Stupidest things you have ever seen written (about ancient history)

[anubis88]

I was afraid someone would mention the "forbidden archeology"... I mean wth is that? The Dakkara bird or whatever... It is definetly a plane, there's just no other explanation... So it's either aliens or there were super evolved civilizations before us...

It also amazes me that people actually think the avarage greek was waaaay more stupid than the avarage present day man :S...

But that's a whole other story... Those are more claims than written things in the modern media (altough i must say that it seems 99% of people from my country, based on comments on various forums, believe in a supreme cover up by the worlds goverments of an extremly advanced past... With the Illuminati and Opus Dei, and the Jews running most goverments... What can i say, i live in a land where there are many "wierd" people :D)

[Tanit]

#1)My Women's Studies prof, who claimed to have a Classics degree, said that there were no lesbians in ancient Sparta.

#2)Underestimation of mankind: Humans couldn't build the pyramids, we never went to the moon, etc....

[athanaric]

#1)My Women's Studies prof, who claimed to have a Classics degree, said that there were no lesbians in ancient Sparta.

[bolding mine]

The existence of such a discipline at all is testament to human failure. Whenever I've heard someone mention something in that direction, it's some retarded pseudo-scientific PC crap.

[Dutchhoplite]

In "The Poison King: The Life and Legend of Mithradates, Rome's Deadliest Enemy"

Besides the fact this is one of the worst books i bought and read the last years...The author writes that Romans were armed with machetes....horrible crap!

[vartan]

The existence of such a discipline at all is testament to human failure. Whenever I've heard someone mention something in that direction, it's some retarded pseudo-scientific PC crap.

Women's Studies can be rather important if one is willing enough to open up to a wide-enough interdisciplinary approach to problems. Good thing about WS is that it isn't just about "women".

[fomalhaut]

[bolding mine]

The existence of such a discipline at all is testament to human failure. Whenever I've heard someone mention something in that direction, it's some retarded pseudo-scientific PC crap.

you can't be serious? western history is undeniably told through the patriarchal and more recently nationalist perspective. Seeing you comparing Women's Studies to pseudo-science is really quite scary.

[Tollheit]

No, we don't need "science" with an agenda to counter another agenda.

[antisocialmunky]

Those tends of fields tend to examine historic activities through a very narrow lense and make certain assumptions based on the subjectivities of the participants (IE Contextualize everything as "men oppressed women" + assume "there must be a feminized reading of everything" => get something not particularly objective).

That being said, these narrow lense studies may be used to tease out something interesting and true but nto so dramatic if taken with a variety of other narrow lenses as well as the original context.

[vartan]

ASM the WS reference was off-topic and not at all to do with history or WS as a historical lens. Sorry you misunderstood.

P.S. WS is not quote "men oppressed women" and "there must be a feminized reading of everything". Just to clear things up.

[M to the A]

I have family in Macedonia so I've read my fair share of funny stuff on those "truth" websites from Macedonians, Greeks and Albanians.

[athanaric]

you can't be serious? western history is undeniably told through the patriarchal and more recently nationalist perspective. Seeing you comparing Women's Studies to pseudo-science is really quite scary.

Sorry but we're alread past that. If there is any agenda in modern historical science, it's "don't make connections", "be ultra-specific", and so on. Also, why do you say "Western history"? Other parts of this world have a history too and they're no less "patriarchal" and "nationalist" than us. Also, what Tollheit said.

[vartan]

Sorry but we're alread past that. If there is any agenda in modern historical science, it's "don't make connections", "be ultra-specific", and so on. Also, why do you say "Western history"? Other parts of this world have a history too and they're no less "patriarchal" and "nationalist" than us. Also, what Tollheit said.

Thank you atha. I do not know what various institutions have to say, but thankfully, attending a world-famous research institution, I unlearned the imperialism-filled toxins of traditional U.S. "social sciences".

[Populus Romanus]

That 2 million Persians invaded Greece. Ironically, this stupidity was started by an ancient historian. To make matters even worse, no ancient was stupid enough to buy that crap, but now 2 and 1/2 millenia after, we are all suddenly believing it.

[jirisys]

That 2 million Persians invaded Greece. Ironically, this stupidity was started by an ancient historian. To make matters even worse, no ancient was stupid enough to buy that crap, but now 2 and 1/2 millenia after, we are all suddenly believing it.

2 millions... I think 70k is feasible due to the fact it was a grand campaign, led by the king.

But two millions? That's 200 times a regular army back then.

~Jirisys ()

[antisocialmunky]

ASM the WS reference was off-topic and not at all to do with history or WS as a historical lens. Sorry you misunderstood.

P.S. WS is not quote "men oppressed women" and "there must be a feminized reading of everything". Just to clear things up.

Meh, maybe its just the fact that my ancient mythology professor liked to fall back on Feminist and Homosexual interpretations of primary sources instead of just trying to look at them in an actual historical context.

[fomalhaut]

those narrow lenses can help us find new understandings on a subject. not to say they are the end all but they all contribute to a whole

[Arthur, king of the Britons]

The 'Rome: Total War' design documents.

[antisocialmunky]

those narrow lenses can help us find new understandings on a subject. not to say they are the end all but they all contribute to a whole

ME:

That being said, these narrow lense studies may be used to tease out something interesting and true but nto so dramatic if taken with a variety of other narrow lenses as well as the original context.

Read what I posted first: Useful for looking at certain aspects of history as part of the whole but not useful for teaching it as history in isolation.

[Shade]

I have a hypothesis that Rome: Total War takes place in some sort of alternate history timeline.

- Massive and pointless wars during the early Iron Age lead to many of the cultures of northern Europe being devasted, and creating a few powerful tribes that have lost much of their oral and written history.
- Mysticism and cults are much more prevalent in Rome, leading to bizarre techniques and technologies.
- Ptolemy I Soter suffered a severe case of malaria, ultimately becoming brain damaged during a coma. Believing himself to be the reincarnation of the ancient Egyptian rulers, he set about recreating it as much as possible.

I'm sure that there is more to it.

[antisocialmunky]

You could go on for days about RTW. :p

[vartan]

2 millions... I think 70k is feasible due to the fact it was a grand campaign, led by the king.

But two millions? That's 200 times a regular army back then.

~Jirisys ()

By the 8th century BCE we already have upwards of 70k armies (see Assyria). By the 5th century BCE the Achaemenids far surpass this capability, by at least double. The supporting non-militants can easily make the numbers of the people (warrior and other) in the invading army reach 200-250k and beyond.

[jirisys]

By the 8th century BCE we already have upwards of 70k armies (see Assyria). By the 5th century BCE the Achaemenids far surpass this capability, by at least double. The supporting non-militants can easily make the numbers of the people (warrior and other) in the invading army reach 200-250k and beyond.

Yes, I seem to have forgotten a 0 in there.

700 thousand I meant.

~Jirisys ()

[Ca Putt]

nah, that's just exaggeration.

claiming that an army was made mostly of elephants whereas they maybe had one on 1000 humans and claiming that an army counted two million soldiers whereas it only counted 70k men are two pairs of shoes.

compare: one Fisherman claims he cought a Unicorn and one claims he cought a fish that was 60 feet long.
one is a bloody liar the other one is just exaggerating.

[Populus Romanus]

Yes, I seem to have forgotten a 0 in there.

700 thousand I meant.

~Jirisys ()

The absolute maximum Greece could have supported was 250,000 men. Absolutely no more could be supported by the countywide. It would be physically impossible to have an army any larger than that.

[Biowulf]

Except I'm pretty sure he was talking about Persia.

[Poulp']

compare: one Fisherman claims he cought a Unicorn and one claims he cought a fish that was 60 feet long.
one is a bloody liar the other one is just exaggerating.

Or he could have caught a narval, in which case he's just ignorant.

[jirisys]

The absolute maximum Greece could have supported was 250,000 men. Absolutely no more could be supported by the countywide. It would be physically impossible to have an army any larger than that.

Except I'm pretty sure he was talking about Persia.

Yes

Or he could have caught a narval, in which case he's just ignorant.

Nice

~Jirisys ()

[Tanit]

Could Persia have supported an army of 2 million? - Maybe
Is it likely? - No
Is it fun to imagine? - big time

[vartan]

Could Persia have supported an army of 2 million? - Maybe
Is it likely? - No
Is it fun to imagine? - big time

Producing a film remotely resembling the Battle of Thermopylae (480BCE): 65.000.000 USD
Maintaining the armies in said battle: upwards of 12.500 mnai
Tanit's wittiness: priceless

[Tanit]

HA! LOL. Thank you Vartan.