Historical misconceptions

[Mahometan]

For the sake of boredom and lulz, some historical misconceptions, which some of you probably believe.

Ancient Greeks weren't gay, except for Spartans.: In Athens, being homosexual was largely considered a vice. What was accepted was, in essence, being bisexual, and this was usually accepted only in the form of an older Athenian male have a younger boy lover. If the older male continued to have relations with the younger boy even after the younger boy grew up, it was thought that the older male could not control himself. Spartans, on the other hand, loved themselves the buttsex.

Cleopatra was Greek, not Egyptian: She may have been the ruler of Egypt, but her dynasty, the Ptolemies, were Greeks from Macedonia, who became rulers of Egypt following Egypt's incorporation in Alexander the Great's Empire. Once Alexander died, his general Ptolemy became ruler of Egypt, and his descendants ruled over Egypt, marrying between themselves, until they were replaced by the Romans.

Caesar was never a Roman Emperor: Caesar's adopted son, Augustus, was the first Roman Emperor. Caesar was dictator for life, a legally-binding office to which he was elected by the Roman Senate.

The Roman Empire did indeed collapse because of barbarian invasions: While it was trendy to think of the collapse of the Roman Empire as a largely non-violent large-scale migration, it was indeed an invasion of the Roman Empire from many tribes and nations outside of the Roman world. Oh, and I best not hear anyone saying "but the Romans were the barbarians" or "barbarians isn't a correct term." It is, in fact, the most correct term, as it simply denotes those who lived outside of the Greco-Roman world.

The Dark Ages is not synonymous with the Middle Ages: In-fact, the Dark Ages is very much an inaccurate term, and while there was a large scale collapse of civilization in the West after the fall of Rome, many pockets of learning remained, and civilization picked up. In any case, if one had to define the Dark Ages for a chronological period, it would be between roughly 500-800 AD, while the Middle Ages lasted roughly from 500-1500 AD.

The Crusades weren't wars of religious fanatics, nor were they motivated by greed: The Crusades began as an effort to aid the Byzantine Empire from the Muslim expansions, but the Pope's preaching called for the liberation of Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims, citing examples of Muslim violence against Christian pilgrims and places of worship. After the First Crusade conquered Jerusalem, many of those who had embarked on it returned home, poor, having completed what they saw as essentially a pilgrimage. The states which were established in the Holy Lands were basically in a constant state of war with the land's previous owners, and so what followed was what we all know as war between states. In any case, as the Western Christians settled in the Holy Lands, they quickly adopted many eastern customs, and usually lived side-by-side with Muslims and Jews with no incident, though the various laws of religious segregation and discrimination which were common to Islam and Christianity continued.

Lined formations (like the ones during the American Revolution as seen in The Patriot weren't stupid: While in high school we learned that the British were dumb for wearing bright red uniforms and fighting in lines and the Patriots were smart because they used guerrilla tactics, line formations were the only effective way for armies of the time to fight. The weapons which were carried into battle were too inaccurate to be fired at long ranges, meaning that one had to get close to the enemy to fire his weapons. The best way to deliver a large volume of fire was by having one line shoot against another line. In fact, the weapons of the time were so inaccurate and the aim of the soldiers firing them so poor that the idea that ranks upon ranks would die from enemy volleys is largely a myth, considering very few soldiers would die on either side during the exchange of fire. This is why things like charges and cavalry played such crucial roles.

The Soviets won WWII in Europe: Doesn't need explaining.

America didn't lose the Vietnam War: No, I'm not being a revisionist, and no, I'm not some sort of conservative gung-ho American who can't accept reality. The US and North Vietnam signed a ceasefire which called for Americans withdrawal and for the North and South Vietnamese to cease fighting, and for the solution to the division of the two countries to be sought after with political rather than military means. The ceasefire was violated by the North Vietnamese after the US withdrew by attacking and conquering South Vietnam.

[Am__I]

Modern Greeks are gay though, right?

[MagnoliaTree]

Can you produce sources for all of this?

[WOAHVICKAY]

What? How did the Soviets lose WWII?

[I_Am_Once_Was]

1. I wasn't aware people believed ancient Greeks to be gay.

2. Yes, thank you. I'm tired of Cleopatra being the figure that springs into people's minds when they think of ancient Egypt.

lalala

7. Yes, lined formations were stupid. The redcoats adapted to a new technology by reverting to outdated methods of warfare used in ancient and medieval times. I'd say the bigger misconception from this period is that a musket was a reliable weapon.

8. I don't know about just plainly saying the Soviets won WWII in Europe. Germany was fighting on three fronts and only one of them was against Soviets. Also, territories secured by Germany were subject to uprisings from the local population, and this happened all throughout Europe. Yes, they were obviously the driving force for the Nazis' demise, but they were aided greatly by American, British, French, and Canadian forces that destroyed the Nazis' entire industry for war production and also did a real number on their air force.

[Evlmstr]

Don't know too much about some of these periods in the first place, and I agree on most everything else. But I would argue that there were other long term factors that contributed to the Roman Empire's demise, e.g. military and economic mismanagement.

[Mahometan]

Modern Greeks are gay though, right?

Yes, most definitely.

Can you produce sources for all of this?

I could, but that would require much more effort than I am willing to put into TS.

What? How did the Soviets lose WWII?

They didn't. They won it, almost single handed.

1. I wasn't aware people believed ancient Greeks to be gay.

Eh, I've heard it here and there.

7. Yes, lined formations were stupid. The redcoats adapted to a new technology by reverting to outdated methods of warfare used in ancient and medieval times. I'd say the bigger misconception from this period is that a musket was a reliable weapon.

But every major European power fought with lined formations, and the US didn't manage to fight the British effectively until it developed a European-modeled standing army. Lined formations became stupid by the time we reach the Civil War because firearms were so accurate that the need to deliver one huge volley was no longer there, because by then there would indeed be huge casualties.

8. I don't know about just plainly saying the Soviets won WWII in Europe. Germany was fighting on three fronts and only one of them was against Soviets. Also, territories secured by Germany were subject to uprisings from the local population, and this happened all throughout Europe. Yes, they were obviously the driving force for the Nazis' demise, but they were aided greatly by American, British, French, and Canadian forces that destroyed the Nazis' entire industry for war production and also did a real number on their air force.

The other fronts of the war accounted for about 20-25% of German forces. All their other forces were concentrated in the East, and after the German defeat at Kursk in 1943, Germany would have been defeated by the Soviets regardless of what happened in the West. Also, the only uprising which I can think of which actually succeeded was in Yugoslavia.

Don't know too much about some of these periods in the first place, and I agree on most everything else. But I would argue that there were other long term factors that contributed to the Roman Empire's demise, e.g. military and economic mismanagement.

Indeed, those long term factors were what made the Romans so incapable of responding to the various barbarian invasions.

[Mr_Quick]

The Crusades weren't wars of religious fanatics, nor were they motivated by greed: The Crusades began as an effort to aid the Byzantine Empire from the Muslim expansions, but the Pope's preaching called for the liberation of Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims, citing examples of Muslim violence against Christian pilgrims and places of worship. After the First Crusade conquered Jerusalem, many of those who had embarked on it returned home, poor, having completed what they saw as essentially a pilgrimage. The states which were established in the Holy Lands were basically in a constant state of war with the land's previous owners, and so what followed was what we all know as war between states. In any case, as the Western Christians settled in the Holy Lands, they quickly adopted many eastern customs, and usually lived side-by-side with Muslims and Jews with no incident, though the various laws of religious segregation and discrimination which were common to Islam and Christianity continued.

If they weren't motivated by either religious differences or greed, what was the motivation?

Lined formations (like the ones during the American Revolution as seen in The Patriot weren't stupid: While in high school we learned that the British were dumb for wearing bright red uniforms and fighting in lines and the Patriots were smart because they used guerrilla tactics, line formations were the only effective way for armies of the time to fight. The weapons which were carried into battle were too inaccurate to be fired at long ranges, meaning that one had to get close to the enemy to fire his weapons. The best way to deliver a large volume of fire was by having one line shoot against another line. In fact, the weapons of the time were so inaccurate and the aim of the soldiers firing them so poor that the idea that ranks upon ranks would die from enemy volleys is largely a myth, considering very few soldiers would die on either side during the exchange of fire. This is why things like charges and cavalry played such crucial roles.

You're correct about the inaccuracy of early firearms. However, weapons of the period were more than capable of generating massive casualties during a short exchange of fire between two armies, even when fired by untrained marksmen. The reason why casualties were so low even during sustained engagements was the same psychological resistance to killing that has plagued armies throughout history: a substantial majority of soldiers in such engagements either failed to fire at all or fired over their their enemies' heads.

America didn't lose the Vietnam War: No, I'm not being a revisionist, and no, I'm not some sort of conservative gung-ho American who can't accept reality. The US and North Vietnam signed a ceasefire which called for Americans withdrawal and for the North and South Vietnamese to cease fighting, and for the solution to the division of the two countries to be sought after with political rather than military means. The ceasefire was violated by the North Vietnamese after the US withdrew by attacking and conquering South Vietnam.

Frank addressed this quite nicely in the "we didn't lose vietnam" thread further down the page.

[Mahometan]

If they weren't motivated by either religious differences or greed, what was the motivation?

For the First Crusade, the main motivation was the liberation of the Church in Jerusalem (which you could argue would be a religious difference, but I think given the context of the time, it would be akin to saying liberating France from the Germans) combined with the aspects of pilgrimage which were common to Europe at the time. Through this armed pilgrimage, people hoped they could improve their lot in heaven, as well as many who went on crusade as penance for sins. In the later crusades, the motivation of the common soldier was the promise of being a martyr if they died in battle (in which case they would automatically go to heaven) or if they lived, the promise of the church that they would no longer have to do any penance for any sins they committed until that point, meaning they would spend no time in purgatory.

You're correct about the inaccuracy of early firearms. However, weapons of the period were more than capable of generating massive casualties during a short exchange of fire between two armies, even when fired by untrained marksmen. The reason why casualties were so low even during sustained engagements was the same psychological resistance to killing that has plagued armies throughout history: a substantial majority of soldiers in such engagements either failed to fire at all or fired over their their enemies' heads.

Well, that certainly would have been the case in conscript armies, but I am not sure if that would have also been the case in professional armies. Perhaps why Great Britain and Prussia did so much better than other nations was that they trained their soldiers to actually kill the enemy?

Frank addressed this quite nicely in the "we didn't lose vietnam" thread further down the page.

Well, Frank's the man, and he certainly outclasses me in anything related to American history.

[Mr_Quick]

For the First Crusade, the main motivation was the liberation of the Church in Jerusalem (which you could argue would be a religious difference, but I think given the context of the time, it would be akin to saying liberating France from the Germans) combined with the aspects of pilgrimage which were common to Europe at the time. Through this armed pilgrimage, people hoped they could improve their lot in heaven, as well as many who went on crusade as penance for sins. In the later crusades, the motivation of the common soldier was the promise of being a martyr if they died in battle (in which case they would automatically go to heaven) or if they lived, the promise of the church that they would no longer have to do any penance for any sins they committed until that point, meaning they would spend no time in purgatory.

That's a lot of religious language for a war that was in no way motivated by religion at all. Also, if their goal was merely to retake territory lost by the Byzantines, I have three questions:

1. I admit I'm a bit fuzzy on this, but I seem to recall reading about Crusader armies sacking Byzantine cities during some of the later Crusades. Why do this if their goal was purely to help the Byzantines against the Muslims?

2. Why did the Catholic powers care that Byzantium was losing ground to the Muslims? Hell, they were hardly the only contemporary power to experience hardships due to military conquest. France was in pretty bad shape for much of the Hundred Years War, for instance, yet the other Christian nations never sent massive armies to retake Western France from the English aggressors. In fact, the Byzantines were the only power to receive such overwhelming and unconditional military aid from other Christian nations.

3. If the goal was to retake lands lost by the Byzantines, why focus on the Holy Land? The Byzantines had lost much of Asia Minor as well as the Levant; if religion was not a motivator, why focus on the latter and largely ignore everything else that had been taken?

Well, that certainly would have been the case in conscript armies, but I am not sure if that would have also been the case in professional armies. Perhaps why Great Britain and Prussia did so much better than other nations was that they trained their soldiers to actually kill the enemy?

Well, effective conditioning methods for reducing the resistance to kill didn't exist until the twentieth century; prior to that there were only a few means of getting recalcitrant troops to kill. For instance, users of crew-served weapons (cannons, artillery, heavy machine guns) are much more likely to fire accurately in combat, thanks largely to the diffusion of responsibility. Likewise, a key function of officers in an army is that they encourage soldiers near them to fire more often; being directly ordered to fire rather than making the decision independently seems to take some of the psychological weight off the soldier. It's also much easier to kill someone when you're looking at their back rather than their face, hence why cavalry charges (the weapon of choice for provoking a rout or chasing down a fleeing enemy) were so decisive for much of human history. Essentially, prior to the advent of modern conditioning techniques, your options for encouraging troops to fire were limited to either diffusing responsibility or dehumanizing the enemy, both of which are difficult to implement consistently.

[Mahometan]

That's a lot of religious language for a war that was in no way motivated by religion at all. Also, if their goal was merely to retake territory lost by the Byzantines, I have three questions:

I should have used the term "religious extremism" rather than "religion" considering religion was basically an omnipresent feature of medieval society.

1. I admit I'm a bit fuzzy on this, but I seem to recall reading about Crusader armies sacking Byzantine cities during some of the later Crusades. Why do this if their goal was purely to help the Byzantines against the Muslims?

During the Fourth Crusade, the Venetians sacked Constantinople and conquered various parts of the Byzantine Empire. The attack on a fellow Christian power was condemned by the Pope, and it was basically an instrument the Venetians used to become the dominant Mediterranean power. In summary of what happened, the original crusade was meant to go to Egypt, but the numbers of crusaders was smaller than the number of the ships they had ordered from the Venetians and they couldn't pay the ships off, and so the Venetians told them that if they helped them out they would forgive their debts. It should be noted that many crusaders abandoned the crusade at this point when they realized they'd be attacking other Christians (who weren't heretics or heathens).

2. Why did the Catholic powers care that Byzantium was losing ground to the Muslims? Hell, they were hardly the only contemporary power to experience hardships due to military conquest. France was in pretty bad shape for much of the Hundred Years War, for instance, yet the other Christian nations never sent massive armies to retake Western France from the English aggressors. In fact, the Byzantines were the only power to receive such overwhelming and unconditional military aid from other Christian nations.

Well first of all, the Hundred Years' War was in the distant future as far as the first crusades were concerned. Simply put, while Europe was divided into various kingdoms and lordships, they were all united by their Christianity, regardless of whether they were Catholic or Orthodox, especially considering the split between the two churches was very recent. The Muslims were exterior aggressors, not squabbling rulers.

3. If the goal was to retake lands lost by the Byzantines, why focus on the Holy Land? The Byzantines had lost much of Asia Minor as well as the Levant; if religion was not a motivator, why focus on the latter and largely ignore everything else that had been taken?

The goal was to reconquer the lands which the Byzantines had lost to the Muslims, stretching from Asia Minor to the Holy Lands. The Byzantines were primarily interested in regaining Asia Minor and did not really care about the Holy Lands, but the Pope sold the crusade as a holy pilgrimage to regain Jerusalem, and only secondarily as aiding the Byzantines. The Byzantines were more than willing to let the crusaders do their dirty work for them and then hang them out to dry, but the crusaders didn't end up honoring their pledges to the Byzantines in any case.

Well, effective conditioning methods for reducing the resistance to kill didn't exist until the twentieth century; prior to that there were only a few means of getting recalcitrant troops to kill. For instance, users of crew-served weapons (cannons, artillery, heavy machine guns) are much more likely to fire accurately in combat, thanks largely to the diffusion of responsibility. Likewise, a key function of officers in an army is that they encourage soldiers near them to fire more often; being directly ordered to fire rather than making the decision independently seems to take some of the psychological weight off the soldier. It's also much easier to kill someone when you're looking at their back rather than their face, hence why cavalry charges (the weapon of choice for provoking a rout or chasing down a fleeing enemy) were so decisive for much of human history. Essentially, prior to the advent of modern conditioning techniques, your options for encouraging troops to fire were limited to either diffusing responsibility or dehumanizing the enemy, both of which are difficult to implement consistently.

Very interesting stuff. I assume the same thing can go even today, when WWII bomber pilots who probably killed hundreds of civilians can easily brush it off while a foot soldier who shot someone at close range is still haunted by it.

[Evlmstr]

Indeed, those long term factors were what made the Romans so incapable of responding to the various barbarian invasions.

Okay then

[Mr_Quick]

I should have used the term "religious extremism" rather than "religion" considering religion was basically an omnipresent feature of medieval society.

During the Fourth Crusade, the Venetians sacked Constantinople and conquered various parts of the Byzantine Empire. The attack on a fellow Christian power was condemned by the Pope, and it was basically an instrument the Venetians used to become the dominant Mediterranean power. In summary of what happened, the original crusade was meant to go to Egypt, but the numbers of crusaders was smaller than the number of the ships they had ordered from the Venetians and they couldn't pay the ships off, and so the Venetians told them that if they helped them out they would forgive their debts. It should be noted that many crusaders abandoned the crusade at this point when they realized they'd be attacking other Christians (who weren't heretics or heathens).



Well first of all, the Hundred Years' War was in the distant future as far as the first crusades were concerned. Simply put, while Europe was divided into various kingdoms and lordships, they were all united by their Christianity, regardless of whether they were Catholic or Orthodox, especially considering the split between the two churches was very recent. The Muslims were exterior aggressors, not squabbling rulers.


The goal was to reconquer the lands which the Byzantines had lost to the Muslims, stretching from Asia Minor to the Holy Lands. The Byzantines were primarily interested in regaining Asia Minor and did not really care about the Holy Lands, but the Pope sold the crusade as a holy pilgrimage to regain Jerusalem, and only secondarily as aiding the Byzantines. The Byzantines were more than willing to let the crusaders do their dirty work for them and then hang them out to dry, but the crusaders didn't end up honoring their pledges to the Byzantines in any case.

Well, far as I can tell the usual perception of the Crusades is that they were motivated by hatred of Muslims among European Christians. This seems like a gross oversimplification, and indeed it's doubtful that any single cause is sufficient to explain a series of separate conflicts spanning hundreds of years and involving dozens of different cultures. However, it does seem valid to say that, were the participants all of the same religion, the Crusades as we know them would not have occurred. Many of the instigators appear to have had more profane reasons for their actions, but the scale and relative cruelty of the various Crusades is difficult to explain without invoking religious differences.

Very interesting stuff. I assume the same thing can go even today, when WWII bomber pilots who probably killed hundreds of civilians can easily brush it off while a foot soldier who shot someone at close range is still haunted by it.

Definitely. Failure to fire has become less of an issue in advanced militaries over the last fifty years or so, but circumstantial factors still play a sizable role in psychological damage control after the fact.

[Lm_Rich]

I love how the OP ignores the fact that the crusades came after the Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthdox Church, why would the pope want to help someone who challenged his authority?

Homosexuality was promted amoung the soliders. The logic was if your lover was fighting next to you, you'd do anything in your power to save him.

[deadglory]

PEOPLE THINK LINCOLN KILLED VAMPIRES

HE REALLY KILLED ZOMBIES.

[WOAHVICKAY]

PEOPLE THINK LINCOLN KILLED VAMPIRES

HE REALLY KILLED ZOMBIES.

wow... zombies.

[HubOfTheUniverse]

About the Crusades and alluding to Mr_Quick's last response, do you our latest wars in the Middle East are remnants of this hatred for Muslims? (If anything, I'm asking about the wars preceding 9/11)

[Evlmstr]

Most of the shit that we get involved in over there has to do with oil one way or another

[Mahometan]

Well, far as I can tell the usual perception of the Crusades is that they were motivated by hatred of Muslims among European Christians. This seems like a gross oversimplification, and indeed it's doubtful that any single cause is sufficient to explain a series of separate conflicts spanning hundreds of years and involving dozens of different cultures. However, it does seem valid to say that, were the participants all of the same religion, the Crusades as we know them would not have occurred. Many of the instigators appear to have had more profane reasons for their actions, but the scale and relative cruelty of the various Crusades is difficult to explain without invoking religious differences.

I think what one has to remember is that this period in European history was especially bloody, with warfare being a constant between feuding lords. The situation was so bad that even churches and priests were being killed, which is why the Church initiated the Peace and Truce of God movements, which basically forbade fighting on certain days and forbade attacks on the Church. Indeed, it has been argued that the Crusades were actually a means of getting Europe's warriors and nobility to take their violent ways elsewhere so that they wouldn't be a problem in Europe, because warfare was the sole area of expertise and the only thing which justified the existence of all the various feudal lords.

I love how the OP ignores the fact that the crusades came after the Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthdox Church, why would the pope want to help someone who challenged his authority?

Two answers. The first, because they were still Christian, and the second was that the Pope was likely hoping that with the Crusades, he'd able to reunite the churches with himself at the top position.

Homosexuality was promted amoung the soliders. The logic was if your lover was fighting next to you, you'd do anything in your power to save him.

As far as I can recall, that was only the case in the Sacred Band of Thebes.

About the Crusades and alluding to Mr_Quick's last response, do you our latest wars in the Middle East are remnants of this hatred for Muslims? (If anything, I'm asking about the wars preceding 9/11)

No, I wouldn't say so. It should also be remembered that while it might seem as though the Muslim world has held the crusades in their collective memory and has a grduge against the Christians because of it, while constantly praising people like Saladin, the reality is that the Crusades were largely forgotten in the Muslim world. The only reason they became important again was because European's regained an interest in them in the 19th Century, and for example when the Emperor of Germany visited the Middle East, he laid a wreath at Saladin's tomb, and various European imperialists at the time equated their actions with a continuance of the Crusades. It was only natural that the emerging Arab nationalist movements would pick on this.

[xjessicaxrabbitx]

My favorite is that Lincoln was the most unconditional president to date.