Brave heart apparently did give the Scottish national party a poll boost which seems to have had an effect
How much of our history is incorrect?
- Thread starter strung_out7
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Brave heart apparently did give the Scottish national party a poll boost which seems to have had an effect
- Jul 28, 2012
- 11,149
- 10,482
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- QPR, Buffalo Bills
Doesn't surprise me, William Wallace has been Scotland's national hero for centuries, the movie made him well known to everyone in Scotland, but let's be honest: most of us know about him thanks to the movie! Gibson's film is pure fantasy though. 1) Edward 1 was one of the greatest English Kings,
2) William Wallace is shown to have romantic relations with Isabella of France, the wife of Edward II. Later in the film, it is implied that the future Queen of England is carrying the child of Wallace, the reality is, they never met. In Gibson's film, their affair is shown to take place after the Battle of Falkirk, but at this time the real Isabella would have been just three years old and living in France.
3) Gibson makes up his own history, the film reaches its climax with the deaths of William Wallace at the gallows and King Edward I on his deathbed.
Though Wallace’s death is somewhat accurate, (drawn and quartered) in reality Longshanks died some two years after Wallace’s brutal ending.
All Historians are revisionist. It's about weighing evidence, sources, and changing one 's view as more evidence comes to light.
A basic introduction to history should deal with this fairly squarely. Certainly When I returned to University to study history it was.
Some things we have a lot of sources and information and what we "know" is pretty accurate, for some other things we lack good sources and information.
The Battle of Waterloo is pretty much known. The Battle of Yarmok we donlt know much at all.
But there is the academic study of history and then there is popular history, and much of the "history" that people have acquired if their lives is not formal academician study but picked up from popular history books, TV shows, from other people. And the quality of that is extremely mixed and some is outright rot. SO most people understanding of history often contains a lot of problematic material. Then there is the effect of nationalism and other pressues om history that so much of the national myths are somewhat dubious.
One of the problems of historiography is the good story is a meme that so hard to eradicate. People want the good story, that little nugget and hang on to that often in the face of evidence. The spread like meme's they easy to remember and they are pernicious.
Take an incident at Waterloo where the French Guard we called upon to surrender a french officer Cambronne is often said to have said either "Merde" or french words to the effect "The Guard dies but doe snot surrender". Either story is found all over the place. Cambronne had statue erected in his home town to memorializing the second. But Cambronne had been captured before this incident, he denied both versions, his family petitioned to get the statue removed. But the meme still goes on, still gets repeated.
The History of Napoleon is one that attracts lot's of these little stories, that are so appealing, taht mucgif teh historgrahihy of the peirod is quetsionable at best, The popualr mYthof Napoloen is quite different from the actual history. It has a life of it's own.
The Study of history there is the problem of historiography, "the story of history" is that the first (or later) stories told about some event can became quite estbliushed and set up a framework which people often uncouciously adopted without thinking much about it. For example that the Persians massively outnumbered the Greeks at Marathon, almost everyone says the Persians outnumberd the Greeks at leats two to one. Actual evidence for this, almost none. This is way historians are al revisionists, if your just accepting and propagating the existing interpretations (or some other interpretation) your a storyteller or propagandists rather than an Historian. Critical evaluation of evidence is required element, and certiianlythat the foundation of how it's taught at university (in my experience)
And there losers can proppgate a version of history often as eaisly as the winners. And that;s certialy true about the treaty of Versailles, the ppopular version of taht history is mostly just repirition of German proprganda about it.
A basic introduction to history should deal with this fairly squarely. Certainly When I returned to University to study history it was.
Some things we have a lot of sources and information and what we "know" is pretty accurate, for some other things we lack good sources and information.
The Battle of Waterloo is pretty much known. The Battle of Yarmok we donlt know much at all.
But there is the academic study of history and then there is popular history, and much of the "history" that people have acquired if their lives is not formal academician study but picked up from popular history books, TV shows, from other people. And the quality of that is extremely mixed and some is outright rot. SO most people understanding of history often contains a lot of problematic material. Then there is the effect of nationalism and other pressues om history that so much of the national myths are somewhat dubious.
One of the problems of historiography is the good story is a meme that so hard to eradicate. People want the good story, that little nugget and hang on to that often in the face of evidence. The spread like meme's they easy to remember and they are pernicious.
Take an incident at Waterloo where the French Guard we called upon to surrender a french officer Cambronne is often said to have said either "Merde" or french words to the effect "The Guard dies but doe snot surrender". Either story is found all over the place. Cambronne had statue erected in his home town to memorializing the second. But Cambronne had been captured before this incident, he denied both versions, his family petitioned to get the statue removed. But the meme still goes on, still gets repeated.
The History of Napoleon is one that attracts lot's of these little stories, that are so appealing, taht mucgif teh historgrahihy of the peirod is quetsionable at best, The popualr mYthof Napoloen is quite different from the actual history. It has a life of it's own.
The Study of history there is the problem of historiography, "the story of history" is that the first (or later) stories told about some event can became quite estbliushed and set up a framework which people often uncouciously adopted without thinking much about it. For example that the Persians massively outnumbered the Greeks at Marathon, almost everyone says the Persians outnumberd the Greeks at leats two to one. Actual evidence for this, almost none. This is way historians are al revisionists, if your just accepting and propagating the existing interpretations (or some other interpretation) your a storyteller or propagandists rather than an Historian. Critical evaluation of evidence is required element, and certiianlythat the foundation of how it's taught at university (in my experience)
And there losers can proppgate a version of history often as eaisly as the winners. And that;s certialy true about the treaty of Versailles, the ppopular version of taht history is mostly just repirition of German proprganda about it.
Episode IV
All Australian
- Jun 16, 2022
- 694
- 471
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Your basic message is correct. There is history, and then there are historians analysing and interpreting the results. And the layman's versions of history as you noted, which often bears little resemblance to actual history at all.
But you've fallen into your own trap with the last part.
The history is that the treaty of Versailles was drafted and signed in 1919. The terms of that treaty can be seen from the original text on a thousand websites. That's history, documented and universally accepted by all. events occurring before and after it was signed are also history - but why it happened, or how the treaty came to take such a form at all, are a matter of further conjecture and opinion which varies widely depending on the bias of the observer and knowledge of events in the decades surrounding it.
We're still seeing the results of "treaties" signed in the late 19th/early 20th century even now - Ukraine, by way of example?
I disagree. The Versailles version of popular history is pretty much identical to the German inter war propaganda. Much of the framing and talk aorund teh treaty, is pretty simplistic one sides and without much nuisance. While the rterms of the treaty can be seen they have to be in context., and that is rarely done.
The histroigraphgy of the Treaty of Versailles is a ca eo f the losers prorpganda being much more sucessful in dominating the widely accepted narrative than the voctors.
Episode IV
All Australian
- Jun 16, 2022
- 694
- 471
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
What context would that be, in your view?
Other treaties =
The Treaty ending the Franco Prussian war, Thee Brest=Litvosk Treaty, the September Program. The Treaty of Versailles was clearly less severe than what
the German woudl have imposed if they won. It was less severe than the treaties imposed on Austria-Hungray and Turkey,
The Basis on which Germany sought peace -
Germany sought peace on the basis of the 14 pionts, they did not get that but that was what they expected the starting pint of the negioatations to be, that forshadowed all the territorial changes imposed up[on Germany. Germany basically agreed to the territorial changes when they sought pecae based in the 14 ponys.
Reparations,.
The Final sum was very close to what the Germans themselves offered to pay. (Ignoring the C class bonds) which were maninly a fiction for domestic entente consumption.
In the End Germany paid very little reparations and recived far more in loans. It had very limited effect on the German economy. German financial mismanagement from the war was never addressed. the Wiemar republic was never of firm financial ground. It was ot responsible for the rise of the Nazis and ww2.
Given that the war was very long and costly the treaty of Versallies was abouyt what was expected. You can call it harsh, but Austria-Hungray and Turkey got worse, Germany got a worse settlement in 1945. The German hysterical propaganda is just that. The Germans did not expect to be treated lightly, The Stab in teh abck myth was deleiberatley created myth created at the time. German High command when they recommended signing any treaty because the amry was incpabvale of fighting ion, they did so knowing they oulwd blame the civilain gbvenrment and say it was stab in teh back, They fully were looking for someone to blame for their own errors.
- Banned
- #158
No one ever asks or knows what caused the Germans to snap. How they want from being one of the poorest countries in the world to have such an advanced and well trained army that did the damage they did!
The atrocities of the Russians revolution and the Soviet empire the 60plus million killed under Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin
- May 1, 2016
- 29,010
- 56,559
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #159
Kindly, don't.
- Banned
- #160
Uh! Why?
Why did the biggest and most tragic event of world history we2 take place?
The mass genocide of the Russian and Eastern European people that led to the Soviet Union
These are genocide of the highest order and it’s all swept under the rug
- May 1, 2016
- 29,010
- 56,559
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #161
Let's not and say we did, eh?
Anthony U
Draftee
- Sep 19, 2022
- 7
- 10
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #162
When Herzl couldn't buy land in Palestine from the Sultan (having been told to go f*** himself) at a meeting organised by the Kaiser, the Zionists went to plan B.
Mofra the moderator has put up a quote from Herzl in the "violence against nazis" thread that provides real insight into what plan B was. Herzl talked about Semite suffering having to increase and that the anti-Semite would be the Zionists greatest friend, or useful idiot if you like. Hitler the atheist was indeed a useful idiot, and the Zionists get nothing without him, of that there can be no doubt.
Its European tradition, tribal though they are called countries.
Episode IV
All Australian
- Jun 16, 2022
- 694
- 471
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Not a European tradition - a human one.
They are experts the Euros - WW1 & 2 saw them need the rest of the world needed to bring an end to their squabbling.
NATO has been as effective as a wet lettuce on Russia, but at least the rest of us arent putting boots on the ground.
Just another example of European intransigence.
Episode IV
All Australian
- Jun 16, 2022
- 694
- 471
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
The Europeans don't squabble any more than anyone else. In modern times, considerably less than some places. The ideological and cultural borders have widened.
The thing that marks out the Europeans in terms of widespread war and disaster is that they had the economic base and technology to make those little "squabbles" very deadly affairs indeed. There are other places in the world right now (and historically) which would absolutely love the opportunity to engage in some serious genocide - but they don't have the means to get the job done properly.
To put it into topical perspective, the more you know about actual, real history, the less likely you are to single out any people as behaviourally different to anyone else. Although I do realise its not exactly a kosher discussion to have in this environment.
I think the Russian/Ukraine discussion is more OT, but I'm going to put out there that while the Russian aggression in Ukraine is reprehensible on the surface, when you understand why its happening and what they are afraid of that has acted as a catalyst for that aggression, it begins to make sense.
The thing that marks out the Europeans in terms of widespread war and disaster is that they had the economic base and technology to make those little "squabbles" very deadly affairs indeed. There are other places in the world right now (and historically) which would absolutely love the opportunity to engage in some serious genocide - but they don't have the means to get the job done properly.
To put it into topical perspective, the more you know about actual, real history, the less likely you are to single out any people as behaviourally different to anyone else. Although I do realise its not exactly a kosher discussion to have in this environment.
I think the Russian/Ukraine discussion is more OT, but I'm going to put out there that while the Russian aggression in Ukraine is reprehensible on the surface, when you understand why its happening and what they are afraid of that has acted as a catalyst for that aggression, it begins to make sense.
