical accounts i've read, we've always had a majority of people with brown eyes and hair.

If the ancestors had blond/blue features, why dont we see these in Indians either? That theory sounds pretty made up to me.

PS while we're on the subject, I'd like to put the Persian/Arab misconception up there. Its pretty widespread. See the Civ III and IV civilopedia entries. And most websites describe Prince of Persia as "Arabian Nights Themed". Dont even get me started on what's wrong with the phrase "Arabian Nights".

For reference against your theory look at modern Egyptians. They dont look like themselves 5000 years ago do they?

 

[Stefan Haertel]

Well, Iranians do have big noses.

I don't know about that. All Iranians I have seen did not have bigger noses than normal.

But i've never heard that originally we were blond with blue eyes. That's a bit rediculus. If we all originally were blond/blue, you would think there would be a higher ratio of people in Iran with those features in present day. From all historical accounts i've read, we've always had a majority of people with brown eyes and hair.

The Iranians were part of the Indo-European people. There really is evidence that they originally had blonde hair, and you do find some Iranians today who have lighter hair and skin (and even blue eyes) than what you are accustomed to. But the vast majority by now has dark hair and darker skin.

If the ancestors had blond/blue features, why dont we see these in Indians either? That theory sounds pretty made up to me.

That's because there are 3500 years of interaction between the Arya and the native population of India, as in Iran there are 3500 years of interaction between Iranians and locals, Arabs, Turks, Mongols and so forth.

PS while we're on the subject, I'd like to put the Persian/Arab misconception up there. Its pretty widespread. See the Civ III and IV civilopedia entries. And most websites describe Prince of Persia as "Arabian Nights Themed". Dont even get me started on what's wrong with the phrase "Arabian Nights".

It's much older than the internet too. I like to point out to everybody that Farsi is closer related to English than to Arab.