History Myths and Misconceptions of History you Hate

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
Another problem is that history, as it is taught in school, is very simplified in order to fit into time constraints and be reachable enough to common level of students. It's kind of like how history of Spanish Civil War is taught with evil Nationalists and good Republicans, with perhaps a mention that Republicans too commited some attrocities, but nowhere near the Nationalist level. It is only when you read the more detailed history of the war do you realise what a shitshow Spain and Republic were. But how many people do read detaile histories?
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Another problem is that history, as it is taught in school, is very simplified in order to fit into time constraints and be reachable enough to common level of students. It's kind of like how history of Spanish Civil War is taught with evil Nationalists and good Republicans, with perhaps a mention that Republicans too commited some attrocities, but nowhere near the Nationalist level. It is only when you read the more detailed history of the war do you realise what a shitshow Spain and Republic were. But how many people do read detaile histories?
If they even mention it at all. I think I heard about it maybe twice in 13 years of school.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
You'll tear my image of Leonidas and Co. as ripped, oily, bare-chested men in capes and speedos from my weak, vapours-suffering arms! :p

For another myth--That of German 'invincibility' or even military superiority in the first years of WWII. The Wehrmacht won against Czechoslovakia thanks to the fact it was barely 20-year old Czechoslovakia and every defensive position the Benes government had was gobbled up thanks to Munich, and they won against Poland because it was Poland and the Poles forward-deployed along an entire border--something which might've helped if their allies had done jack-diddly shit to help them (oh yeah, and then Uncle Joe kicked in the back door). Then a large part of the victory in France was wrapped up in French leadership (both political and military) being incompetent, older than crap and literally slow (I forget who, but I recall hearing of one French commander who refused to use radio), or set against each other just as or even more-so than they were the Germans. Seriously, French leadership and society in 1939-40 is like some kind of...terrible, Monty Python-esque stereotype of lazy, incompetent, scheming Frenchmen given life as actual Frenchmen.

So the myth of German military superiority comes from the fact that they were fighting people that they were... militarily superior to?

Czechoslovakia got sold down the river by the Allies, Poland never really had a chance... and France's excuse is bad leadership?
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
So the myth of German military superiority comes from the fact that they were fighting people that they were... militarily superior to?

Czechoslovakia got sold down the river by the Allies, Poland never really had a chance... and France's excuse is bad leadership?
No more that alot of people just assume the allies buried them in materials. With said materials being inherently weaker (which isn't true at all). Then you've got the "human waves" of commies. Which while it did happen wasn't the norm at all. With the Soviets actually pulling off impressive manuver feats like baggration.
 

Isem

Well-known member
Another problem is that history, as it is taught in school, is very simplified in order to fit into time constraints and be reachable enough to common level of students. It's kind of like how history of Spanish Civil War is taught with evil Nationalists and good Republicans, with perhaps a mention that Republicans too commited some attrocities, but nowhere near the Nationalist level. It is only when you read the more detailed history of the war do you realise what a shitshow Spain and Republic were. But how many people do read detaile histories?
Didn't Spanish history (at least in Spain) for the longest time just avoid the civil war because a lot of the people involved in it were still there and no one really wanted the trouble trying to explain the events of it would entail?
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
Sorta bordering on religious, but how many people ever knew of how Judas may have been a legit religious fanatic at the time of his betrayal and was seeing Jesus as some sort of traitor for NOT being a fanatical revolutionary?
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
Sorta bordering on religious, but how many people ever knew of how Judas may have been a legit religious fanatic at the time of his betrayal and was seeing Jesus as some sort of traitor for NOT being a fanatical revolutionary?
There are multiple interpretation of his role in different strains of Christianity, some noncanon gospels for example describe him as the most devout of his disciples and treachery was actual part of Jesus plan to make the ultimate sacrifice for the humanity.

Pontius Pilate was sorta decent as I recall
He was very focused on hygiene I hear.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
There are multiple interpretation of his role in different strains of Christianity, some noncanon gospels for example describe him as the most devout of his disciples and treachery was actual part of Jesus plan to make the ultimate sacrifice for the humanity.


He was very focused on hygiene I hear.
Context is key here. Isarael rebelled agisnt the Romans basically every generation. Pilot did what the Jews wanted to prevent yet another rebellion and likley save his life. Certainly not a moral choice but understandable.
 

LordSunhawk

Das BOOT (literally)
Owner
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
One thing I'll point out is that there are indications in a few potentially apocryphal sources that Pilate himself may have converted at some point, he most certainly protected the early Christians in Jerusalem and those regions under his control (see Acts), resisting multiple attempts from the Sanhedrin to crack down on them.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
Another problem is that history, as it is taught in school, is very simplified in order to fit into time constraints and be reachable enough to common level of students. It's kind of like how history of Spanish Civil War is taught with evil Nationalists and good Republicans, with perhaps a mention that Republicans too commited some attrocities, but nowhere near the Nationalist level. It is only when you read the more detailed history of the war do you realise what a shitshow Spain and Republic were. But how many people do read detaile histories?


The Spanish Civil War is a great example of how left wing narrative uncritically is perpetuated in the United States. The Republic was committing mass atrocities against the Church just like the Mexican Secularists did in the Cristero War. The Nationalists were totally justified and were themselves allied with the Carlists, who practiced a Catholic syndicalism and supported devolved rights. Franco ended up compromising more with his allies than the Spanish Reds did with their’s and that’s part of why he won.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
One thing I'll point out is that there are indications in a few potentially apocryphal sources that Pilate himself may have converted at some point, he most certainly protected the early Christians in Jerusalem and those regions under his control (see Acts), resisting multiple attempts from the Sanhedrin to crack down on them.


I am really curious about this now, could you describe the sources?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top