Historical myths

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colovion

Alexander was a Greek.

hahahaha, oh man that one gets me every time

---

There is always someone that will say "Alexander was not Greek, he was Macedonian".... Oh man , that one gets me every time.

@Colovion:Do you know the terminology of the name Alexander? Alex-andros Alex=a GREEK, ancient greek but also widely used in MODERN GREEK word, that means "counter". -Andros= the anccient but also modern GREEK word for "man". So Alexandros=The One that countermeasures other men, the Defender. Alexandros means the Defender and it is a GREEK name.

2) Alexander's language was GREEK, his teacher was Arstotle (but is he Greek??) and his favorite book was Homer's Heliade (maybe this book was not Greek either)

3)Alexander's Gods and culture and tradition all GREEK. So Alexander was Macedonian, but ALSO GREEK. Just like Plato was Athenian but Also Greek, Ippokrates from the island of Chios but also Greek, Demokritus from Avdira in Thrace but also Greek, Aristotre from Stageira in Chalkidiki but also Greek.

@The Moderators: I m not going to sit and watch my history, one of the few things that I m proud as a Greek, being savagely abused. How would an American feel if I went on saying "G.Washington was not American, what a stupit theory hahahahhaaa". Some things deserve more respect.

I disagree with you man. You want to tell the truth about somebody, then have in mind that this somebody is a person just like you and it's a myth that some persons are better than others, so if you want to consider Alexander your hero then do that, but you can't tell other people how to think about him. Also you can say any truth you want about Washington or Ghandi. So i can tell you this, Alexander was everything but a hero, a great general and great politician, but a despot and a tiran, he only cared about his own, true heros cares about the others, he never hesitated to wipe away of the planet any threat or man whom stood in his way or even spoke against him or to try to correct him, the nephew of Aristoteles and his own counselor. Words don't heart, actions do.

He wasn't American. Washington was a British colonist who became a citizen of a confederate states (1781 articles of confederation) until he became a US citizen (1789 when the constitution created the federation of states). The first born "American" president was actually John Tyler who was born in 1790. So yes, Washington wasn't American. :laugh4:

And since Washington was a member of the Virginia plantation elite, as well as educated in British schools (as well as fought in the French-Indian War), he cannot be considered American through any form of influence. While Washington is considered a war hero he won three major engagements (decisive but not many) and lost many more.

Alexander however would be considered greek because of his religion, etymology, military tactics, education, etc. He would be considered Macedonian but Greek influence and culture spread well beyond the city-states. Besides, even Byzantium was considered Greek when it was in Thrace.


Anyway, historical myths? I like the one about how the Spanish Conquistadors destroyed the Aztec Empire with 160 soldiers. They had steel, cannon, horses, and bio-weapons (smallpox) but they still enlisted the help of the Mexicans (yes, the native american tribe) and attacked the Aztec with well over 4,000 men (I believe that is the number, maybe more.)

1.that deeply religious religious people are nuts.some are but not all.i know because i am one,say what you want.
2.that the trinity is supported by the bible
3.that the catholic church was the first church
4.that war is glorious

fight with a greek,eat with a jew,sleep under the roof of a zorastrian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Advo-san

There is always someone that will say "Alexander was not Greek, he was Macedonian".... Oh man , that one gets me every time.

@Colovion:Do you know the terminology of the name Alexander? Alex-andros Alex=a GREEK, ancient greek but also widely used in MODERN GREEK word, that means "counter". -Andros= the anccient but also modern GREEK word for "man". So Alexandros=The One that countermeasures other men, the Defender. Alexandros means the Defender and it is a GREEK name.

2) Alexander's language was GREEK, his teacher was Arstotle (but is he Greek??) and his favorite book was Homer's Heliade (maybe this book was not Greek either)

3)Alexander's Gods and culture and tradition all GREEK. So Alexander was Macedonian, but ALSO GREEK. Just like Plato was Athenian but Also Greek, Ippokrates from the island of Chios but also Greek, Demokritus from Avdira in Thrace but also Greek, Aristotre from Stageira in Chalkidiki but also Greek.

---

He was heavily influenced by the Greek culture, taught things by Greek teachers. His blood was Macedonian. He grew up in Macedon. His father was labelled by Demosthenes, rightly so:

Quote:

---

In the third of the Philippics, which is considered the finest of his orations, the great Athenian statesman spoke of Philip II as of:

"not only no Greek, nor related to the Greeks, but not even a barbarian from any place that can be named with honors, but a pestilent knave from Macedonia, whence it was never yet possible to buy a decent slave" (Third Philippic, 31)

---

Now, when someone is born by a Macedonian (in the Macedonian Capital, Pella), raised in Macedonia in the Macedon culture; with the addition of a Greek tutour (age 13-16) - would that not cultivate the conclusion that the person is ethnically and culturally Macedonian? How do you say he is a Greek? Because those he led and the culture which was spread under his command was Greek? No one is trying to steal your cultural hero; he was never yours to begin with. His father = Macedonian. His Mother = princess of Epirus. Where's the Greek?

Perhaps he fell in love with the Greek culture and, later, the Eastern World - and felt that in the end he was neither Macedonian, Greek, Epirote nor Babylonian - in terms of citizenship anyway.

Didn't Alexander think he was a god? Would he bother about being part of any human tribe then?

Pretty much everything that happens in the 1st testament. There are generally scientific findings that support many of the events mentioned in the 1st Testament, but all of them are WAAAYY blown out of porportion to add grandeur of the tales, just think of them as religious/biblical fishermen tales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VAE VICTUS

1.that deeply religious religious people are nuts.some are but not all.i know because i am one,say what you want.
2.that the trinity is supported by the bible
3.that the catholic church was the first church
4.that war is glorious

fight with a greek,eat with a jew,sleep under the roof of a zorastrian.

---

1- Yes you are not nuts, but you're ignorant. If you want to beleave in something then beleave in humanity, not in some superior being that goes against all known science, lick the boots of an idea, it's just an idea you know, or you will tell me that you think it's more than that, perhaps a real material entity. If you have faith in that (i mean real faith like beleaving in something without any proof) then why not have faith in aliens or elves? Don't take me wrong, you're not doing any harm directly, but knowing some people that litterally lives from god (coming for a country where the things are always wrong i can tell you that) asking god for this and for that, it helps the church and the church is what does real harm (the explanation for this is really long). Read somthing of Bakunin, i always beleaved in god, an all that bullshit, but his text are a real "blessing" not like the Bible.
2- Not by the bible, but if you are catolic then you will notice that the unic interpretation of the Bible is from the Papacy (the Real Church) so you have to beleave in it, if you're not then the Holy Trinity is not more than other of the bullshit that no even Jesus said, like Vote of Castity, or the exclusion of the womans from the high positions in the church. Almost all the Bible is, like other fairytales, a matter of sugestion and of interpretation.

Washington was not a british because he fought against the british, and it wasn't exactly a civil war, it was a war for independence, so he considered himself another party and a new nation. He born in Britain but nothing else tied him to that land that this fact, from that point of view a kid born in Italy that migrates with his parents to Mexico is still Italian, now with the modern laws he is still Italian but also Mexican. Now you are stating a simple technicism, the reality is that nobody, not himself, considered as british.

Hey i've found a pretty example of what i say on the ignorance of beleavers, and the oldest myth of all...God:
look at this link (it's in english):

HTML Code:

---

http://www.venganza.org/

---

why should i believe in humanity?we still havent a found a way to stop killing.if someone disagrees with us we kill them.we want something they have we fight.(maybe its the only way?) i believe it is foolish to put trust in man.humans have to believe in something.without hope we are already half dead.and i cannot believe that everything was brought about by blind chance.maybe the flood was global,considering that there is enough water to cover the face of the earth,also if continental drift is correct at one time there was pangea,a super continent and supposedly mt. ranges were much smaller then supposedly.the catholic church is not the real church.dont just look at the words,read the bible actually.no graven images of god or anything else.you worship god not saints.and it doesnt say that if youre a virgin youre extra holy.also if everyone lived by the real true biblical rules of christianity the world would be a better place.that happened for a short while(maybe 25 yrs after john died).but it has been watered down immensly.and please dont call me ignorant.just because i believe in a higher power doesnt make me a fool,a nut or ignorant.i love philosophy,especially nietzche,because he makes me think.just because someone is religious doesnt mean that they belive anything that is said over the pulpit.(i certaintly dont)
to be honest im not sure if you can prove it one way or another.you have your faith,iahve mine.

Man beleave in what you want. But have this in mind, humanity is real, God is an idea. Read the text on the link, and then realease that you can't mock me if I start to beleave in the "Flying Spaghetti Monster", because is the same irrefutable idea. How can you say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? Can you prove it? Well you can't because is just an idea, if you want to exist in that level of paranoia and absurdity then do it, it's just a problem for you.
I know that the Church is not just an actual building man, that stupid christian statement have being around for hundreds of years, when i say that the Church corrupts an blinds i'm talking about the whole community, specially the :furious3: Pope. Others religion do the same, but there's no other so adaptative like the all mighty Church of Jusus Cryst. Perhaps you readed the Bible but you didn't do the same with my post, i never say that the things are like that. It's true the Bible does not say that "if you're virgin then you will be more holy"...please that type of religion would have lost all it's followers in the blink of an eye. But it's true also that says that Jesus never married (Which the Catolic Church (wisely?) interpreted like to be close to a such mighty person like him you don't have to have a female lover of any type, man that's so retrograde) and it says too that homosexuality is work of the Devil. And you know what are the "rules" of christianity? Because it's clouded by the work of the all mighty catolic church, who hides new documents from the public knowledge. Even reading at the "rules" that you can see on the public Bible you will see a lot of retrograde ideas like those posted before. And finally, no i've no faith, i belive in things, but i've to have some factical (visual) prove of it. Man you said so many things in this post that i cannot answer them like i want but let's say this: there is one proven fact stated by all known scientists- if you can prove a thing then it's not a scientific fact, and more if there is no way to refute it then it's also bullshit. For example i can say that the planets are atracted to each other by mutual love, now you can measure the factor "love" nor can you prove the element "love" exists or disaprove it. It's ironic that playing a game such as Rome Total War, where you kill people (fake people, but for this setence it doesn't matter) for fun, you say that you don't beleave in humanity for the same reason, and for the same reason so many "beleavers" blame god every time that there's a killing, and guess why God does not answer?... There's nothing perfect, but i chose to beleave in the human kind, is who i'm, is who you're, we suffer, we love, we destroy, we create, we evolve, and with our own minds and hands not with the help of some ghost. To not lose the topic here it's a scientific fact that religion born from the ignorance, an it only can spread ignorance, it born to give explanations, like philosophy, and like it the "study of nothing" (teology) adapted it self to every time that the state needed an excuse to opress people or to maintain the ignorance, the zeal, the patriotism, to make war or alliances, to call a crusade against the demons, against the negros (black people), it reacreated it self througth holy "evidence" of the saints and the visions of "chose people". But with one difference, the philosophy try to get facts and make an introspection from them (wich gives results) and then externalize them. The teology try to give you facts and make an interpretation of it, always fictituos, they don't see the thing for what it's they see in an eruption the wrath of god, in love too, in life and in death, so there is no introspection at all, the religion gives you what you must beleave with sweet words, and then says to you: "You are free to beleave it" but... If you don't beleave then you go to hell... Well there is much more to say, i don't pretend to change your way of thinking but also i pretend that you read this at least, because the discussion is for another thread.

What about Yetis? Historically they have existed in myths for thousands of years!


:hanged:

because spaghetti cant fly.i would rather believe in an idea then in man.

Mongols were bad.

That any culture was barbarians. There was no such thing, it's a myth created by Greeks and Romans to demonize everyone not like them.

Menedil, I like that one. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Mongols were bad.

---

Statement or myth?

They weren't exactly nice... But hey so weren't a number of conquering peoples. It could be argued that they were a lot less nice than most others, and that could eventually term them 'bad'. But it is really in the view of how we have experienced them. Enough anecdotes abound of their wild behavior in civilized areas, but sometimes we have to ask our selves, 'How did this get out?'

But all can agree that the treatment of the Khwarazmian Empire and it's cities was something out of the ordinary. I mean returning a few days after ravaging the city to merely kill the few survivors that had managed to hide, that is plain nasty. And destroying a city so much that it could be ploughed over afterwards (and was) is quite spiteful.

He's saying it was a myth.

And yeah, they weren't nice, but I doubt they were that much worse than most other contomporaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Some people actually think that Lenin and his Bolsheviks were great people, jesus, that make me collapse all the time.

---

Maybe not ("but no one is free from sin"), they were just humans. But that leads me to another myth: that the "Communist" Soviet Union was actually communist, and that communism is a bad thing and should be banned (following the words of that great demagogue: JFK). Besides Lenin didn't interprete well the theories of communism (of Marx and Engels), the Bolsheviks should have been trained and educated people with a general idea of politics, socialism and with an undertanding of government, they were far from this, that allowed Stalin to control them like sheeps, and with the death of Lenin all fell down.

Quote:

---

Statement or myth?

---

Since we are in the Historical Myths topic, I'll let you guess ~;)

But yeah, I'm currently reading 'Le devisement du Monde' (Marco Polo's travel to the East, don't know the english name sorry), and apart from the fact he's really biased toward Muslims (he hates them) and 'Tartars', as he calls the Mongols (he loves them), we can see how the common view of the Mongols in the Western world is screwed up. Marco Polo speaks about all the cities they destroyed, he explains how they wipped out Persia, how Cingis killed the christian 'King Jean' and how Kubilai killed his possibly christian uncle, but he also speaks about all the huge cities they built, the Yasa, their civilised customs, their wonderful palaces, etc.

As for burning whole cities and killing all survivors, I know a few european lords who did the samein France, Germany, though not on the same scale.

It is not killing the entire population, or even the destruction of cities. But the way it was done.

Almost always tere were some that somehow managed to survive. Hiding, fleeing, whatever, but in any case they survive. The Mongols wanted to get those too, where most others were satisfied with the destruction of the city. Sending back a patrol after a few days is a very effective way of dealing with the survivors, but to what end? The point has already been made, the few hundred survivors (if that many) are of no consequence.

And the absolute destruction of a city is also very much beyond what others did. Sure, they burned cities, but ripping it to pieces, and taking the time to plough over the land afterwards, well that is in my mind too much (well it all is really). Again no need for it, their point had been made. Would people be more scared because of it? Doubt it, chances are that they would die to a normal sack anyway.

I am sceptical about how many cities were truly destroyed. Some probably were, and I trust Muslim sources far more than I do Western ones, but even so contemporary historians tend to exagerate, especially when it comes to the people of the steppe.

Roman republican cavalry was of poor quality.

Heh. Well it was compared to the best cavalry. ~;)

Yes, as well as many others.

No arguments here. But surely the home grown Roman cavalry was inferior to even the Gallic cavalry, and certaintly to the Succesor's cavalry.

Sure. I can`t disagree with you here. Celtic nobles spend much more time with training and the successors already had a very professional army.

And yet another myth:
Roman republican infantry was better than anybody else.

Actually they were. But only because of tactics.

I left tactics out and considered only the quality of individual soldiers and basic units not complete armys.
You can say that the whole republican army was better thanks to its command structure, Generals, organisation, tactics and formations etc..
But not for individual skill. Poorly led armys were destroyed often enough. With infantry alone, without any support, the romans would most probably never have conquered their empire.

Some American historical myths that drive me insane....

In the American revolution, the Americans fought the British. Upon losing, the British moved to Canada. Wrongo! British citizens rebelled against their crown and fought other British citizens who didn't. Approximately 1/3 of the 'people born in the Americas' sided with the rebels, 1/3 with the loyalists, and 1/3 wanted no parts of it. In many ways, it was more of a civil war than the US Civil War, in that you had divisions within the same household in all of the original 13 colonies, plus the terriorties of what's now Vermont & Maine. After the war, a lot of loyalists DID move to Canada, but to believe that a bunch of redcoats came off the ships, and that's who we native born americans fought with is ridiculous (I mean, granted, a bunch of regiments DID get sent over, but as a DOMESTIC police action).

The pilgrims celebrated Thanksgiving on the 4th Thursday in November, just like we do, and just as all Americans have between then and now. A feast, to celebrate the end of the harvest, was almost certainly celebrated by the new colonists. But it would not have been the 4th Thursday in November, and it was no multicultural exchange with the Natives. What's more, Thanksgiving wasn't a popular holiday until Lincoln made it one, and it wasn't recognized until FDR. Many Southerners refused to celebrate it, as they viewed it as a Northern holiday (prior to FDR).

I've got plenty more...

Don, I've always found it funny the idea of Puritans getting all chummy with Indians, who they viewed as demons and evil...