Not so much knowledge in history

[Connacht]

Inspired by the posts in the "Things you learnt from playing vanilla" topic, I thought it would be nice to move the OT talking about people ignoring history in a new thread, where we can talk about silly, crazy, unbelievable things we heard during our life.

Here are the first posts:


Is this normal for European countries? Kids in Russia seemed much smarter. Europe is better than US in geography, but then any country is. What about history though? How much better are Europeans in history? I have traveled to almost very European country, but it is very difficult to tell how smart the people are in a certain country just after spending week in there. BTW, according to the stuff I read in the Economist as well as Time magazines, British students were just as bad as the American ones. Continental Europe was much better and Asian countries such as China, Japan and South Korea were the best, of course.


People here in the UK just seem to be getting dumber. One example is that 3/4 of the students in my year have no idea where Austria is ("your family are from where?") and another example is that, on finding out that one of my friends was Polish someone asked if he could speak "Poland."


Let´s just say that were I to ask anyone in my class who Hannibal was they´d think I was talking about the cannibal. One or two might after a while realise that there is someone else known as Hannibal, but it´s doubtful.

I´d say Julius Ceasar is the only Roman who´s name most would recognise, unless they´ve just watched Gladiator, in which case they might recognise at most 2 or 3 more names.
The Seleukids, Parthians, Ptolemy´s, Carthaginians... all totally unheard of. Alexander the Great is only known as "that gay guy who conquered a lot of shit", and knowledge about ancient Gaul, Germania or Britain is completely unexistant.
Well, some might recognise that Asterix and Obelix were Gauls and lived in France, but that´s about it.


Thats just so on the spot!!!

Sometimes, you marvel at the historical ignorance of some people...

Having been passionately facinated by ancient history for more than a decade, I always assumed that people knew, at least to some extent, who Hannibal or Attila was. So when in High School, upon discussing ancient Rome, I made a reference to the former's crossing of the alps, people basicly asked in which of the movies that was...

Or when, upon discussing the death of king Charles XII, (Swedish king, killed at Halden, Norway, in 1718, alledgedly shot with a uniform's button by a friendly soldier), someone asked why they didn't use a DNA-swab to expose the murderer...

Really, I think its sad that some people so completely lack knowledge of large parts of the history of the world, as this, in many ways, still influence the world today.


I'll willing to bet you guys money that you can't find a person [who isn't on this forum and who isn't a historian or archaeologist] who knows who Ashurbanipal was.


I'm in High School and we just finished our first history course (out of two, the other one focusing solely on Finnish history), which astoundingly dealt with everything from the rise of civilization to the beginning of the 18th century. Anyway, most people did know that Hannibal was a military leader who crossed the Alps in order to invade Italy, but when we got to the part that he was Punic everyone besides me asked in unison what on earth that meant. It's sort of disappointing, since I'm completeing the IB diplomma program in one of the most demanding schools in the country and even here people have only a rudimentary grasp of history. I know that the IB is natural sciences oriented but still, one would assume that Carthage is something everybody has heard of.


It is normal that people in US don't know geography. Even some newspapers or televisions haven't realised thet Czechoslovakia splited 15 years ago or that Slovakia and Slovenia are two different states. But if you ask somebody in Europe about some US states, perhaps except for California, Florida, Alaska, Texas or Hawai, he will have no idea where the others are. The same goes for US history.
Especially in post-socialistic countries schools demand encyclopedic knowledge and so people know a lot of facts. If you search results for example from some international scielnce olympiads, you will discover that most successful are countries from eastern Asia and eastern Europe. Secondary schools are on higher level here, but it's much worse with universities.

And I learned a lot from playing RTW because thnks to it I disovered EB which taught me a lot.

I have an idea: let's prepare some questions from history (like who was Pyrrhus, what do you know about Seleucid empire, how do you imagine barbarian cultures...) and make a survey among people from our countries. Every forum member who will do this will post his results and we will have some kind of global ancient history knowledge study.


OK, first question: Who is Hannibal Barca?
What is Carthage?

and on topic, I lerned that Epirus wasn't in existance, and neither was Phyrrus


I just remembered something quite amusing that took place during our history lesson. Some of my classmates had done a presentation about Indian history from about 300 BC to 200 AD. When I asked them about the Indo-Greek kingdoms they just stared at me with a mixture of total disbelief and amazement and asked me if I just made up the question.

Second question: What do you think happened to Alexander the Great's empire after he died?


I also heard many things that here in Italy we would call "castronerie" when I still was at high school. Here the stereotype about us is that people living in Italy should well know Mediterranean history, at least Roman and Greek one.
However, I even saw somebody who even didn't know where Asia Minor is during school times. :shame: (I could also tell you about those who couldn't find Dalmatia on the map and a friend of mine who believed that Mexico was in South America - another friend instead neither knew it was in America).

Another incredible show was this:

Italian literature teacher: "where is Carthage?"
Student: "hmmm, er... there, in Morocco"
Teacher: "uh"

(nobody noticed that)

My first high school history book also quoted the topoi about barbarians, IIRC. Yes, they were all uncivilized grunters, except the Gauls that lived near Massilia, since it was a Greek colony, and those that entered in contact with the Romans in the province of Gallia Narbonensis. Well, they were the ones that become civilized and opened the doors of civilization for the other Gauls, the other ones being dirty, unorganized savages.

[Rodrico Stak]

Perhaps not the most extreme example of this, but the first one I can think of:

We were learning about ancient Egypt in my humanities class:

My Humanities teacher: ...ancient Egyptian civilization lasted for over 3000 years, ending after the end of the dynasty of the Ptolemies, who were Greeks who ruled Egypt on behalf of the Persian Empire.
Me: Um... actually it was Alexander the Great's empire.
Someone else: No! It was the Roman Empire!
Humanities teacher: That's right, it was the Roman Empire.
Me: ... no, it was the empire of Alexander the Great.
Humanities teacher: Ok, that's right. But it wasn't really involved with his empire, they just happened to be contemporary.
Me: ... (thinking: this is hopeless, I'm not even going to argue this further. Let's just ignore the fact that he was one of Alexander's generals.)

[Zeibek]

This doesn't totally relate to history, but the ignorance behind it is amusing enough. In Junior High during our Civics lesson we looked at the online database of Finnish names over the past century. The teacher picked someone called Muhammed and asked us how was it possible that an Islamic name appeared in Finland in 1902. Here's the discussion that followed:

Someone: What, there were Somalis here?
Me: No, it's most obviously a Tatar name.
Teacher: Yes, it was a Tatar name. They were brought here by the Czar to quel the unruly provinces as elite troops.
Someone else: What, the Somput? (Somppu is derogatory term for Somalis, more or less like nigger)
Third someone: Yeah, I bet they were biological weapons.
*Whole class starts laughing frantically*

It probably sounds only racist and ignorant but at the time it seemed just incredibly absurd to me. I laughed with everyone else, but more at the absurdity of the comments. Then I experienced this great surge of feeling superior in comparison to almost everybody else there. It was a scary feeling. Almost as scary as the fact that I was going to an international school where like a fourth of the students were either foreign or had a foreign parent.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

It's one thing when a highschool level gets something wrong or even at the college level, but for me some of the biggest events such as these have occured when watching the History Channel. There have been times when I just had to scream at the TV. One time a show said, "...when the Romans arrived in Egypt in the third century BC..." I don't know if they meant the Greeks / Ptolemaioi or if they really meant the Romans and had the wrong time because they then talked about mummies...

[theoldbelgian]

this what was in our textbooks about our very forefathers the old begians:
the old belgians lived in huts, lived of hunt and fishing.
they also threwed dice and drunk beer
now doesn't that sound nice

[Tellos Athenaios]

To me it realy depends - there are so many areas of which I myself don't know anything at all... Discussions like these are an easy 'victory', only people similarly minded really attend, and they would agree with you. Despite the fact you are not very likely to know much about it either... For instance...

I find it mildly amusing that quite a few of the older people around (where I live, I mean) are likely to complain about the lack of knowledge on dates, times etcetera among the younger generations. Invariably they will only know a couple themselves -- and usually among those is the absolute pinaccle of insigificant battles ever fought: 1600 battle of Nieuwpoort. If I ask them what's so special about 1898..?

Similarly they'll go on and on about how they didn't have pocket calculators (and frankly there's something about that which isn't completely 100% waste of time) yet ask anyone of them to compute the highest prime number under 100? (Answer: 97.)

[||Lz3||]

once, my philosophy teacher said the roman empire was created in 800bc... and that alexander was after it... emm what?

I tried to help but it was hopeless so... meh

[Legosoldier]

once, my philosophy teacher said the roman empire was created in 800bc... and that alexander was after it... emm what?

I tried to help but it was hopeless so... meh

Suppose he meant that the city of Rome was founded that time?

[General Appo]

I have quite a general knowledge pf pretty much all aspects of history, which really none of my classmates have. Of course, when it comes to the antique I am somewhat more then just generally knowledgable, and in the eyes of my classmates a true expert.
We don´t discuss history a lot in my school, but the few times we do, it generally sucks. My teacher is pretty okay, but you know, he´s follows the book and really don´t know enough about every subject to point out where it´s wrong.
Admittedly I am 14 and should perhaps not expect any sort of higher education yet, but seriously, we saw Gladiator during history class!

Oh, just remember this old post by me. I was rather aggravated when making it, but my viewpoints still stand.

"ARGGH!! I wasted 80 minutes today attending a history class in my school. We were reading about the middle to late Roman republic, and I couldn´t believe the bullshit we were being told. Firstly my teacher tells everybody plus writes on the board in big letters that the Roman Senate always had 300 members, during the middle and late republic. Ridiculous.
Then he went on saying (reading straight from our books of course) that the Senators were above the Generals on the social pyramid, completely ignoring that nearly all Generals were Senators, and high-ranking such. He also made it sound like the Consuls had nothing to do with the military, and that the Comitia Tributa (of course he didn´t call it that) was arranged very democraticly, with everyones vote counting equally.
After hearing some sensational bullshit about Hannibal and the Second Punic War and how he used 500 elephants in every battle to defeat the Romans until he was defeated (not known how), we skipped ahead to the Third one, were the Romans killed every single person in Carthage, burnt the city until no trace of it was left, salted the earth and abandoned it forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever. And EVER!!! The fact that most of the population were sold into slavery, that several meters high buildings were left standing, that the salting of the earth is just an old myth, and that Carthage was the third biggest city in the Roman Empire, were all completely forgotten.
Now we skipped again to Gaius Marius, the great and noble dude who not only defeated a gigantic horde of savage Germans, but completely reformed the Roman army, kicking the worthless skirmishers and cavalry out of it. Who needs supportive troops when you´ve got Legionaries, the best men in the world, all worth at least 50 of those hairy barbarians, who certainly didn´t invent the soap.
Now we skip again (no mention of Gracchi brothers, Marius later career, Sulla or anything else) to the noble Spartacus. A savage wilderbeast from the darkness of the barbarian lands fighting for his freedom, Spartacus was a mixture of Wallace in Braveheart and Conan the Barbarian, and usually killed about 400 Romans all by himself in every battle, until finally the evil and ruthless Pompey through deceitful ways managed to kill him and crucify tens of thousands of slaves.
Spartacus certainly wasn´t an educated man, and it certainly wasn´t someone named Crassus who defeated him. The whole inclusion of Pompey is just to set the stage for the greatest hero of them all, the great and noble, the saviour of the Roman Republic and the whole world, Gaius Julius CEASAR!!!! This incredibly nice guy not only defeated the vicious Gauls, but also fought for the freedom of all Romans against the evil coalition of Pompey and the Senate. When Ceasar finally won he was brutally murdered by the evil Brutus, but his noble son killed that son of a bitch, and after the wierdo Antony and his Egyptian whore had killed eachother made himself Emperor, and saved the Republic!! Hooray!!!
Now I´m just wondering, where the fu*k did the people who wrote this book get their infromation? Because of quick Wiki-fuc*ing-pedia search in the English, Swedish and fuc*ing Icelandic version will tell you, THAT THERE WERE NO MOTHERFUC*ING 300 PEOPLE IN THE ROMAN FUC*ING SENATE!!! SHIT!!!!!!!! *headbangs keyboard. tfgvbvyhbujik"

[Remco]

Well, we shouldn't blame people for not knowing, since most teachers don't know what they are talking about. Everything I know about history, mostly antiquity and WOII, I taught myself. But lets not be to hard on people who don't know about history. I bett I could ask you trivial questions on the subject of mathematics and physics and only a few would know the answer. Everybody has his own field of interest. Sadly this is mostly about utter crap. :laugh4:

[General Appo]

Not at all. I bet you there is nothing my friends know more about than me. Seriously, from Roman history to classic rock to internet slang to mathematics to geography to gourmet to philosophy to brittish comedy to apartheid to demographics to tele marketing to window polishing to top scorers in the Serie A to Swedish politics in the 50´s to bicycle maintanance to photoshop editing to CounterStrike gaming to American jazz to Russian folkdance to pencil factories to penny eating to guitarr playing to the firing of firearms to US Marine slang to nailbiting to sex positions to just about everything, I know just as much or more than my friends.
But then again, I am amazing.

[ludwag]

ouch. why diddnt you finish the argue? I had some of the same. Where my history-teacher said that the empire of alexander was bigger than the persian. but i said no, but he refused to accept. We was talking about the size. But then i did something stupid: i mentioned that alexanders empire was greater becouse it included greece. and he started relying upon that.

i havent learnt anything in my historic class exept the name of some ice-age guy. not even in the history book. i am looking forvard to start learning history for real after i finish highscool.

[penguinking]

My history textbook in an ancient history class I took has almost nothing on the Celts, other than one sentence about the Gallic Wars ("Within seven years, he conquered what is now Northern France and Belgium and invaded Britain") and one more sentence about how some Gauls fought with Hannibal ("The Gauls, who were enemies of the Romans, joined Hannibal and boosted his numbers to almost 50,000"). :no:
Therefore, our class spent no time on them.

[Celtic_Punk]

i havent learnt anything in my historic class exept the name of some ice-age guy. not even in the history book. i am looking forvard to start learning history for real after i finish highscool.
OTZI!!!!!!!!!
WOOT!

it was the same thing with me Appo in history class. My peers were total retards, I helped teach the class with my teacher. She was absolutely brilliant! She was a good Art/History/Philosophy/Liberal studies teacher. In the eyes of my peers I was a fucking professor... and i know dick all compared to the people on this forum about antiquity. I know a lot about WWII though, that was my first passion.

IIRC our history text book said pre-roman Briton and Irish Celts were smelly uncivilized savages who committed human sacrifice and ate the entrails to prove their devotion to the Gods. Also it said that Caesar conquered Briton (right obviously) but never mentioned briton throwing off the shackles of Roman rule. THEY ALSO never mentioned that they never took Caledonia. THEY ALSO said that Alexander was a big poof who conquered "ALL" of the known world, and but was defeated by Rome. (did not mention when he died, the wording made it sound like he fought and lost against rome) *smashes head off desk* Highschool is definitely retarded. Never take what you learn there to be 100% fact... actually not even 50% fact!

[General Appo]

Hehe, yeah.

What I find amusing is that as soon as we pass 1000 AD 80% of everything we learn in history is about Sweden. Before then, like 5% is. It´s like "before the vikings there lived some people in Sweden who hunted deers and eat roots and couldn´t do jack shit".
Just.... argh! Why do everything before 1000AD have to be about the Romans and Greeks? Annoying.

[Hegix]

Until we reached 1658 in history class all we learned about was other peoples history. First Greeks and Romans then Swedes. Denmark was an evil warmongering nation in the south, but noone mentions that we were Danes.

I recently sat next to a group of teens discussing the new Arn movie (Swedish movie about a crusader that travels from Sweden to Jerusalem, becomes friends with Saladin, then travels back and defeats the Danes) when they talked about how "we" defeated the Danes in the end. I felt an urge to walk up to them and slap them for their ignorance.

As a side note, until I started playing EB I had no idea who the Epirotes were. I knew about Pyrrhus and his "victory", but always figured Epirus was an Italian city-state or something. I have the EB team to thank for firing up an interest in ancient history that I never really had before.

[Remco]

Not at all. I bet you there is nothing my friends know more about than me. Seriously, from Roman history to classic rock to internet slang to mathematics to geography to gourmet to philosophy to brittish comedy to apartheid to demographics to tele marketing to window polishing to top scorers in the Serie A to Swedish politics in the 50´s to bicycle maintanance to photoshop editing to CounterStrike gaming to American jazz to Russian folkdance to pencil factories to penny eating to guitarr playing to the firing of firearms to US Marine slang to nailbiting to sex positions to just about everything, I know just as much or more than my friends.
But then again, I am amazing.

Obviously I was talking was talking about people not gods. :laugh4: I was trying to say that not everybody can be a history buff.

But seriously, maybe you are right. There are a lot of dumb, ignorant people. You know what a hate most? When people have an opinion on something while they don't know the facts. Like the LHC from CERN in Switzerland. A lot of people were scarred by it and taught it should not be used. This while several independant reports stated it is perfectly safe. The same shit applies the UMTS and GSM base stations.

[General Appo]

Until we reached 1658 in history class all we learned about was other peoples history. First Greeks and Romans then Swedes. Denmark was an evil warmongering nation in the south, but noone mentions that we were Danes.

I recently sat next to a group of teens discussing the new Arn movie (Swedish movie about a crusader that travels from Sweden to Jerusalem, becomes friends with Saladin, then travels back and defeats the Danes) when they talked about how "we" defeated the Danes in the end. I felt an urge to walk up to them and slap them for their ignorance.



We noble Swedes would be Danes? How dare you?! Obviously we are The Superior Race, destined to rule the world with our blonde hair flying in the wind, our steelblue eyes seeing all and with a dozen of our legendary bimbos at our side.

[Zeibek]

Well, we shouldn't blame people for not knowing, since most teachers don't know what they are talking about. Everything I know about history, mostly antiquity and WOII, I taught myself. But lets not be to hard on people who don't know about history. I bett I could ask you trivial questions on the subject of mathematics and physics and only a few would know the answer.:laugh4:

Not necessarily. Though the question "Who was Hannibal Barca?" relates to history it's so basic that everybody should know it. I immensly dislike the natural sciences (or the way they are taught at least) yet know what the letters in E=mc2 stand for, know Newton's laws of motion etc., but people who are into natural sciences rarely bother to learn even the most rudimentary historical facts. That can sometimes really piss me off. I'm not talking about being a history buff, I'm talking about the most basic knowledge everyone with some form of education should posess.

[Europe]

The stories in this thread are so bad it makes my own school look good!:dizzy2: At least we got to learn about the first civilisations (Egypt, Babylon) and the Chinese dynasties. :2thumbsup:
Also they point out that historical people did both bad and good things, like Caesar, Qin shi Huang, Gustav Vasa. (except the Danes, they are all satans minions!:spider:)
In fact we got a question if we thought that Qin was a good or bad emperor on our last test.

[General Appo]

Also they point out that historical people did both bad and good things, like Caesar, Qin shi Huang, Gustav Vasa. (except the Danes, they are all satans minions!:spider:)
In fact we got a question if we thought that Qin was a good or bad emperor on our last test.


Gustav Vasa doing bad things? Surely you must be joking! The man who rode around the world on a sleigh, swam in poop, dodged thousands of evil danes, resisted horrible torture, braved unknown waters, fought trolls and ogres, slaughtered dragons and drank the entire clergy under the table couldn´t possible have done anything bad at all. Liar!

What´s slightly amusing (though of course rather sad too) is the massive amount of people they (or pretty much all chinese rulers) manged to kill in their days. Far surpass any European tyrant, and even the worst Russians fall behind. Though to be honest they did have a bit of an unfair advantage what having about 20 times as many people under their rule.
Seriously, compared to what was before, the Cultural Revolution looks like a tea-party gone slightly wrong.

[Zeibek]

The stories in this thread are so bad it makes my own school look good! At least we got to learn about the first civilisations (Egypt, Babylon) and the Chinese dynasties.
We "learnt" about the first civilizations as well. That means that the teacher just divided us into groups and we did a presentation about one. After that we watched a a series of films where Lord Kenneth Clark talks about what he considers to be civilization. During the dark ages and before the Renaissance that means Christianity. Pagan Slavs and Vikings? Merely filthy barbarians hardly worth mentioning. The Islamic Golden Age taking place at the same time? Never heard of it. I hear that the series is very much respected, but the fact is it's about the history of art, which I find incredibly boring. And art does not equate civilization. How can one even talk about civilization without mentioning Mesopotamia or anything dating prior to the birth of Jesus!? Maybe the series was introduced to us in a bad context. I don't know. But it certainly turned off all my classmates about history. Which really is a shame.

I was glad with our test though. There was a simple list the following twenty events in chronological order and then a more interesting question about comparing the economic basis of two civilizations. I chose classical Greece and Achaemenid Persia. My text was of course nowhere near the level people here are used to but I sure as hell outshined my classmates.

[Connacht]

Well, we shouldn't blame people for not knowing, since most teachers don't know what they are talking about. Everything I know about history, mostly antiquity and WOII, I taught myself. But lets not be to hard on people who don't know about history. I bett I could ask you trivial questions on the subject of mathematics and physics and only a few would know the answer. Everybody has his own field of interest. Sadly this is mostly about utter crap.

It depends by the question.
I wouldn't blame anyone who doesn't know who were the Seleucians, or what was the Operation Tannenbaum, or when the Hell did the Moghal Empire rise, or who the duke of Alba was.
But I would surely put my hands on my hair in case of hearing somebody say that Alexander the Great was a relative of Charles the Great, or if somebody doesn't know where the Nazis passed in order to invade France, or think that Cina is on the Equator, or say that Achilles defeated the Turks.


"before the vikings there lived some people in Sweden who hunted deers and eat roots and couldn´t do jack shit".

Today some black/pagan/Viking metallers still do that. :laugh4:


but people who are into natural sciences rarely bother to learn even the most rudimentary historical facts.

My university faculty is biology and I always had interesting in history too, so I'm happy to be an exception. ^^'

[Majd il-Romani]

I always loved history and it was my favorite subject, especially the EB timeframe :laugh4:
Now I agree with Connacht when it is kindof unfair to ask someone "who was the 16th seleucid king" or "how many tribes were there in pre-roman britain and what were their names" but my friend and I were talking about politics and we got on the subject of nuclear weapons. I asked him who was the only country to use nukes?" he said Russia.
Me: No, it was Ameica
Him:Really?
Me: Yes. Do you at least know who we used it on?
Him:Russia
Me:no
Him:China?
Me: No, it was Japan!
Him: Oh, I knew that

and my friend is Egyptian, and he was reminiscing to us about his trip there over summer. One of his friends says "psh, big deal, Egypt, all you get to do is go in the sand and ride a camel.
I say "what about the Pyramids?"
Him: Okay thats it all of the rest of the country is all sand
Me:No
Him: Yah it is!
Me: Youve obviously neve heard of the NILE, have you?
Him: Okay, there's like one city by it, but the rest is all sand-
Me: It's the longest river in the world! One city! Which city?
Him: Luxor
:wall::wall::wall:

its pathetic, really :no:

[General Appo]

Well, if a person, no less an person from the US, has not heard of the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then that person is, and I say this with all possible respect about a person whom I have never meet and whom I know very little about, a complete retard. Indeed, a frightening retard. And that´s it. If it´s the school systems fault, then both the school system and this person is retarded. Simple as that.

[Connacht]

I would not mix up idiocy and simple ignorance, however. Two different things, imho.

[Zeibek]

My university faculty is biology and I always had interesting in history too, so I'm happy to be an exception. ^^'

*Sigh* I wish there more exceptions like you. Though my friend who is interested in physics at least tries to make and effort with history and in return I try not to fall asleep while he's getting all excited by the LHC (which is sadly enough now broken).

Most of my current classmates are very smart people, in no way ignorant. The main reason they don't bother with history is because they find it to be useless. "I'm never gonna do anything with it" is the most common answer I get when I ask them why the aren't interested. Fair enough, but most of them are never going to do anything with the math they are learning now as well, yet still no one looks down at studying long math.

Connacht said it well, don't mix idiocy with ignorance and simple ignorance with willful ignorance.

[Noncommunist]

Wow, I don't think my High School is that bad. However, I haven't really asked people what they know a year or so after their course. I'm guessing they probably forgot a good bit of it as a lot of people slept during class and only really paid attention in the study guides.

On the other hand, I remember meeting this English girl who hated Germany simply because Hitler ruled it and he was mean. I don't think she knew anything about it, not even where it was.

[Strategos Alexandros]

As I read this I just heard my sister, who is in high school, ask who won the first world war? and then to bring me even closer to a mental breakdown, is Everest in Scotland? Apologies if this is barely legible, I'm half asleep right now :no:

[Rodrico Stak]

My sister didn't know in what country Rome is. :dizzy2:

I don't know anyone who can tell me when the first world war took place (the closest anyone has gotten was 1915-1919, only one year off). No one could name a general other than Pershing in that war.

[AlexanderSextus]

Not at all. I bet you there is nothing my friends know more about than me. Seriously, from Roman history to classic rock to internet slang to mathematics to geography to gourmet to philosophy to brittish comedy to apartheid to demographics to tele marketing to window polishing to top scorers in the Serie A to Swedish politics in the 50´s to bicycle maintanance to photoshop editing to CounterStrike gaming to American jazz to Russian folkdance to pencil factories to penny eating to guitarr playing to the firing of firearms to US Marine slang to nailbiting to sex positions to just about everything, I know just as much or more than my friends.
But then again, I am amazing.

Theres one thing i will always know more about than you appo.


Hip-Hop.:yes::yes::yes::smash::egypt:

[General Appo]

Oh really? Well, can you name all tracks on The Best Of Sugarhill Gang: Rapper's Delight from memory?
Or maybe from which country Kid Creole´s mother hailed? Our on which song from Eminem´s Slim Shady LP Zoe Winkler featured as a guest musician?
Or on what nightclub Dr. Dre performed after dropping out of Chester Adult School in Compton? Or maybe what 3 groups O'Shea Jackson´s cousin has been part of? Or perhaps on which track Vicki Miles featured on Chi Ali Griffith´s Sure Shot Redemption album?

I thought not. Obviously, I am - as always - superior.

[Ibrahim]

hmm. this thread will get me going about history allright...I could go on and on about a prticular mod i saw, and its handling of a certain war, but out of good manners, I won't. needless to say, I'm scarred, my boss is pissed, and had he actually seen it, he would have had a heart attack.

alternatively, I really like the histories section in AOK from ensembles studio...absolute garbage when it came to the "dark ages".

I can always go on about how practically every one I met so far has no clue where Kuwait, arabia, or even hebron (khaleel to all arabs) is. hell, most around here don't know where the hell Israel Is, or the palestinian territories, in which hebron is located (that's when I'm asked my origions). and whats with the whole idea of the "oil shiekh" idea? it seems everyone thinks everybody in Kuwait is rich, even though 60% of that state makes under 60,000$ a year, and aren't even kuwaiti. girls run away, thinking I'lll cage them, or whip them or something. idiots...you should see what they think about the crusades. bunch of hicks. most arabs in kuwait actually know more states in the US than most of the locals know, and can find all sorts of places. some can een find bhutan (interesting place...). see if a local can find monaco. (or bhutan)

most cannot even tell me a history of this state (Texas). i know more about Texas history, and I haven't even been taught about texas, than the average texan. I was the only one in highschool govt. (in Texas), who could name every state in the US (I could have named the neighbouring canadian provinces as a bonus (british columbia, Alberta, saskatchwan(sorry If I misspelled), manitoba, ontario, quebec, newfoundland..etc. I even passed a credit exam-ridiculously easy (long though).. found out most can't make a 90% if they're lives depended on it. that was the passing grade mind ye (I made a 98 in both credit exams for history, a 94 and a 93 for 2 geography exams)

and why does everyone here pronunce Iraq as I-rack? sounds like something you say when you want to torture someone...:wall:

so ends my diatribe...you are all lucky I haven't discussed dinosaurs...

EDIT: VERY LUCKY!

[Aemilius Paulus]

An American asked me if the Germans won WWI (8th grade - still somewhat forgivable, considering that many schools do not teach World History until high school).

It's not history, but it is social studies, particularly geography: another American (adult) asked me how long it took to drive from Florida to Russia.

A 10th grader inquired whether humans still lived in caves and were essentially in a Stone Age in 500 BC. What one has to take into account is that I go to a special (no, I am not a retard!) school that admits only students with outstanding academic and disciplinary record.

[General Appo]

girls run away, thinking I'lll cage them, or whip them or something.



I don´t think that has anything with your heritage to do..... :whip:



no, I am not a retard!

Objection!

[Tellos Athenaios]

I don't know anyone who can tell me when the first world war took place (the closest anyone has gotten was 1915-1919, only one year off). No one could name a general other than Pershing in that war.

Well, as far as diplomacy goes... that is damn spot on. Questions for you: the negotiations started 48 years (to the day) after which important proclamation, incidentally made in the same p(a)lace where the Peace between Germany and the Allied Powers was signed? And: what had happend 5 years (to the day) *before* that particular peace treaty was signed?

[Tristuskhan]

Proclamation of the Second Reich, Versailles, Sarajevo's murder 1914.:beam: Maybe I'm wrong though, I did not check before answering.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well thechnically, it was Franz Ferdinand who got murdered; not Sarejevo. Otherwise: 100% correct. ~;)

[Tristuskhan]

Well thechnically, it was Franz Ferdinand who got murdered; not Sarejevo. Otherwise: 100% correct. ~;)

Benefit of being french over 30, probably: history lessons were rather serious when I was a schoolboy.

Standarts went down fast since then.

[HunGeneral]

Well reading all this gave me many Ideas about what my me and friends used to think but I don't we were that horrible..:sweatdrop:

I think "knowledge" itself can also be influenced by the culture and Country or even Area you come from. I don't mean to say that peoples intellect is fully determined by the place they live in or were born. (there are more and less Intelligent people all over the World:yes:)

Like one of the teachers I know used to say: a given society has it's own values and information it considers important - like Middle or East- Europeans hold Geography and History as something one must know about (it helps them determine who they are and what there Origin is).

While others hold other kind of Information for important. He recalled that one of his Students from the USA wasn't sure in wich century the Reformation began - but that does not make him a retard. It's just that in the States not all people hold History as an overall important subject. (I don't mean to insult anyone from the US since I know there are many among them as well who are very interrested in History - as far as I know they mostly learn only there own History after the Discovery of America - sorry again if I'm wrong:sweatdrop:).

[Ibrahim]

[QUOTE=General Appo;2025554]I don´t think that has anything with your heritage to do..... :whip:

really? then why the heck does their attitude change when i tell them i'm of Ara heritage, palestinian too? bear in mind, I do ok with those who do not know.

I'm telling you, poeple here are racist to arabs.:wall:

[Onehandstan]

I have to say that before I downloaded EB (about 5 months ago now) I knew nearly nothing of the celts, the Greeks or the near east but EB has sparked an interest that I have never experienced for anything before. Thank you EB team( have a balloon:balloon2:). Anyway back on topic I discovered that my Dad had never heard of Arche Seleukia until I pointed it out to him in Encyclopedia Brittanica but then he still wouldn't believe me about most of the stuff I told him.

[General Appo]

Anyway back on topic I discovered that my Dad had never heard of Arche Seleukia until I pointed it out to him in Encyclopedia Brittanica but then he still wouldn't believe me about most of the stuff I told him.

I do not believe I have meet a single person who knows of the Arche Seleukeia in my entire life. Well, possible some history teacher, but I must admit I a doubtful of it.

[HunGeneral]

I do not believe I have meet a single person who knows of the Arche Seleukeia in my entire life. Well, possible some history teacher, but I must admit I a doubtful of it.


I can say (almost) the same. True some people I know remembered the name (as Seleucid Empire) from their History Studies were it was mentioned as a Successor state. But I'm sure they heard more of some Cleopatra than Ptolemaios or Seleucus. One of my History Teachers also knew alot about them - I could thank him alot since he was the one who started my interrest for Ancient History:2thumbsup:

[Zradha Pahlavan]

Most people don't know anything about the Persians other than that they lost a battle to the Spartans.
Most people don't know anything about the Egyptians other than that they had pharaohs and mummies.
Most people don't know where the phrase "Pyrrhic victory" comes from.
Most people don't know that the Chinese used primitive rockets in warfare during the middle ages.
And many people don't know that Russia was an ally of the United States in World War 2.

[General Appo]

And many people don't know that Russia was an ally of the United States in World War 2.

Now that is just upsettingly retarded and disturbingly ignorant.

[tls5669]

Most people don't know anything about the Persians other than that they lost a battle to the Spartans.
Most people don't know anything about the Egyptians other than that they had pharaohs and mummies.
Most people don't know where the phrase "Pyrrhic victory" comes from.
Most people don't know that the Chinese used primitive rockets in warfare during the middle ages.
And many people don't know that Russia was an ally of the United States in World War 2.


And many people don't know that Russia was an ally of the United States in World War 2.


World War 1 also.


And something Ive thought a lot about. There were a lot of early American civilizations, Mayans, Aztecs, Incans, Toltecs, Zapotecs, Olmecs, and Anastazi to name a few. They never really came out of the stone age, but they were as old as "Western" civilizations.


Ive always wondered why? When the Spaniards Invaded S. America and Mexico, what if those civs were in the bronze or iron age? Even in N. America in the 15th century, they were still in the stone age, 4500 years or so after the Sumerians came out of the stone age.

[Rodrico Stak]

I do not believe I have meet a single person who knows of the Arche Seleukeia in my entire life. Well, possible some history teacher, but I must admit I a doubtful of it.
Same here. When I was looking for a book on the Seleucid Empire (which I didn't find except online - not even my local community college library had one, and certainly my high school library doesn't), I eventually had to explain what exactly I was looking for, which then lead me to have to explain what the Arche Seleukia was, and nobody understood - few even knew that there was any history between Alexander the Great and Rome.

[Cullhwch]

World War 1 also.




That's.... complicated. Suffice it to say, the US was not allied with the Tsarist regime, and Kerensky's offensive petered out way too quickly for the Russians to be a major contributor to the Allies after the initial revolution. The United States severed diplomatic ties after the Bolsheviks took over. So the US was allied with Russia for about half a year.

[tls5669]

That's.... complicated. Suffice it to say, the US was not allied with the Tsarist regime, and Kerensky's offensive petered out way too quickly for the Russians to be a major contributor to the Allies after the initial revolution. The United States severed diplomatic ties after the Bolsheviks took over. So the US was allied with Russia for about half a year.

Russia was an "Ally" for all intense and purposes as in.


Allies

U.S
U.K
France
Russia
Italy
Japan
And associated empires



Central Powers

Germany
Austria-Hungary
Ottoman Empire
And associated empires

[||Lz3||]

Ive always wondered why? When the Spaniards Invaded S. America and Mexico, what if those civs were in the bronze or iron age? Even in N. America in the 15th century, they were still in the stone age, 4500 years or so after the Sumerians came out of the stone age.

But exceptional civilizations (tenochtitlan [Aztec capital] for example... the biggest city in the world with a population of 250'000, and with a fully operative aqueduct. If they had had somewhat less antiquated warfare tactics and if all the other towns and villages around them had not hated them so much… the Spaniards would have gotten their asses kicked. Iron weapons were important… but not the ONLY factor that caused the fall of the Aztec empire.

:book2:

[Cbvani]

But exceptional civilizations (tenochtitlan [Aztec capital] for example... the biggest city in the world with a population of 250'000, and with a fully operative aqueduct. If they had had somewhat less antiquated warfare tactics and if all the other towns and villages around them had not hated them so much… the Spaniards would have gotten their asses kicked. Iron weapons were important… but not the ONLY factor that caused the fall of the Aztec empire.

:book2:

Germs. Smallpox. Those killed native americans on both continents far more than a sword or bullet.

[Cullhwch]

Yeah, but the Spaniards' apparent invincibility (their armor was damn near impervious to anything short of bullets) WAS a major factor in their perceived godhood. If the Spaniards had been less well-armored, the initial battles against their future allies would have been disastrous. Had they been killed, the catalyst for the anti-Aztec revolt would have been extinguished.

[APX]

I have had a girl in history class claim that the Mayans could not have had slaves because there were no blacks in South America...

[penguinking]

I have had a girl in history class claim that the Mayans could not have had slaves because there were no blacks in South America...
:no:
How awful.

[keravnos]

I have had a girl in history class claim that the Mayans could not have had slaves because there were no blacks in South America...

Show her this, then.
http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/collections/american_art/55.14.php

[HunGeneral]

But exceptional civilizations (tenochtitlan [Aztec capital] for example... the biggest city in the world with a population of 250'000, and with a fully operative aqueduct. If they had had somewhat less antiquated warfare tactics and if all the other towns and villages around them had not hated them so much… the Spaniards would have gotten their asses kicked. Iron weapons were important… but not the ONLY factor that caused the fall of the Aztec empire.

:book2:

Thats true. Like sad earlier by Cbvani germs and Smalpox surely decimetad the native Amercans.

About why they didn't make Iron weapons I heard of theories that clam it also had Geograpical reasons - since the american continent is somewhat divided by different climatical zones use of Animals and technologies could only spread at a slower rate if at all.(use of metals agriculture, keeping livestock and other Animals and writing didn't form in Europe but rather in the Middle east and later spread in Eurasia where it was perfected:book:) Beside they believed obsidian to be effective enough so they didn't look for new Materials.

Tha fact that the natives weren't united against the "conquerers" also had an inpact - some sorcues mention that by the Time the Incas rebelled every Conquiztador was protected by 2-3 warriors from Native tribes allied to them.

[Dutchhoplite]

And i thought the Dutch educational system was abysmal ;)

Well, it's abysmal! I can only shake my head when i hear that would-be teachers are not able to spell or read properly :no:

I always get the impression that historical education is purposefully neglected in Holland. The reason?? I actually don't know but i have the impression (again!) that a lot of Dutch politicians think that historical awareness could lead to unwanted nationalism.

[Zeibek]

Tha fact that the natives weren't united against the "conquerers" also had an inpact - some sorcues mention that by the Time the Incas rebelled every Conquiztador was protected by 2-3 warriors from Native tribes allied to them.

Not only that, but in the case of the Spanish conquest of Mexico Cortez and his men where by no means alone; the auxiliary troops they were able to muster from local Aztec vassal states (most notably Tlaxcalteca, which was allowed to remain independent so that they could be used in the flower wars) numbered in the thousands at first, and later on in their tens of thousands. Superior weaponry and protection did help the Spaniards, but the army of dissenting natives shouldn't be forgotten either.

As regarding to whether or not the Aztecs regarded Cortez and his lot divine has been questioned, or at least whether or not Montecuhzoma and his court bought it. I remember reading somewhere that an expedition of Spaniards in the Yucatan peninsula was told to go away because the Maya calendaer prophesized their arrival to be years later (this statement seems quite extraordinary so I'll try to source it). At least in the case of the Maya the Spaniards were seen as a tool for native political machinations rather than Gods.

[tls5669]

Thats true. Like sad earlier by Cbvani germs and Smalpox surely decimetad the native Amercans.

About why they didn't make Iron weapons I heard of theories that clam it also had Geograpical reasons - since the american continent is somewhat divided by different climatical zones use of Animals and technologies could only spread at a slower rate if at all.(use of metals agriculture, keeping livestock and other Animals and writing didn't form in Europe but rather in the Middle east and later spread in Eurasia where it was perfected:book:) Beside they believed obsidian to be effective enough so they didn't look for new Materials.

Tha fact that the natives weren't united against the "conquerers" also had an inpact - some sorcues mention that by the Time the Incas rebelled every Conquiztador was protected by 2-3 warriors from Native tribes allied to them.

Men have always looked for ways to better their technologies, thats why we went from the stone age, to bronze age, to iron age, etc. I believe the downfall of some of those civs is human sacrifice, as in the POWs were sacrificed, it turned a lot of subjugated people against them.

And it still doesnt explain the "American" cultures, there were no great cities there (there were probably about 300,000 in mixed tribes), but yet they never advanced, past the stone age. I do believe the bow was a superior weapon to early firearms, it could fire faster and farther, but the arrowheads were still stone.

Their primary melee weapon was the tomahawk with a stone head, if they had just advanced to the bronze age, things would have been different.

[Zradha Pahlavan]

And it still doesnt explain the "American" cultures, there were no great cities there (there were probably about 300,000 in mixed tribes), but yet they never advanced, past the stone age. I do believe the bow was a superior weapon to early firearms, it could fire faster and farther, but the arrowheads were still stone.

Their primary melee weapon was the tomahawk with a stone head, if they had just advanced to the bronze age, things would have been different.

Actually, there were several large cities. Tenochtitlan was one such city, and then of course there were all of the various Inca strongholds. There were also large cities on the Southern Mississippi, such as Cahokia. There may well have been many more large cities that the Europeans never learned about because they might have been destroyed by disease. Tenochtitlan alone is said to have contained 200,000 people, possibly more.

Also, the Incas and possibly the Aztecs had started making weapons of copper shortly before the Europeans arrived.

[||Lz3||]

And it still doesnt explain the "American" cultures, there were no great cities there (there were probably about 300,000 in mixed tribes), but yet they never advanced, past the stone age. I do believe the bow was a superior weapon to early firearms, it could fire faster and farther, but the arrowheads were still stone.


I think he means the natives of the modern US (the so called "america", I hate that, america is the whole continent...<.<)

IIRC, the northen american settlements were small compared to the southamericans due to the lack of large agricultural lands. People from the north were esentially hunters... while southern cultures relied on agriculture, that's why the south was incredibly more advanced than the north.

About the spaniards...just a fact... during the siege of tenochtitlan, there were only 800 spaniards (80 horsemen , 13 bergantins, 600 foot soldiers)... now imagine that against 40'000 or so angry and desperate aztecs... ,even with armor, it would had been a suicide. However they had a lot of help of other cultures like the one from tlaxcala, wich provided them 24'000 allies. At the end hunger, thirst and disease forced the rendition of the biggest (and possibly most advanced) city in the world.

Native americans form Mesoamerica were highly advanced... but just not in weapons... their weapons worked for what they intended... capture soldiers and then sacrifice them, so...

I blame their religion... <.<, stupid sacrifices...

PS: spelling guides : Moctezuma, Conquistadores :2thumbsup:

[Irenaeus]

In my GCSE history course here in the UK, we studies 3 topics:

- The history of medicine
- The history of the indigenous Americans in modern-day USA
- The history of Northern Ireland

So I have an 'A' in GCSE history without being asked a single question on the Romans, despite them ruling most of my country for 300-odd years...

I have a vague memory of studying World War I when I was 14, and the Egyptians when I was 10. But I can't remember ever studying the Romans, Greeks, Persia, China, or anything like that.

Oh, and a funny story for you. One of my friends is from Nigeria, and he was surprised when I told him that no-one had successully invaded Britain since 1066 (though some have come close). He mentioned this to some Algerian friends of his, to which they said "That's not right! What about the Roman invasion in the 14th century!". The Romans never got near Nigeria, but my friend knew that was completely wrong. The Romans conquered the coastal bit of Algeria, surely they ought to have know vaguely when that was?

Just for a laugh, some researchers here in the UK asked lots of school children if they knew who Winston Churchill was. Well over half said he was famous for founding Churchill Insurance Ltd...

[Strategos Alexandros]

For my GCSE in history in the UK, we do 18th and 19th century farming, medicine and transport.

[Andronikos]

So I will make a loger post.

Firstly:

I immensly dislike the natural sciences (or the way they are taught at least) yet know what the letters in E=mc2 stand for, know Newton's laws of motion etc., but people who are into natural sciences rarely bother to learn even the most rudimentary historical facts. That can sometimes really piss me off.

I study chemistry at university and history is my hobby, so I am one of the exceptions you mentioned in another post. But I agree with you and don't like such people too. That is simple ignorancy. One of my friends doesn't like both history and natural sciences (and some other professions too) because he thinks that such people can't earn their livings and that they just suck money instead of creating them.

Here was an interesting discussion about American civilisations. I saw a documentary translated as Weapons, microbes, steel. It was about one professor who tried to explain why some cultures developed into higher level than others and discovered that the most advanced cultures have roots in the Middle East and China. There were two important factors:
agriculture - presence of plant rich in proteins, easy to store and easy to sow (wheat, rice and corn)
and presence of large herbivore and not shy (zebra could be good alternative to horse, but it lives in contact with predators and so is afraid of humans - impossible to domesticate) mammals which make the best domesticated animals - sheep, goats, cows, pigs, horses. They provide meat, power (were essential in plough invention) and wool/leather. There are 14 such animals (no horses and elephants, only cattle counted) and 13 of them originate in Asia or north Africa. The last is lamma from South America.
Cultures with such predispositions could overproduce food and some specialists who are not involved in food production like potters, blacksmiths and inventors could rise their level. So the final verdict was that it was only geography which determined the level of cultures which lived there.

And now something funny. I have one book. It is quite good book about ancient Rome, but was printed in 70s and claims many ridiculous things like roman and greek philosophy was unmatched until marxism-leninism, the reason of fall of Roman empire was in social inequality and was a natural process in developing through feudalism to the best system - (guess what). Everything is said very ideologicaly. (some statements are logical and perhaps wise but the way of saying them totaly kills it)
I have written so much, but perhaps later I will add something.

[Zeibek]

Here was an interesting discussion about American civilisations. I saw a documentary translated as Weapons, microbes, steel. It was about one professor who tried to explain why some cultures developed into higher level than others and discovered that the most advanced cultures have roots in the Middle East and China. There were two important factors:
agriculture - presence of plant rich in proteins, easy to store and easy to sow (wheat, rice and corn)
and presence of large herbivore and not shy (zebra could be good alternative to horse, but it lives in contact with predators and so is afraid of humans - impossible to domesticate) mammals which make the best domesticated animals - sheep, goats, cows, pigs, horses. They provide meat, power (were essential in plough invention) and wool/leather. There are 14 such animals (no horses and elephants, only cattle counted) and 13 of them originate in Asia or north Africa. The last is lamma from South America.
Cultures with such predispositions could overproduce food and some specialists who are not involved in food production like potters, blacksmiths and inventors could rise their level. So the final verdict was that it was only geography which determined the level of cultures which lived there.

Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel probably.


And now something funny. I have one book. It is quite good book about ancient Rome, but was printed in 70s and claims many ridiculous things like roman and greek philosophy was unmatched until marxism-leninism, the reason of fall of Roman empire was in social inequality and was a natural process in developing through feudalism to the best system - (guess what). Everything is said very ideologicaly. (some statements are logical and perhaps wise but the way of saying them totaly kills it)

I've got this Finnish ethnographic overview of Finno-Ugrian peoples that was published in 1941, just after the Winter War against the USSR. It's full these funny little statements like: "(The Hanti) were an honest people close to nature until the Slavic encroachment. So detrimental has the contact with our easterly neighbour been that these children of nature have become lazy, ill-tempered and prone to alchoholism."

[Cbvani]

Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel probably.
I've got this Finnish ethnographic overview of Finno-Ugrian peoples that was published in 1941, just after the Winter War against the USSR. It's full these funny little statements like: "(The Hanti) were an honest people close to nature until the Slavic encroachment. So detrimental has the contact with our easterly neighbour been that these children of nature have become lazy, ill-tempered and prone to alchoholism."

As my friend would put it, that's good old fashioned folksy hatred right there (we say this in the ironic sense, of course).

Also, seconded on the Guns, Germs, and Steel probability. I would have brought it up earlier but I only really needed to talk about germs.

[Andronikos]

It is Guns, germs and steel. I remember the name Jared Diamond.

[antiochus epiphanes]

if your guys heads got any bigger your heads would explode....

[Conradus]

I always had an interest in history so I'm not a reference for my country. But the general level of knowlegde of the past seems to be quite low, even at my high school which only had the student preparing to go to college/higher studies. I can only fear how much they know about history at a technical school.
That said, I've never ever noticed any great mistakes, they all about knew when the Renaissance began, when Charlemagne lived, when the World Wars started.

One of my professors now used to teach in The Netherlands and apparently their history knowledge is abysmal. On teaching about Charlemagne, he mentioned he was crowned in 800 to which the question came: "BC or AD?"
Another professor said he should be happy they knew there's an AD an BC :grin2:
To all our Dutch orghas, mind you this was only one example, so I do believe it's not that bad there :)

[AlexanderSextus]

the other day some guy who thought he was a friggin genius told me the romans used cataphracts! (and he was not talking about the byzantines) :dizzy2::dizzy2::furious3:

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

[decimator22]

the other day some guy who thought he was a friggin genius told me the romans used cataphracts! (and he was not talking about the byzantines) :dizzy2::dizzy2::furious3:

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

That I accept, they at least know Rome, It has happened to me many times that when I go to the States they ask me "Where are you from?" I respond Mexico, and they are like what?? I say it is the the country right beeneth you, and they say "Oh, you mean New Mexico." :wall::wall::wall:

The other thing I hate is they refer to America as themselves only, while America is the whole continent, Another thing I kind of hate of history is that we only see basically European History while almost none of our own ( except after the Colony). I would love to know a lot more of Mesoamerican cultures, but the mayority was destroyed by the spaniards :no:.

Another thing, the Tarascans did use copper, that was why the Aztecs never completely conquered them.

[VladiNemir]

Sanity is in short supplies in this world..Therefore don't expect people to know history,one of the things that has no limits,is human stupidity.The course of ''development'' this world as a whole is taking,is disturbing and rather frightening,prepare and expect nothing but the worst.When there's Lack of reason in solving problems,problems get solved by force which equals the''Zeitgeist''(state of mind,if i may say so) of our age.History must not be viewed as just another ''class hour'' but instead as an important sum of human actions throughout our ''existance'' an school of life and an example for life....don't bother yourself too much with the ''old school'' of teaching what happend when/where,who did this and that...i'm not saying it is not important,because it is,what matters the most are the questions what led to this an that,what were the reasons in bigger as in closer more detailed view,what happend(perhaps even explain about the alternatives-''the other side of the medal'' it always helps in taking a more objective stand toward the''problem''),what were the consequences here and around ..it's all a beautiful long story where everything is conected,every action has an reaction or triggers this and that...I'm telling this because i'm a history student,now 4th year and i noticed--long time ago--how people lack the geographical orientation and at the same time the time orientation,looking at history as a linear time track of civilizations,as if only the leading power of specific time represents the relevance,the rest is....Many of you of course understand this,but what i'd like to point out is,that as i read many younger people here had quarrels with their professors about what's wrong,trying to correct them etc...Bare in mind that they're trying to teach you just the plain basics,however false they may be,they are still the basic frames which will only help you to develope a critical stand and encourage you to search and read on your own-and that is the most important!!well at least As long as you're not somehow ideologicaly poisoned to ''discover'' only what fits your terms /ideas etc-then it's meaningless,because you become just another brainwashing tool of the system.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Question for the curious: who wrote:
"(...) nicht das Amt die Vergangenheit zu richten, die Mitwelt zum Nutzen zukünftiger Jahre zu belehren, sondern bloß zu zeigen, wie es eigentlich gewesen".
?

Leopold von Ranke

[GodEmperorLeto]

During a course I TAed, we had a guy ask some horrendously stupid questions, like, "Did the Romans have cannons on board their ships?"

After a while, the professor started just answering these questions, "Yes, yes they did have cannons," while everyone else in the course laughed 'cause they knew it was BS. It was quite exhasperating.

I think part of this comes from the way teachers are "programmed" or "institutionalized" to be teachers. I dated an education major for much of my college experience, and I got to see firsthand what sort of "indoctrination" she was undergoing. It wasn't about her subject material at all--it was about armchair psychology. Her coursework had more to do with "what to do if Tommy has ADD" than "what's the square root of 9?" No wonder your average teacher doesn't know anything.

And having taught history at a private school for two years, I've been to workshops and seen the BS that teachers experience firsthand. And again, did any of these workshops give me anything to work with in regards to history? Absolutely not. It was all new ideas and theories on "how to teach."

No wonder people can't put the Roman Republic, Christopher Columbus, and the Second World War in chronological order.

[Cullhwch]

the other day some guy who thought he was a friggin genius told me the romans used cataphracts! (and he was not talking about the byzantines) :dizzy2::dizzy2::furious3:

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

If I'm not mistaken, Julian the Apostate was noted for using cataphracts against the the Alamanni. They weren't particularly successful.

[Gleemonex]

Apologies in advance for some slight OT-ness.


During a course I TAed, we had a guy ask some horrendously stupid questions, like, "Did the Romans have cannons on board their ships?"

After a while, the professor started just answering these questions, "Yes, yes they did have cannons," while everyone else in the course laughed 'cause they knew it was BS. It was quite exhasperating.


(This will sound like I'm ranting at you, but I'm not -- I'm just playing devil's advocate here)

Well, did they? A teacher's job isn't to decide if someone is stupid or not -- a teacher's job is to teach. Someone who "knows" that the Romans had cannons on board their ships is way stupider than someone who bothers to ask, in my eyes. Either the course material wasn't being presented clearly enough, or this guy was being a jack-ass. Either way, these issues probably should have been identified and resolved before the teacher had to resort to sarcasm.

Incidentally, some people have claimed -- credibly -- that the ancient Greeks had lasers [1] on their ships. Romans with cannons don't sound so outlandish now, do they? ;)


I think part of this comes from the way teachers are "programmed" or "institutionalized" to be teachers. I dated an education major for much of my college experience, and I got to see firsthand what sort of "indoctrination" she was undergoing. It wasn't about her subject material at all--it was about armchair psychology. Her coursework had more to do with "what to do if Tommy has ADD" than "what's the square root of 9?" No wonder your average teacher doesn't know anything.

The great George Carlin (S.P.F.C.C.M.T.) one said: Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

Your average teacher doesn't know anything because your average person doesn't know anything. That being said, teachers don't need to know material by heart -- they need to know class management. I've taught many a course completely blind (subbing for a sick colleague, for instance), and had the students tell me what they needed to learn, and did just fine.

Of course, there is a scale going from class management to subject mastery, and it gradually tips to the latter as the students are more mature. But the need to manage a class, set academic targets and keep students motivated never disappears. Indeed, many of my worst university teachers were absolutely brilliant in their respective fields.


And having taught history at a private school for two years, I've been to workshops and seen the BS that teachers experience firsthand. And again, did any of these workshops give me anything to work with in regards to history? Absolutely not. It was all new ideas and theories on "how to teach."

No wonder people can't put the Roman Republic, Christopher Columbus, and the Second World War in chronological order.

I'm going to guess from the above that you're in North America -- I don't envy you! I dread the idea of teaching American or Canadian kids. That's one of the reasons I'm currently teaching in China.

But that's another story. Cheers,

-Glee

-----------------------------
[1] Technically not lasers, but the difference is negligible to a layperson, and the difference in outcome negligible to a target.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Seeing that I'm quoted in the OP of this thread, I thought I could ad some more stories about historical (and general) ignorance, that I have experienced.

For example, one person with whom I had a conversation was convinced that it was actually Attila who crossed the alps with his elephants. Generally, I find that many of my compatriots are having a hard time knowing which of the two "Scourges of Rome" is which.

On another note, I've heard people think the carthaginians were moslems, that Megas Alexandros was Roman, and one history-teacher I spoke to had never heard of the Sassanids, claiming that the Achemenid empire was the only Persian Empire to become a major power.

However, one of the more stupid thing I've heard was when, while skiing in France, I overheard two countrymen of mine standing next to a church conversing thus:
-Are the French muslims or christians?
Whereupon the secound, after due consideration, answered:
-Neither, They're Catholics.

*Sigh*

[Zradha Pahlavan]

A person recently saw me reading Herodotus and asked if Herodotus was a sexually transmitted disease. I told him it was not as far as I knew, and that Herodotus was an ancient historian. The person then said there must be an STD named Herodotus, because all STDs are named after famous ancient Greeks. I didn't bother to try to reply to that, though I was tempted to ask him who AIDS was.

Brains, it seems, are in short supply these days.

[AlexanderSextus]

If I'm not mistaken, Julian the Apostate was noted for using cataphracts against the the Alamanni. They weren't particularly successful.

yeah, i realize that they may have used them at a later date but he was not saying post 200 AD Romans...

:furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3: :dizzy2::dizzy2:

[Cullhwch]

But he was still technically correct and it sounds like you came close to making an ass of yourself. OTOH, did he say that Julius Caesar used cataphracts?

[AlexanderSextus]

But he was still technically correct and it sounds like you came close to making an ass of yourself. OTOH, did he say that Julius Caesar used cataphracts?

he didnt specifically say Julius Caesar, but he was definitely talking Marian-Era romans.

[Kongeslask]

However, one of the more stupid thing I've heard was when, while skiing in France, I overheard two countrymen of mine standing next to a church conversing thus:
-Are the French muslims or christians?
Whereupon the secound, after due consideration, answered:
-Neither, They're Catholics.

*Sigh*

Just which country are you (and they) from?