How much of our history is incorrect?

[strung_out7]

So you believe that the history we have come to acknowledge is 100% factual? If anything, without the church would we be more advanced today? These people destroyed information, ostracised/killed scientists and the like for going against their beliefs.

It's only now that with technology, DNA and what not we can try and trace the past without it being interrupted by people believing otherwise.

 

[BS_82]

In what respect?

The true reason for the rise of the national socialists in Germany, Hitler, basically those we believe were the evil ones were actually most well intentioned.

The US and UK actually supported communism (Joe Stalin) and funded it as such just as Prescott Bush, Mr Ford and co funded Hitler.

Essentially just that every major war is a bankers war and a cartel of money masters stand to make phenomenal fortunes.

All the way back to Napolean it is the same families funding war, essentially through usury and control as a result all the major religions.

 

[Elroo]

Like what?

The official British account of the battle of Waterloo for a start.

The British in many ways either totally ignored the contributions of some of their allied units or underplayed their contributions to the battle.

 

[Roylion]

The official British account of the battle of Waterloo for a start.

But that's only one available perspective of the battle. Historians don't only use a single perspective to reconstruct history.

We have a number of eyewitness of Waterloo from both sides of the battle, such as 'The Autobiography of Lieutenant-General Sir Harry Smith' as well as Jardin Ainé the equerry of Napoleon who wrote a first hand account of the battle. There's also Jan Willem van Wetering's account and Johannus C. F. Koch's account of the battle that give a Dutch perspective. There are letters by various soldiers that fought in the battle including Major Baring, Captain J.H. Gronow, George Bowles, Edward Whinyates, John Gurwood, Corporal Richard Coulter and Edward Cotton as well as letters by Hanoverian and King's German Legion officers.

The British in many ways either totally ignored the contributions of some of their allied units or underplayed their contributions to the battle.

As I said that's only one perspective.

The very fact you know this indicate there are other accounts available for historians to reconstruct an objective view of the battle the reasons for victory and defeat as well as the various contributions to the British victory.

 

[Roylion]

So you believe that the history we have come to acknowledge is 100% factual? If anything, without the church would we be more advanced today? These people destroyed information, ostracised/killed scientists and the like for going against their beliefs.

We have plenty of accounts for all kinds of historical events in the Middle Ages: The Black Death, the Hundred Years War, the War of the Roses, the Norman Conquest just to name a select few.

In the case of the Norman Conquest for example, we have the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Chronicon ex Chronicis, the Vita Aedwardi Regis (The Life of King Edward), the Gesta Normannorum Ducum (Deeds of the Norman Dukes) by William of Jumièges, the Gesta Guillelmi Ducis Normannorum et Regis Anglorum ("Deeds of William Duke of the Normans and King of the English") by William of Poitiers, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio (Song of the Battle of Hastings) by Guy of Amiens, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Domesday Book, the works of Orderic Vitalis, The Chronicle of Battle Abbey and Master Wace and his Chronicles of the Norman Conquest from the Roman de Rou

As I said, historians draw from multiple sources and take their biases into account - no historian of any worth reads a winner's account of an event as a source and just accepts it at face value.

It's only now that with technology, DNA and what not we can try and trace the past without it being interrupted by people believing otherwise.

DNA sequencing adds another dimension to the study of history certainly, but it is just one of many historical sources.

 

[Roylion]

The true reason for the rise of the national socialists in Germany, Hitler, basically those we believe were the evil ones were actually most well intentioned.

The US and UK actually supported communism (Joe Stalin) and funded it as such just as Prescott Bush, Mr Ford and co funded Hitler.

Essentially just that every major war is a bankers war and a cartel of money masters stand to make phenomenal fortunes.

All the way back to Napolean it is the same families funding war, essentially through usury and control as a result all the major religions.

So how does this make "History as we know it in the west flawed"? Who is "we"?

 

[The_Reaper]

So you believe that the history we have come to acknowledge is 100% factual? If anything, without the church would we be more advanced today? These people destroyed information, ostracised/killed scientists and the like for going against their beliefs.

It's only now that with technology, DNA and what not we can try and trace the past without it being interrupted by people believing otherwise.

Actually the Catholic Church did a lot to support science.

The Galileo model of the solar system wasn't rejected because of dogma it was rejected because it failed the basic scientific test - it didn't match the actual orbits of the planets.

This is because Galileo assumed that the planets orbited in perfect circles and thus got the orbits wrong.

 

[Elroo]

But that's only one available perspective of the battle. Historians don't only use a single perspective to reconstruct history.

We have a number of eyewitness of Waterloo from both sides of the battle, such as 'The Autobiography of Lieutenant-General Sir Harry Smith' as well as Jardin Ainé the equerry of Napoleon who wrote a first hand account of the battle. There's also Jan Willem van Wetering's account and Johannus C. F. Koch's account of the battle that give a Dutch perspective. There are letters by various soldiers that fought in the battle including Major Baring, Captain J.H. Gronow, George Bowles, Edward Whinyates, John Gurwood, Corporal Richard Coulter and Edward Cotton as well as letters by Hanoverian and King's German Legion officers.



As I said that's only one perspective.

The very fact you know this indicate there are other accounts available for historians to reconstruct an objective view of the battle the reasons for victory and defeat as well as the various contributions to the British victory.

Um yes and I didn't deny that there has been multiple accounts from people who were at the battle.

The British almost entirely wrote out any non-English units or commanders contributions to the battle of Waterloo; reading the English history of the battle you'd think most of the allied units fled at the first sight of the French or their allied commanders were incompetent.

The official English history was written post Waterloo by many historians who were paid by the various English regiments at Waterloo to highlight the regiments role in the French defeat. The victory at Waterloo wasn't an English victory, it was an allied victory won off the backs of the allied contigents.

 

[Roylion]

Um yes and I didn't deny that there has been multiple accounts from people who were at the battle.

In turn I've never denied that many historical accounts of an event are often written from a particular perspective. There are official histories, unofficial histories, histories written from the point of view of the victors, histories written from the points of view of the losers and so on and so on.

As I've said a couple of times now, in providing a somewhat factual account of an event or events, historians draw from all of these sources (where available) and take their biases into account - obviously no historian of any worth reads a winner's account of an event as a source, such as the British official record of Waterloo, and just accepts that as the only source.

 

[BS_82]

So how does this make "History as we know it in the west flawed"? Who is "we"?

We as the majority of the populace. Capish?

The official narrative is not the truth, merely justification for extraordinarily bad and evil behaviour.

 

[Roylion]

We as the majority of the populace. Capish?

I'm not talking about the majority of the populace. I'm talking about those who write and study history. Of course the majority of the populace are uneducated in a large swathe of history.

The official narrative is not the truth, merely justification for extraordinarily bad and evil behaviour.

There is no "official narrative", taught as "truth" except perhaps in totalitarian countries. Populist history is not necessarily the official narrative.

I teach history. I don't teach any "official narrative" imposed from above.

 

[BS_82]

I'm not talking about the majority of the populace. I'm talking about those who write and study history. Of course the majority of the populace are uneducated in a large swathe of history.



There is no "official narrative", taught as "truth" except perhaps in totalitarian countries. Populist history is not necessarily the official narrative.

I teach history. I don't teach any "official narrative" imposed from above.

You teach revisionist history instead?

 

[Elroo]

In turn I've never denied that many historical accounts of an event are often written from a particular perspective. There are official histories, unofficial histories, histories written from the point of view of the victors, histories written from the points of view of the losers and so on and so on.

As I've said a couple of times now, in providing a somewhat factual account of an event or events, historians draw from all of these sources (where available) and take their biases into account - obviously no historian of any worth reads a winner's account of an event as a source, such as the British official record of Waterloo, and just accepts that as the only source.

You haven't actually said anything I didn't already post?

If you're going to add anything to the discussion then stop simply repeating what I have posted.

 

[BS_82]

I'm not talking about the majority of the populace. I'm talking about those who write and study history. Of course the majority of the populace are uneducated in a large swathe of history.

Hitler and the Germans have been castrated for decades for essentially defending their sovereignty and removing themselves for the sphere of influence of the banksters...

Nobody is innocent in war but people have a right to defend themselves.


There is no "official narrative", taught as "truth" except perhaps in totalitarian countries. Populist history is not necessarily the official narrative.

I teach history. I don't teach any "official narrative" imposed from above.

 

[Roylion]

You teach revisionist history instead?

Yeah..partly. We teach the Orthodox view of a particular event and contrast it with how revisionists might view such an event. The historiography of the causes of World War I and World War II is particularly interesting, as is the French and Russian Revolutions, the Cold War including the Kennedy years of the 1960's and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

 

[Elroo]

The Germans were innocent and Hitler was well intentioned in pursuit of releasing his nation to sovereignty and away from the clutches of internationalist banksters.

There were no gas chambers in auschwitz until the reconstruction by the soviets...

Macedonians (not greeks, as greece didn't exist until aftrr treaty of constantinople) and basques are the oldest peoples of europe. (Partition of Macedonian was sanctioned by the treaty of Versailles etc.)

This is a joke right?

 

[BS_82]

Yeah..partly. We teach the Orthodox view of a particular event and contrast it with how revisionists might view such an event. The historiography of the causes of World War I and World War II is particularly interesting, as is the French and Russian Revolutions, the Cold War including the Kennedy years of the 1960's and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

What is your understanding of the arab israeli conflict?

 

[Roylion]

If you're going to add anything to the discussion then stop simply repeating what I have posted.

So what's your point about mentioning the official British perspective of the Battle of Waterloo?

 

[BS_82]

This is a joke right?

Not at all. Check testing of stonework by independent scientists.

Just my research mate but glad it amuses you nevertheless.

See accounts from red cross and other views from people such as Mike King, Henry Makow and Gilad Atzmon...

 

[BS_82]

This is a joke right?

Always look at both sides of the story and make with what logic you have a position.

 

[Roylion]

What is your understanding of the arab israeli conflict?

Why is my understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict relevant to this thread? I teach a number of perspectives of the conflict...both Israeli and Palestinian, particularly orthodox Israeli history compared with Arab perspectives of various events. Some historians in Israel are now beginning to challenge traditional versions of Israeli history, such as Israel's role in the Palestinian Exodus of 1948-49.

 

[BS_82]

Why is my understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict relevant to this thread? I teach a number of perspectives of the conflict...both Israeli and Palestinian, particularly orthodox Israeli history compared with Arab perspectives of various events. Some historians in Israel are now beginning to challenge traditional versions of Israeli history, such as Israel's role in the Palestinian Exodus of 1948-49.

Balfour declaration?

 

[BS_82]

Balfour declaration?

Potash?

 

[Roylion]

Balfour declaration?

What about it?

 

[BS_82]

What about it?

Did it sanction the creation of the state of Israel?

A venture of colonialism based on the false pretense of religious ownership of a land to a peoples who predominantly are of eastern european turkic speaking extraction?

All I am saying is we are all guilty of bearing false witness, and the truth lies at the end of the money trail whilst the power is in the hands of those we cannot criticize....