Historical myths

[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).

[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.

[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).

[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.

[Steppe Merc]

Agreed, that was what was quite amazing about the Mongols. They used an ancient, practically unchanged style of warfare to conquer great amounts of lands and peoples.

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.

I could be wrong. But I'm pretty sure for example he never adopted the term Khan (I think he was highest at an Amir, or similar Muslim title). And my point about fighting Mongols was that I don't think he was one of the Khans of the Mongol Empire at large, which I think was sort of still together more or less, despite the break up between multiple Khans.

[Kraxis]

Ahh of course. He wasn't a khan, that is for sure. But he wasn't the first non-khan ruler of some piece of dirt. The simple fact that he respected the khan title enough to not use it at least indicates that he viewed himself as a mongol. Until the time he had conquered enough to be called khan.

[conon394]

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.

Admittedly there was quite a bit of America outside of the U.S. But at least in the 18th and 19th centuries the U.S did spend a considerable amount of time trying to add at least most of (or perhaps all, if I recall correctly Seward wanted to conquer Canada and Mexico with the Union army for example) of N. America to the U.S.

By the 20th century American for citizen of the U.S. is really just an inculcated historical artifact. Nobody calls people from the Netherlands Netherlanders, but rather the Dutch (or maybe somebody does since MS Word actually corrected the word…).

[Kraxis]

Admittedly there was quite a bit of America outside of the U.S. But at least in the 18th and 19th centuries the U.S did spend a considerable amount of time trying to add at least most of (or perhaps all, if I recall correctly Seward wanted to conquer Canada and Mexico with the Union army for example) of N. America to the U.S.

By the 20th century American for citizen of the U.S. is really just an inculcated historical artifact. Nobody calls people from the Netherlands Netherlanders, but rather the Dutch (or maybe somebody does since MS Word actually corrected the word…).

Argh, now you make it sound as if the Founding Fathers had an ulterior motive for the name. 'Conquer in the name of... well yourself.'
Damn, I didn't know they had been that ruthless and shrewd.

I was actually going to name some peoples who were not named as their contry but couldn't remember any...

[Bartix]

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.

I seem to recall opposite. Souce probably Man book on Genghis.

Genghis only massacre entire popolasion if they not open gates to city and welcome mongols unquestionly. (except a couple of peeples he took dislike to genrelly.)

Else he was tolerant of diversity open to ideas etc.

[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.

[yesdachi]

In 1939 and even in 1940, the French economy and military was much better than those of Germany. The war would probably have ended in early 1940 if the Franco-British had attacked Germany with a valid strategy.

I'm pretty sure some Germanophile folks will have something to say against that, but facts are that France lost because it had sucky generals, not because its economy/manpower/whatever was unefficient, or because "France sucks", as some people keep claiming.

This issue is not really related, so if anyone wants to discuss about that, create a new topic, or dig another one about WWII and 'how french sucked', because I'm sure there's a lot such threads

The French got beat up because they built a static defensive deterrent, the Maginot Line which was built between 1930 -1940, instead of a mobile reactive army. To counter the Germans they planned to seal the boarder and just keep them out. The Germans went around and over the line. The French resistance behind the line was week and technologically inferior because all the money went into the line and not into beefing up the army. I would say that the French generals were not too bad but the French governments decision to invest in the line was the mistake that really cost them.

Oh yah, France Sucks.

[yesdachi]

More myths:
Germany lost WW1 because of the revolution.
In WW2 Germany had excellent General's. They lost because Hitler was an idiot.

They did have good generals and they did loose because Hitler was an idiot.

[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.

[Franconicus]

They did have good generals and they did loose because Hitler was an idiot.

They did have foolish general as well. I find it rediculous that everybody praises the generals for the victories and blames Hitler for the failures. Hitler was a fool and his biggest mistake was to start a war he could not win (or at least end).

[Ja'chyra]

That 300 Spartans held the pass at Thermopylae by themselves.

[yesdachi]

That 300 Spartans held the pass at Thermopylae by themselves.

Didn’t they? I seem to recall that there were other soldiers but they were sent ahead? I would be interested in knowing more?

[Kraxis]

Didn’t they? I seem to recall that there were other soldiers but they were sent ahead? I would be interested in knowing more?

They didn't. But I think you got that.

Most of the battle was indeed the entire allied force, where only 300 Spartans participated. Once again they couldn't come in force because of religious festivals, the king could volounteer and his Hippeis were obligated to follow him. Thus 300 Spartans and their helot servants (1 each) went.
I don't know how many other hoplites there were, but I seen figures of around 6000 to 10000 in all. Certainly not a small force. And trust me 300 men could not cover the entire pass, eventhough it was very small.

The alliedforces were only sent home when Leonidas heard that the Immortals were marching through the mountain route towards their rear. He couldn't go as he had been sent to hold the pass, or at least that is what we hear, I believe he stayed behind to keep the Persian cavalry off the back of the allied troops, a rearguard. That fits perfectly with Aristopompos at Plataea, but that is another discussion.
Anyway, eventhough he sent all allied troops away, even the helots (though they had to wait until much later), the Thespians (400?) and Thebans (700?) stayed as well. The Thespians fell with their Spartan compatriots on the small hillock and down by the wall. Supposedly the Thebans ran away when they saw the inevitable destruction bearing down on them. I believe they might have surrendered late in the battle as by then further deaths were needless in terms of a rearguard action. That Thebes later joined with Xerxes gives the other Greeks plenty of incentive to describe them as cowards, even if they fought as hard as the others. How can traitors share in the glory of the battle?

[yesdachi]

Most of the battle was indeed the entire allied force, where only 300 Spartans participated. Once again they couldn't come in force because of religious festivals, the king could volounteer and his Hippeis were obligated to follow him. Thus 300 Spartans and their helot servants (1 each) went.
I don't know how many other hoplites there were, but I seen figures of around 6000 to 10000 in all. Certainly not a small force. And trust me 300 men could not cover the entire pass, eventhough it was very small.

Thanks!

I saw this show on the History Channel a while ago but they appear to be full of it.
Decisive Battles: Thermopylae
http://store.aetv.com/html/product/i...tid=&subcatid=

[Kraxis]

Interesting... I didn't think they would make such a major mistake.

Funny enough this is the series containing the RTW engine.

[conon394]

Kraxis

I would not be surprised they made a complete mess of Marathon as well...

[Kraxis]

Kraxis

I would not be surprised they made a complete mess of Marathon as well...

"And the Corinthians won by driving the Persians inland by virtue of their strong center."

[Soulforged]

It's pretty logical, how could ever 300 hundred man stand to thousands of enemies? That's absurd. It's like the post above they were much more. The number three (and it's multiples) were a "magic" number to the one who wrote the story later, i don't remember his name, he says also something about the battle lasting 3 days, wich is probably false too. But if i'm right after the first battle, when the army leaded by Leonidas repeled succesfully the persians they were outnumbered but not for much. Then the story tells that at night, a "traitor" falls in fear and tells the persian general about a way to surround the army of greeks. They are sorrounded and fight all night until morning, then is when the first group flee (i mean at seen that they're being surrounded), mercenaries and other greeks, at the end a great army becomes bastly outnumbered and they loose (the battle of course because the war was won by the greeks, and this battle is still an heroic one), now if they were 3000 or 6000 i really don't know, but is probably mithical bullcookies.

[Gemenii XIII]

Alexander was a Greek.

hahahaha, oh man that one gets me every time

assuming your reffering to Alexander the great. What else could he be, Mayan?

[Redleg]

It's pretty logical, how could ever 300 hundred man stand to thousands of enemies?

They didn't stand - they were defeated after a period of battle if I remember correctly. What the actually number of warriors involved and the time taken is lost in the myth - but the historical aspect of the battle is true.

In warfare if the defender is holding the right terrian and has the right tactics - a small number can hold a larger number for a period of time. This has been shown to be true numerous times throught history.

For instance another myth around the same lines is the Defense of the Alamo during the Texas Revolution. The story of the defense has been blown so out of portion of the actual events that it makes for a good story.