Not so much knowledge in history

[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

[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
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)

[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)

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."

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 .

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".
?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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)

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...

[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?