Historical myths

[cunctator]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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...

[Steppe Merc]

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

[Soulforged]

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).

Perhaps you're right, but this is similar to another post in elsewhere, where a guy said that Washington was not american (how do you people call an Estado Unidense -your national name- in United States, i mean do you always say "american"?) but british. What gives you your nationality? The idea of nation is relatively new so... I don't think that a people that doesn't believe to belong to an older order is from a new one, is purely ideal, being born in United States doesn't make you an american, because United States is also an idea (the terrain is not marked as "USA"), so you born in a terrain, but you don't belong to a nation if you don't feel like, you don't have their culture or don't respect their ideas. Now in this case probably you're right because the idea of United States was still in formation, but from that point of view any revolution that happened on America (indepence revolution that is) was always like you say, like a civil revolt. Almost the same happened on every country formed in the american territory. For example here, spanish people rebeled themselves against the crown (because of high taxes, corruption and even pillage) but they never really felt like belonging to that crown or that the crown deserved respect, now is that what it requires to be an spanish, well i cannot answer you that...

[Kraxis]

Steppe Merc, don't worry, it was not every city, or even most of them, but a number of them that suffered such increadible actions. Poor old Persia really got the stick. And why? Because the Shah (he was a Shah right?) executed a few 'diplomats' for spying. It sounds like Great Khan looked for a reason to invade, and one where he could dish out a good deal of punishment. I believe he said as he died that he wanted a specific city burned to the ground... Is that spiteful or not?

Now of course historians of the time, christian and muslim tended to view the steppe peoples as savages, but honestly they were not that nice to the settled peoples, so I can't fault them.

Roman Equites were not bad per se. They were brave, dashing and often quite capable in their own right. But often they were significantly outnumbered by heavier cavalries, and they suffered from a lack of attention from the commanders who really only saw them as stopgaps against the enemy cavalry.
Magnesia shows that Equites could fight well enough, routing cataphracts and the Seleucid Agema head on while slightly outnumbered.
But great they never were.

Soul, do you mean what a US citizen is called? Well, I have never heard anything but American, but I ahve too wondered at this for years. Isn't it a bit arrogant to lay claim to the entire continent? Yes US citizens are Americans, but so are Mexicans, Canadians and a whole lot of other people, and they are far more numerous.

[Steppe Merc]

It wasn't even the Shah, it was some local governer. I think they then sent word to the Shah asking permission to kill the governer, and the Shah refused. Or something like that.

It sounds like Great Khan looked for a reason to invade, and one where he could dish out a good deal of punishment. I believe he said as he died that he wanted a specific city burned to the ground... Is that spiteful or not?

Yeah, I guess it spiteful. But I think the city he requested refused to fund him troops after promising to do so. Not that that made it alright, but then so was a lot of contemporaries actions. But steppe people certaintly were harsher, especially towards settled people. With another steppe tribe, they were almost always allowed to move on, or be absorbed (the whole Chingis killing all the Tartars higher than a wheel thing was very much an exception, and is possibly an exageration, according to some newer ideas, in order to promote his terrifying image).

Now of course historians of the time, christian and muslim tended to view the steppe peoples as savages, but honestly they were not that nice to the settled peoples, so I can't fault them.

Well, most of the times. But many civilized folks were very happy to trade with and pay off steppe peoples, in return for soldiers (Byzantines, Russians, etc.) Of course, sometimes that went bad when the steppe soldiers swiched sides, or decided they wanted say Asia Minor in the case of the Seljuqs.

[Kraxis]

Well, most of the times. But many civilized folks were very happy to trade with and pay off steppe peoples, in return for soldiers (Byzantines, Russians, etc.) Of course, sometimes that went bad when the steppe soldiers swiched sides, or decided they wanted say Asia Minor in the case of the Seljuqs.

Yes, but remember that those 'hired' swords were semi-settled most often. They were the ones living close to the settled lands, especially in the case of Russia, where they had almost been hemmed in on all sides, with the Hungarians in the west, various principalities to the north and the Kievans to the east (and the sea to the south). It is limited how steppelike could remain. The Seljuks came from the deep interior of Central Asia, Turkestan, and had hardly had any contact with powerful settled states.

What I tried to say earlier was that, while we have a tend to overdo how bad the Mongols really were, they were certainly a new and fearful force, not just because they won, but because they were quite rough. It was an image they liked and kept alive as it apparently fitted their own view of themselves.
In time they became less pronounced violent until of course the famous skullmounds of Timur-i-Lenk (Tamerlane).

[Steppe Merc]

Yes, Timur was quite a character, though I think he was primarily Turkish, and certaintly didn't have any componctions against fighting his Mongol overlords.

And Kraxis, you are probably right. In the end, it was often far easier to raid settled people than trading with them, and easier to force those peoples to pay tribute than herding horses for a living. But the Mongols were quite fearsome, and they and their enemies both encouraged that reputation.
But one thing is that I'm not sure how new they were. I mean, the basic warfare style was around for over a thousand years before them, and you think that their enemies would have learned how to have fight nomads (China, Persia and Russia all had long experience).

Conon, that is sort of what I'm talking about. How much of that really happened, and how much is the sort of exageration that has always gone on about steppe peoples, from the Scythians to the Huns to the Mongols? And another common idea is them being devils, from the Huns to the Mongols.
I'm not saying they were very nice, or that they didn't sack cities pretty ruthlessly. But it is all to easy to justify a defeat by saying how horrible and numerous the Mongols were (when they were often either equally numbered or out numbered).

[conon394]

I dunno 'bout arrogant how about practical. After all after the revolution (err revolt from the crown and sovereignty of Great Britain) there were no other 'Western' or 'European' states based entirely in America ( I presume the Spanish, French and English in their respective colonies called themselves Spanish French or English...). Plus it sounds rather cumbersome to call yourself a United Stateser...

Steppe Merc

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..

Yes but the Islamic sources seem to agree with the western one on the issue of the Mongols...

Take the account of the Mongol sack of Isfahan by Ibn Abi l-Hadid (note the city seems to have been riven by factional strife between the Hanafis and ‘Shafi is’ factions. The ‘Shafi is’ had arranged to betray the city to the Mongols on the obvious understanding that their enemies the Hanafis suffered while they would not)

“Yet when the Tatars entered the city, they fell upon the ‘Shafi is’, contrary to their agreement with them. They then turned against the Hanafis and the rest of the population. Women were taken prisoner and the bellies of the pregnant split open; property was plundered and the wealth of the prosperous confiscated. Finally, fires were set, and Isfahan was reduced to a mound of ashes.”

Not only did they subject the city to a fairly extreme sacking, but it’s really sort of low to even kill your quislings…

Or what of Rashid al-Din, what did he really think about the Mongols, that is what he said in his letters to his sons, not his official history of the Mongols produced for the Mongol rulers of Persia. He calls the Mongol rulers of Persia “mere deceivers and accomplices of the Devil”, he note the “oppressive bitikchis” (bitikchis = Mongol officials), etc.

[Kraxis]

I dunno 'bout arrogant how about practical. After all after the revolution (err revolt from the crown and sovereignty of Great Britain) there were no other 'Western' or 'European' states based entirely in America ( I presume the Spanish, French and English in their respective colonies called themselves Spanish French or English...). Plus it sounds rather cumbersome to call yourself a Unites Stateser...

Hm... That is a point, but even back then it must have been known that America was big big big, and the 13 colonies were a mere pinprik in it all. Of course it could have been a political agenda, in that they would call the citizens Americans to gather support among the rest of the colonies, even among foreign colonies. You know along the lines, "we are all Americans, they are all Europeans." But I have heard no such claims.

Personally I just believe the people who did it simply didn't think about it. "United States of America sounds good, don't you think Jefferson?" "Sure it does! And we should call ourselves Americans to make certain that those Brits know we are not like them, we are from another continent. We belong free." But not a single one considered the fact that there were millions more Americans out there, who would not belong in their state. A simple oversight.
So now we have that odd instance where a Canadian should by all means avoid calling himself an American unless he adds that he is a Canadian right away. While I can easily call myself a European and no misunderstandings comes from that (unless we are talking about quite ignorant people).
It is to some extent the same case with Africans. When I say African, everybody thinks a black man, logically enough, but we forget about the Egyptians and Libyans for instance.

[Kraxis]

Timur, Turkish... Hmmm... I seem to recall something about his mother was Turkish and his father Mongol. Well at least he was mixed at a relatively short distance.
And just because he fought Mongols didn't mean he wasn't one. As noted earlier Kublai had no trouble fighting other Mongols.

The Chinese had actually learned very well. They had learned that it is hard to fight the nomads, but it is 'easy' to absorb them. 'We are far more than them, they will vanish soon'. And it worked well until the Mongols of course. The wall helped with the small raids and kept a check on the trade.
The Russians had learned how to fight the nomads, and so had the Caucasian peoples, but they hadn't learned to fight determined and superb armies like those of the Mongols. That is what set them apart. The style itself was countered, but add to it great tactics and discipline and it throws it all into confusion.

[Don Corleone]

Perhaps you're right, but this is similar to another post in elsewhere, where a guy said that Washington was not american (how do you people call an Estado Unidense -your national name- in United States, i mean do you always say "american"?) but british. What gives you your nationality? The idea of nation is relatively new so... I don't think that a people that doesn't believe to belong to an older order is from a new one, is purely ideal, being born in United States doesn't make you an american, because United States is also an idea (the terrain is not marked as "USA"), so you born in a terrain, but you don't belong to a nation if you don't feel like, you don't have their culture or don't respect their ideas. Now in this case probably you're right because the idea of United States was still in formation, but from that point of view any revolution that happened on America (indepence revolution that is) was always like you say, like a civil revolt. Almost the same happened on every country formed in the american territory. For example here, spanish people rebeled themselves against the crown (because of high taxes, corruption and even pillage) but they never really felt like belonging to that crown or that the crown deserved respect, now is that what it requires to be an spanish, well i cannot answer you that...

Hi Soulforged. Yes, people from the United States always refer to themselves as American as a national describer. I know that covers any of the inhabitants of 2 continents, but unless I'm mistaken, we're the only nation that has 'America' in the title of the nation.

At the beginning of the American Revolution (1775), the colonists still thought of themselves as British citizens who were seeking redress through their government. As time wore on, and they didn't get it (what they got was martial law to bring them back into the fold) they gradually came to stop thinking of themselves as subjects of the Crown. This culminated with the Declaration of Independence, which is actually a truly remarkable document. Taken at face value, for the situation at the time it was written, it was a formal declaration of treason. People had rebelled against their monarchs throughout history, but this was the first time somebody had issued a legal argument for having done so.

At the cessation of the war, the newly liberated colonists formed a government under the 'Articles of Confederation', but they didn't have a national identity. They associated themselves with their particular colony... they thought of themselves as Virginians, or Hampshirians, or Georgians. After 6 years of border disputes, trade disruptions and all sorts of problems with currency (13 different ones), the 13 sovereign states recognized that they really couldn't continue to go it alone and formed the United States of America, bound by law under the Constitution. From that point forward, people began to think of themselves as Americans, but most people still favored their state identity over their national identity, particularly in the South. It wasn't until the 20th century that people began thinking of themselves as solely American, throughout America (though many people in the North & Midwest had since the beginning of the 19th century).

Hope this helps. If you'd like, I could put it into Spanish, might make it easier to understand.

[Louis VI the Fat]

how do you people call an Estado Unidense -your national name- in United States, i mean do you always say "american"?

'Gringo' seems to work just fine too.

[Louis VI the Fat]

At the beginning of the American Revolution (1775), the colonists still thought of themselves as British citizens who were seeking redress through their government. As time wore on, and they didn't get it (what they got was martial law to bring them back into the fold) they gradually came to stop thinking of themselves as subjects of the Crown. This culminated with the Declaration of Independence, which is actually a truly remarkable document. Taken at face value, for the situation at the time it was written, it was a formal declaration of treason. People had rebelled against their monarchs throughout history, but this was the first time somebody had issued a legal argument for having done so.

But this a historical myth in itself.

I know of at least one other, much older document wherein a people abandoned their monarch on legal arguments. In 1581 the Low Countries issued their 'decree of abandonment'. Somewhat unwillingly it turned out to be a declaration of independence for them too. It is the oldest written document of this kind I can think of out of the top of my head.

The legal argument that subjects are not bound to a monarch who has become a tyrant is very old. One man's declaration of independence is always another man's act treason. It just depends on your perspective. The Americans revived a very old tradition, almost forgotten in absolutist 18th century Europe.
As always, the Europeans invented it, the Americans put it to practice on an unprecedented scale.

[Don Corleone]

But this a historical myth in itself.

I know of at least one other, much older document wherein a people abandoned their monarch on legal arguments. In 1581 the Low Countries issued their 'decree of abandonment'. Somewhat unwillingly it turned out to be a declaration of independence for them too. It is the oldest written document of this kind I can think of out of the top of my head.

The legal argument that subjects are not bound to a monarch who has become a tyrant is very old. One man's declaration of independence is always another man's act treason. It just depends on your perspective. The Americans revived a very old tradition, almost forgotten in absolutist 18th century Europe.
As always, the Europeans invented it, the Americans put it to practice on an unprecedented scale.

Well, there you have it. We weren't the first to issue a formal declaration of separation based on legal grounds. Learn something new every day. Thanks Louis.