Bad History?

[irony]

I went through the list of links to 'bad this and that' sites and did not see one for Bad History. Is there such a website?

If not, I may have to do something about that... starting with a refutation of the assertion that Columbus was the first person to propose that the world was round...

[BlackStar]

That mysterious quote from the Bible (I think it's Job), about the Earth "suspended in nothingness", seems to me ample proof that our ancient ancestors knew our planet was a sphere...(if nothing much else!).

I have read that the "flat earth conspiracy" was perpetuated by the Roman Church, but that most people laughed at the idea AT THE TIME.

There's an awful lot of Bad History around... Take your pick!

[Yorkshireman]

Here's a few more to add to your 'Bad History' website:
- Columbus 'discovered America'
- People who lived in the Paleo/Meso/Neolithic were stupid savages
- and they fought with dinosaurs
(and their womenfolk looked like Raquel Welch)

Tim Lambert explodes a few more on his website here.
http://www.localhistories.org/histmyth.html

[Disinfo Agent]

I went through the list of links to 'bad this and that' sites and did not see one for Bad History. Is there such a website?Irony, where have you been? It's nice to see you back! :)

If not, I may have to do something about that... starting with a refutation of the assertion that Columbus was the first person to propose that the world was round...For a 'Bad History' forum, I suggest The Hall of Ma'at's message board (http://www.hallofmaat.com/index_p.php?0). However, you may get a quicker answer to you question at the Ethical Atheist's e-book (http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat_earth_myth.html) about the myth of the flat Earth.

[Eroica]

- Columbus 'discovered America'He did - he just wasn't the first to do so! :)

People who lived in the Paleo/Meso/Neolithic were stupid savagesI'm sure some of them were! :)

and they fought with dinosaursWell, they did hunt birds ... :)

(and their womenfolk looked like Raquel Welch)Why not?

[hhEb09'1]

I have read that the "flat earth conspiracy" was perpetuated by the Roman Church, but that most people laughed at the idea AT THE TIME.

There's an awful lot of Bad History around... Take your pick!I would start with that one. I'm not sure it was ever a doctrine. Where did you read it? Was it a book, or a webpage?

I have a question related to Bad History: approx. how many face-to-face fast-draw duels were there in the American West? Or for that matter, anywhere. I mean, potentially mortal ones, not the ones that are replayed every summer night in the town square.

[Selenite]

I have a question related to Bad History: approx. how many face-to-face fast-draw duels were there in the American West? Or for that matter, anywhere. I mean, potentially mortal ones, not the ones that are replayed every summer night in the town square.

Considering how much the American West was already being romanticized and dime noveled to death even at the time I wonder if it would be possible to ever accurately answer that one.

My favorite is all these movies where you see Vikings with the traditional two horns sticking out of their helmet. Apparently the Norse never wore such a thing.

[Uranut]

At the time of the discovery of the 'New World' the Catholic Church supported a position based on the world view of Aristotle which featured a spherical earth at the center of the universe.

The idea that Columbus sought to prove the Earth was round was presented in a poem by Washington Irving 130 years later!!!

[Maksutov]

Considering how much the American West was already being romanticized and dime noveled to death even at the time I wonder if it would be possible to ever accurately answer that one.

My favorite is all these movies where you see Vikings with the traditional two horns sticking out of their helmet. Apparently the Norse never wore such a thing.You're right. The Vikings (Norsemen) didn't have two horns sticking out of their helmets.

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/7594/hotwpi31lj.th.jpg (http://img292.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hotwpi31lj.jpg)

[TriangleMan]

You're right. The Vikings (Norsemen) didn't have two horns sticking out of their helmets.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horned_helmet) agrees. Apparantly connecting Vikings with horned helmets started around the 19th century.

[HenrikOlsen]

A problem with talking about which types of helmet where used by the vikings is that there are no helmets found from the viking age, so people have to extrapolate from earlier examples and descriptions which may be highly unreliable.
The most realistic opinion is that there is not enough evidence either way to say anything definite.

[Selenite]

Here's a interesting site which tries to get to the bottom of how the pronged-horn Viking image got started. Apparently Wagner gets some of the blame. :-)

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhornedhelmet.html

Another fun piece of bad history is the popular belief that the Romans always used slaves in their rowing galleys. That one we can probably blame on Ben-Hur.

[hhEb09'1]

At the time of the discovery of the 'New World' the Catholic Church supported a position based on the world view of Aristotle which featured a spherical earth at the center of the universe.

The idea that Columbus sought to prove the Earth was round was presented in a poem by Washington Irving 130 years later!!!A poem? 130 years later? 130 years later than 1492? Washington Irving wasn't born until 1783.

[A.DIM]

Ha ha.

Bad History, it is everywhere!


Seriously, IMO there is evidence for spherical geometry found in the mesopotamian astronomical texts. Afterall, this is where not only the greeks gained much knowledge of the heavens, but also the hebrews (hence the reference in the OT).

Oh, and the "horned helmet" thing can likewise be traced to mesopotamia; the "gods" were ofted depicted with horned helmets.

[Uranut]

A poem? 130 years later? 130 years later than 1492? Washington Irving wasn't born until 1783.

You are quite correct. I misread a footnote from 'Coming of Age in the Milky Way' by Timothy Ferris:

"The myth that Columbus was out to prove the world was round was invented 130 years after the fact, and subsequently was popularized by Washington Irving."

Ooops!!!

[Gillianren]

I have a question related to Bad History: approx. how many face-to-face fast-draw duels were there in the American West? Or for that matter, anywhere. I mean, potentially mortal ones, not the ones that are replayed every summer night in the town square.

according to Wyatt Earp, hardly any. he said that being a fast draw wasn't important, either, and that a man who didn't take time to aim was generally dead pretty fast.

[Wolverine]

Article (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040625.html) from The Straight Dope.

[hhEb09'1]

Article (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040625.html) from The Straight Dope.Thanks Wolverine, that pretty much answers my question. I wonder how I missed that column? :)

One comment from there seems odd though: "Scoffers then and since attacked the story's credibility, in part due to the seeming unlikelihood of hitting a man-sized target with a pistol at 50 yards in 1865" That doesn't seem at all impossible to me.

[SeanF]

Thanks Wolverine, that pretty much answers my question. I wonder how I missed that column? :)

One comment from there seems odd though: "Scoffers then and since attacked the story's credibility, in part due to the seeming unlikelihood of hitting a man-sized target with a pistol at 50 yards in 1865" That doesn't seem at all impossible to me.
Next time you're in 1865 you'll have to try it. :)

[hhEb09'1]

Hmm...right. Last time I had a 2017 Colt with me, so maybe that's biasing my perception.

[Wolverine]

One comment from there seems odd though: "Scoffers then and since attacked the story's credibility, in part due to the seeming unlikelihood of hitting a man-sized target with a pistol at 50 yards in 1865" That doesn't seem at all impossible to me.

Given the nature of handguns commonly used at that time (e.g. cap-and-ball), that seems a very resonable statement. I enjoy shooting single-action revolvers and own a modern replica myself, which is modeled after the Colt SAA (http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg32-e.htm) (likely what most folks envision as "the" old west sidearm, which wasn't introduced until 1873). Lots of practice is required to regularly post that sort of accuracy at 150' firing one-handed under ordinary target-shooting conditions with modern handguns, let alone the equipment of the day during an armed confrontation. ;)

[Sam5]

The "Conquest of Mexico" by Cortez was a misunderstanding in history books for hundreds of years.

All he did was conquer the Aztec island in the lake, about 5 square miles. The Spanish called the Aztecs the "Mexica" Indians and their Island was called "Mexico". All he did was conquer the island, not the whole land mass of what we know as modern Mexico.

Also, he didn't do it with just a few hundred Spanish mercenaries. He had the help of 30,000 or so other Indians who hated the fascistic Aztecs. These Indians and millions of others saw Cortez as a hero, not a villain.

[Disinfo Agent]

The Spanish called the Aztecs the "Mexica" Indians and their Island was called "Mexico".Niptick: I believe the word "Mexico" is from a Native American language (I don't know whether it's the language of the Aztecs or not).

Edit: In fact the Wikipedia has the following (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec#Terminology):

In Nahuatl, the native language of the Aztec, "Azteca" means "someone who comes from Aztlán", a mythical place in northern Mexico. However, the Aztec referred to themselves as Mexica [...] or Tenochca and Tlatelolca according their city of origin. Their use of the word azteca was like the modern use of Latin American, or Anglo-saxon: a broad term that does not refer to a specific culture.
I agree with most of what you said in your post, Sam. However, if the belligerance and the human sacrifices of the Aztecs were brutal, the system with which the Spaniards replaced the Aztec Empire, with its Inquisition burnings and its racism, was also brutal.

[hhEb09'1]

Given the nature of handguns commonly used at that time (e.g. cap-and-ball), that seems a very resonable statement. I enjoy shooting single-action revolvers and own a modern replica myself, which is modeled after the Colt SAA (http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg32-e.htm) (likely what most folks envision as "the" old west sidearm, which wasn't introduced until 1873). Lots of practice is required to regularly post that sort of accuracy at 150' firing one-handed under ordinary target-shooting conditions with modern handguns, let alone the equipment of the day during an armed confrontation. O sure, I understand that, I was just saying it wouldn't be impossible. The story doesn't say that they did it over and over, right?

[Sam5]

I think the story of "racism" in Latin America is not accurate in modern history books. The Spanish freely inter-married with the Indians and formed the totally new "race" that today we call "Hispanics" or "Latinos", and there are a few hundred million of them in Latin America and the US today. Only a few of the Spanish families refused to mix with the Indians.

When Cortez landed on the coast of Yucatan in 1519, he found Spanish sailors who had already inter-married with the local Indians. These were guys from shipwrecks and maybe some deserters from earlier voyages.

[Disinfo Agent]

Intermarriage does not imply equality, though. Wherever European colonists arrived, they eventually imposed some sort of social hierarchy based on colour and/or race, with them predictably at the top, and usually with 'pure' African slaves at the bottom of the scale.

And one more comment:
The Spanish freely inter-married with the Indians and formed the totally new "race" that today we call "Hispanics" or "Latinos", and there are a few hundred million of them in Latin America and the US today.To the North, there was no intermarriage between 'races' because intermarriage was usually outlawed by the British, who used a different colonial strategy than the Iberians. However, banning marriage is not the same as banning racial mixing. There was racial mixing all across the Americas.

[Sam5]

Intermarriage does not imply equality, though. Wherever European colonists arrived, they eventually imposed some sort of social hierarchy based on colour and/or race, with them predictably at the top, and usually with 'pure' African slaves at the bottom of the scale.

And one more comment:
To the North, there was no intermarriage between 'races' because intermarriage was usually outlawed by the British, who used a different colonial strategy than the Iberians. However, banning marriage is not the same as banning racial mixing. There was racial mixing all across the Americas.

"To the North"?? Lol, I live in the Del Norté area. The Spanish North was the largest territory that later became part of the US, and it was Spanish/Indian from the beginning. The "British" controlled only 13 small dinky little colonies along the East Coast. They didn’t tell us what to do out here in Del Norté, nor do they today. Lol. The governor of my state was born in Mexico City. Most of his relatives live there today.

[Disinfo Agent]

Indeed, a large portion of the U.S. was initially colonised by Spain -- which really reinforces my point, doesn't it?

[Sam5]

Indeed, a large portion of the U.S. was initially colonised by Spain -- which really reinforces my point, doesn't it?

No, not at all.

It took the English some time to get out to the West. My ancestors married Indians in Kentucky in the middle of the 19th Century, during the Westward migration.

As the English moved West, they intermarried with Indians and French, and then with Spanish. The French and Spanish intermarried with the Indians. There are "Cajun Indian" tribes down in South Louisiana right now.

A little known fact of history is that the big far-West migration from the East didn't get started until the invention of the steamboat, around the 1830s-'40s, and then covered wagons from the East could be easily transported across the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Before then, it was difficult to move a covered wagon across the big rivers.

[Wolverine]

O sure, I understand that, I was just saying it wouldn't be impossible. The story doesn't say that they did it over and over, right?

Right. I'm not saying it's impossible, either. :)

[Disinfo Agent]

It took the English some time to get out to the West. My ancestors married Indians in Kentucky in the middle of the 19th Century, during the Westward migration.

As the English moved West, they intermarried with Indians and French, and then with Spanish. The French and Spanish intermarried with the Indians. There are "Cajun Indian" tribes down in South Louisiana right now.And the point I was trying to make was precisely that race mixing was not restricted to Latin America.

[hhEb09'1]

Right. I'm not saying it's impossible, either. But unlikely enough that it's reasonable to dismiss the story on those grounds alone?

I dunno, especially when it says "sufficient evidence has now accumulated to indicate it happened roughly as described".

How unlikely do you think it is? What odds are we talking? :)

[Wolverine]

But unlikely enough that it's reasonable to dismiss the story on those grounds alone?

I dunno, especially when it says "sufficient evidence has now accumulated to indicate it happened roughly as described".

How unlikely do you think it is? What odds are we talking? :)

More data required. ;)

I wouldn't dismiss the account based on that alone, no. A bit of searching suggests that the confrontation between Tutt and Hickok didn't resemble a "fast draw" à la Hollywood anyway. What I'm seeing indicates that the two men agreed to a duel of sorts, with Tutt nervously and prematurely firing the first shot and missing entirely, followed by Hickok drawing his revolver, slowly bringing it to bear on Tutts using a two-handed grip, firing and hitting him center-mass. If that's indeed the case, I'd find it entirely plausible. The problem comes in separating the myths from the actual history after 140 years.

[hhEb09'1]

More data required. ;)D*ng! :) I was hoping the odds could be set for something like, you'd stand fifty yards away while I drew down on you with an antique replica. If I missed, you'd get fifty bucks. If I hit, I'd get your life savings. and moderator perks.

[Wolverine]

Draw! http://home.austin.rr.com/victorsvaliant/gun.gif

[Sam5]

Hi, this is your point that I was responding to:


To the North, there was no intermarriage between 'races'...

[Sam5]

More data required. ;)

I wouldn't dismiss the account based on that alone, no. A bit of searching suggests that the confrontation between Tutt and Hickok didn't resemble a "fast draw" à la Hollywood anyway. What I'm seeing indicates that the two men agreed to a duel of sorts, with Tutt nervously and prematurely firing the first shot and missing entirely, followed by Hickok drawing his revolver, slowly bringing it to bear on Tutts using a two-handed grip, firing and hitting him center-mass. If that's indeed the case, I'd find it entirely plausible. The problem comes in separating the myths from the actual history after 140 years.

I think the Duels were mainly in the East, and the gunfights in the West were based a lot on ambush or some guy drawing his gun before the other guy knew what was going on.

I, personally, suspect the myth of the Western quick-draw Duel evolved from the old Hays "decency" Code in Hollywood. The good guy had to be drawn on first, then he could draw and kill the bad guy in self defense. The Sheriff could never just sneak up on the bad guy and shoot him in the back. That went against the Hays Code.

This type of fast-draw Duel evolved into the classic Duel intro to the Gunsmoke TV show in the '50s, where Matt Dillon, out in the middle of the street, always let the bad guy draw first. That also conformed to the FCC and NAB Codes of that era.

I doubt if in real life a Sheriff would make an appointment with a bad guy and arrange to meet him in the middle of a street and then LET the bad guy draw first.

(Just my 2cents)

[hhEb09'1]

Draw! http://home.austin.rr.com/victorsvaliant/gun.gifargggg... I...wasn't ducking...was...gasp...tying...my...shoelace...gur gle

[Lianachan]

A problem with talking about which types of helmet where used by the vikings is that there are no helmets found from the viking age, so people have to extrapolate from earlier examples and descriptions which may be highly unreliable.
The most realistic opinion is that there is not enough evidence either way to say anything definite.

Earlier examples such as Vendel helms, you mean? Could the (I hate such misuse this term, but it's just so convenient) Vikings have used helms that were later adaptations of those? Or what about the spangenhelms?

Did the *ahem* Vikings use any helms at all? Like you say, there's certainly not much archaeological evidence for it (what, one single find isn't it?). Maybe leather caps, or something?

No horns or wings anyway, that's for sure.

[hhEb09'1]

...my bootlace...no, I mean...urkkk...

[Disinfo Agent]

Hi, this is your point that I was responding to:

To the North, there was no intermarriage between 'races'...Ah! Point taken. I should have written "there wasn't as much intermarriage..."

[HenrikOlsen]

Earlier examples such as Vendel helms, you mean? Could the (I hate such misuse this term, but it's just so convenient) Vikings have used helms that were later adaptations of those? Or what about the spangenhelms?

Did the *ahem* Vikings use any helms at all? Like you say, there's certainly not much archaeological evidence for it (what, one single find isn't it?). Maybe leather caps, or something?

No horns or wings anyway, that's for sure.
I would definitely expect them to know about helms similar to the Vendel (http://www.missouri.edu/~rls555/SCA/research/helms/vendel.htm)/Valsgärde (http://www.missouri.edu/~rls555/SCA/research/helms/valsgarde.htm) and Ulltuna (http://www.missouri.edu/~rls555/SCA/research/helms/Ulltuna.htm) helms.

It actually seems like I was wrong in saying not helms have been found from the period, I had forgotten about the Gjermundbu (http://www.missouri.edu/~rls555/SCA/research/helms/gjermanbu.htm) helm, which in design is close to a spangen, but with eyeguards similar to the Vendel/Valsgärde helms.

This mix of features was actually why I don't think its too wrong that the helm I made for myself has the weave and neckstrips of an Ulltuna helm, but eyeguards like a Vendel.

[Sam5]

Ah! Point taken. I should have written "there wasn't as much intermarriage..."

Ok. Lol. You know, I think it is easier to communicate in spoken words, in person, face to face, than it is to write out responses on internet message boards, with our respnoses stretched out several days apart.

[Disinfo Agent]

So true! I've had to deal with that embarassing fact of Internet life over and over again -- and those were just the times I noticed! ;)

[Sam5]

So true! I've had to deal with that embarassing fact of Internet life over and over again -- and those were just the times I noticed! ;)

Lol, me too. The great thing about the internet is that we get to meet people from all over the world. I love that.

[Disinfo Agent]

So do I. :)

[Frantic Freddie]

I think the Duels were mainly in the East, and the gunfights in the West were based a lot on ambush or some guy drawing his gun before the other guy knew what was going on.

I, personally, suspect the myth of the Western quick-draw Duel evolved from the old Hays "decency" Code in Hollywood. The good guy had to be drawn on first, then he could draw and kill the bad guy in self defense. The Sheriff could never just sneak up on the bad guy and shoot him in the back. That went against the Hays Code.

This type of fast-draw Duel evolved into the classic Duel intro to the Gunsmoke TV show in the '50s, where Matt Dillon, out in the middle of the street, always let the bad guy draw first. That also conformed to the FCC and NAB Codes of that era.

I doubt if in real life a Sheriff would make an appointment with a bad guy and arrange to meet him in the middle of a street and then LET the bad guy draw first.

(Just my 2cents)


You have a valid point there...there is no historical proof for the classic Hollyweird showdown,most "shootists" (as they were called then,the term "gunslinger" being a 20th C invention) preferred to "get the drop on their man",i.e.,ambush the fellow they were after & not give him a chance to shoot back.

Also,shootists like Bill Hickcock,Billy the Kid,James Wesley Hardin,Wyatt Earp (who was not the Sheriff of Tombstone),etc...practiced every day,shooting as many as 200 rounds a day & regularly cleaning their guns.

As far as accuracy,the buffalo hunters routinely made 1000 yard shots on their targets in the 1870s & '80s,so a 50 yard shot on a man-sized target by an experienced shootist with either a cap & ball or the new cartridge revolver wasn't unusual.

I'd have to check,but I beleive that it was Hickcock that said "Take your time & hurry up",referring to taking the time to line up the target,but getting the shot off quickly.

My great-grandfather was the Sheriff of Lordsburg for many years,J. Frank Dobie wrote about him,he knew Pat Garrett,but didn't know who killed him either :D )

[Sam5]

My great-grandfather was the Sheriff of Lordsburg for many years,J. Frank Dobie wrote about him,he knew Pat Garrett,but didn't know who killed him either

I think it is the John Wayne movie "Stagecoach" where the coach was headed to Lordsburg. They filmed most of it up in Utah, somewhere around Monument Valley. Well, I live out here now, so the last time I saw the movie it was disorienting, because the way they filmed the scenes, the coach went North, then East, then West, then South, then North, then up in Utah, then in Arizona, then back in Utah, etc. I don't they filmed any scenes anywhere near Lordsburg.

[Astrobairn]

Braveheart

[Sam5]

You have a valid point there...there is no historical proof for the classic Hollyweird showdown,most "shootists" (as they were called then,the term "gunslinger" being a 20th C invention) preferred to "get the drop on their man",i.e.,ambush the fellow they were after & not give him a chance to shoot back.

I used to read a lot of 19th Century local history books in the various parts of the US where I lived at the time, the South, the Midwest, and the far West, and that's the impression I got, that the Sheriff's never wanted to take any chances with criminals. Many of the stories about bad outlaws or crooks, and how the police and sheriff's got them, involved sneaking up on them in some way and just shooting them outright.

Back in those days, they had Wanted posters that said "WANTED: Dead or Alive". That meant anyone could just shoot the bad guy if they happened to see him. That was legal in many rural states.

It's like the way Bonnie and Clyde were shot by a bunch of deputies and cops, as they drove along a rural road and the deputies hid in the bushes. That was the safest way to get criminals in the old days, and it was considered to be completely legal for a long time in this country.

Also, lynching of criminals wasn't considered to be very illegal in some places in the old days. There was a case in early 20th Century Kentucky where a bad guy killed an 8 year old girl. The local sheriff put out a $100 reward for the guy. A lynch mob caught him and lynched him. A few days later the leaders of the mob tried to claim the reward. The lynching didn't make the sheriff very mad, but he got really mad when the lynchers tried to collect the reward. Actually, I think he pretended to be mad so he wouldn't have to pay the $100 out of county funds.

The courts have stopped all of that kind of stuff.

[Lianachan]

Braveheart

I think a lot of the problems with that stem from it's being based so heavily on what Blind Harry had written. I think a lot of the historical problems (although by no means all of them) were contained in his work, and faithfully reproduced by the film makers. But in any event, it certainly is bursting at the seams with historical mistakes.

Anyway - have you seen Rob Roy with Liam Neeson in it? That's even worse!

[Lianachan]

This mix of features was actually why I don't think its too wrong that the helm I made for myself has the weave and neckstrips of an Ulltuna helm, but eyeguards like a Vendel.

If you have any pictures of that online, I'd love to see them.

[parallaxicality]

I recently discovered, after reading Dava Sobel's book, "The Planets", that Galileo, like Kepler, was a practising astrologer. I was very surprised by this, and instantly went on Wikipedia to see if there was any mention of his astrological work; there was, but only in the discussion pages. It transpired that a number of Galileo's "supporters" were engaged in a concerted and vociferous effort NOT to have it mentioned, using the flimsiest of excuses, along the lines of, "Well, he may have been an astrologer occasionally, but there's no proof that he LIKED it..." (Actually, I stumbled across a transcription of one of his earliest Inquisitorial trials in which he is chastised for claiming that his astrological predictions were never wrong, so he must have taken some pride in it). This determination to whitewash someone's character to preserve what is essentially a mythic construction of a flawless individual is very galling. It also fosters an incorrect and rather patronising vision of the Renaissance: that it was a battle between enlightened rationalists and ignorant superstition. In reality it was closer to an evolution than a revolution.

On a related note, why are people willing to accept mysticism in the work of Kepler and Newton but not Galileo?

[Eroica]

On a related note, why are people willing to accept mysticism in the work of Kepler and Newton but not Galileo?
Perhaps because Galileo was persecuted by the Church for his views? It's tempting to see him as the enlightened rationalist being hounded by the benighted forces of ignorance and superstition.

[Maksutov]

[edit]Also, lynching of criminals wasn't considered to be very illegal in some places in the old days. There was a case in early 20th Century Kentucky where a bad guy killed an 8 year old girl. The local sheriff put out a $100 reward for the guy. A lynch mob caught him and lynched him. A few days later the leaders of the mob tried to claim the reward. The lynching didn't make the sheriff very mad, but he got really mad when the lynchers tried to collect the reward. Actually, I think he pretended to be mad so he wouldn't have to pay the $100 out of county funds.

The courts have stopped all of that kind of stuff.Yeah, Saturday nights down here in the South haven't been the same ever since lynching went out of style.

[parallaxicality]

Here's another one: it's never been conclusively proven that the Black Death was caused by the Y. Pestis bacterium. The plague spread to many places, such as Iceland, where rats didn't exist at the time. The virulence and rapid spread of the disease have suggested that its incubation period for too long for it to be the disease now recognised as plague, and actually bares more of a resemblence to an outbreak of a nasty virus, like super-influenza.

[Disinfo Agent]

On a related note, why are people willing to accept mysticism in the work of Kepler and Newton but not Galileo?Perhaps because Galileo was persecuted by the Church for his views?Kepler's mother was accused of witchcraft. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler#Life) Coincidence?...

I think it's impossible to speak of Kepler without mentioning his inclination to mysticism, though, since it plays such an important role in his discovery of the laws of planetary motion.

[Lianachan]

War crimes - that's one that gets me. Not to get political about it, but the people who win the wars are able to exclusively judge who the war criminals are (and to write the history that's handed down, as it happens). Are we seriously to believe that there were so few (if any) allied troops or officers during World War II who committed attrocities? I think you should face justice for such crimes, regardless of whose army you fought in.

[skepticfrog]

War crimes - that's one that gets me. Not to get political about it, but the people who win the wars are able to exclusively judge who the war criminals are (and to write the history that's handed down, as it happens). Are we seriously to believe that there were so few (if any) allied troops or officers during World War II who committed attrocities? I think you should face justice for such crimes, regardless of whose army you fought in.

Much of the history of humanitarian law since WWII has been an attempt to accomplish exactly that -- equal prosecution of all. Most people accept that Nuremburg was one sided -- Churchill wanted to dispense with trials altogether and simply execute top Nazi officials. The law of war is evolving, however. In the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, the ICT for Rwanda, and the Special Court for Sierre Leone, anyone from any side of the conflict can be investigated and prosecuted. At the request of an outside party, the ICTY even investigated US-led NATO bombing in Kosovo (part of the former Yugoslavia). The investigation revealed no offenses that could be prosecuted. The International Criminal Court is also designed to be blind to politics, but then the United States will probably never submit to the ICC's authority.

[Dr Nigel]

To go back to the helms (or not) worn by the Danes and Norsemen back in the 10th century...

I know a couple of people who are part of a Viking re-enactment group, and English Heritage (that governs the public appearances of such groups) insist that everything is as authentic as possible, to the best current knowledge. And they wear helms (albeit not as elaborate as the helm pictures linked in post #42).

Anyway, I'm sure the ancient Greeks actually calculated the radius of the Earth, and were not far off. I can't remember the name of the chap who is most often associated with the measurement. I am, however, pretty sure that they knew the Earth was a sphere (approximately) back in 300 BC.

[Dr Nigel]

Oh, yes, and going back to the original theme of this thread..

I've also not noticed any websites for Bad Biochemistry, and, boy, is there a lot of that around!

In Star Trek: TNG, what Beverly Crusher knows about DNA ... isn't worth knowing.

And that film Outbreak! Hah! I wish it were so easy to manufacture thousands of doses of a vaccine in 24 hours! (Never minding the lab researcher who had disabled the safety interlocks on his benchtop centrifuge so that he could put his hand in it while it was still spinning .... Aaargh!)

Breathe deep ... calm down ....

Better now.

[TriangleMan]

Anyway, I'm sure the ancient Greeks actually calculated the radius of the Earth, and were not far off. I can't remember the name of the chap who is most often associated with the measurement. I am, however, pretty sure that they knew the Earth was a sphere (approximately) back in 300 BC.
Eratosthenes, around 200BC.

[Lianachan]

I'm increasingly bothered that the Battle Of Dunnichen (http://www.tartans.com/articles/battlenechtansmere.html) is so widely known as the Battle Of Nechtansmere (http://www.pictavia.org.uk/visitor/battle.htm).

The "ancients thought the the world was flat" thing also has me gnashing my teeth, rolling my eyes theatrically and rending my garments.

*edited to point out something about the links - Yes. I know. I did that on purpose*

[Eroica]

The "ancients thought the the world was flat" thing also has me gnashing my teeth, rolling my eyes theatrically and rending my garments.
Well, to be fair, some of them did. Democritus, I think? I've also read that in St Augustine's time (circa 400 AD), many of the Roman intelligentsia reverted to a flat-earth theory; but whether this is true I can't say.

[Disinfo Agent]

Looking at the link I posted on page 1 of this thread might clear that up. ;)

[Lianachan]

Well, to be fair, some of them did. Democritus, I think? I've also read that in St Augustine's time (circa 400 AD), many of the Roman intelligentsia reverted to a flat-earth theory; but whether this is true I can't say.

Indeed yes, but it's normally deployed as a sweeping generalisation by people who would have no idea about any of that.

[Dr Nigel]

Thanks, Triangle Man.

Here's another one. At the Battle of Hastings in 1066, King Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye. Er, well, actually it may not have been him, it could have been one of about half a dozen people who were with him at the time. But he did die (or receive a fatal wound) in the battle.

[LurchGS]

regarding the claim that it was teh steamboat that made the westward "flood" of humanity possible...I think I'll differ with you on that. Steamboats had little, if anything, to do with the surge westward. The invention that really pushed it was the railroad - even though rail across the Mississippi River didn't come until after 1865.

Rail made it very easy for the disgruntled, the poor, the wanderer, and the 'I hate my neighbors" to get a significant portion of the way to new - and essentially free - land, at very little cost.

Once they got to the Mississippi, they crossed - and built the wagons on the WEST side of the river (you ever tried putting any kind of wagon on a steamboat? Ever wonder why St Louis is in Missouri and not Illinois?)

[LurchGS]

As far as accuracy,the buffalo hunters routinely made 1000 yard shots on their targets in the 1870s & '80s,so a 50 yard shot on a man-sized target by an experienced shootist with either a cap & ball or the new cartridge revolver wasn't unusual.


I should like to point out that there's a hole in that logic.
1) 1000 yard shots were made with a rifle - of course, Rifles are DESIGNED for long range. Pistols, on the other hand, are designed for close quarters use. Given those requirements, a great deal more care was taken when boring and rifling a... rifle. On the other hand, every vintage pistol I've ever fired has been insanely innaccurate by today's standards.

2) related to 1): 50 yards is a long distance for a pistol in any era. Any little shake in the shooter's hand would result in a big change in aim point. I'd easily believe 50 *feet* (20 paces is approximately 50 feet, after all). While certainly possible, I rather doubt 50 yard shots would be all that common. That's definately approaching a distance where a rifle would be a much better choice.

[Dr Nigel]

1) 1000 yard shots were made with a rifle - of course, Rifles are DESIGNED for long range. Pistols, on the other hand, are designed for close quarters use. Given those requirements, a great deal more care was taken when boring and rifling a... rifle. On the other hand, every vintage pistol I've ever fired has been insanely innaccurate by today's standards.

I agree. You'd struggle to hit a building at 1000 yards with a pistol better than three times out of ten. I also don't think there's anything routine about hitting a buffalo at 1000 yards even using a rifle (except perhaps a modern sniper or hunting rifle with a telescopic sight). That's more than half a mile. I've only fired high-velocity rifles at targets 100 and 200 yards away, and that seemed quite a long way at the time.

[Sam5]

regarding the claim that it was teh steamboat that made the westward "flood" of humanity possible...I think I'll differ with you on that. Steamboats had little, if anything, to do with the surge westward. The invention that really pushed it was the railroad - even though rail across the Mississippi River didn't come until after 1865.

Rail made it very easy for the disgruntled, the poor, the wanderer, and the 'I hate my neighbors" to get a significant portion of the way to new - and essentially free - land, at very little cost.

Once they got to the Mississippi, they crossed - and built the wagons on the WEST side of the river (you ever tried putting any kind of wagon on a steamboat? Ever wonder why St Louis is in Missouri and not Illinois?)

Hi,

The Conestoga wagon was built in Pennsylvania. They crossed the Mississippi River by steam-powered ferry boats designed to haul wagons. This allowed for crossings by long wagon trains headed West before the Intercontinental railroad was completed in 1869.

Lodisa Frizzell, 1852: “Teams crossing the river all the while, but there is not half ferry boats enough here, great delay is the consequence, besides the pushing & crowding, to see who shall get across first.”

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:nJamd1jtP1kJ:www.octa-trails.org/JumpingOffToday/VirtualTour/StJoseph.asp+wagon+train+%22crossing+the+river%22&hl=en

“On reaching the Mississippi River, it may be necessary to stop a day or two. If there is a large backlog of wagons for the ferries, a family may have to wait their turn. At times the ferries do not operate more than once a day. Some ferry captains will not run on Sunday.”

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:sARoxDehx8AJ:fp.uni.edu/iowahist/Frontier_Life/Teamster_Guide/teamsters2.htm+%22Conestoga+wagon%22+ferry+crossin g+mississippi+river&hl=en

“Thousands of immigrants who came before the seventies entered the promised land of Iowa by means of ferries. The steamboat companies and ferrymen were bitterly opposed to the construction of bridges across the Father of Waters”

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:eAwOqbHP7fMJ:iagenweb.org/history/palimpsest/jan1934.htm+%22covered+wagon%22+ferry+crossing+mis sissippi+river&hl=en

“We crossed the Mississippi River between Rock Island, Illinois & Davenport, Iowa in a ferry boat.”

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:Sb1gbDCTtyQJ:www.olden-times.com/OldtimeNebraska/n-csnyder/snyder.html+%22covered+wagon%22+ferry+crossing+mis sissippi+river&hl=en

Population of St. Louis in 1830 = 4,977
(before the steamboat became popular on the river)

Population of St. Louis in 1860 = 160,773
(after the steamboat became popular on the river)

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/projects/population/cities/stlouis.html

[Frantic Freddie]

As far as accuracy,the buffalo hunters routinely made 1000 yard shots on their targets in the 1870s & '80s,so a 50 yard shot on a man-sized target by an experienced shootist with either a cap & ball or the new cartridge revolver wasn't unusual.


I should like to point out that there's a hole in that logic.
1) 1000 yard shots were made with a rifle - of course, Rifles are DESIGNED for long range. Pistols, on the other hand, are designed for close quarters use. Given those requirements, a great deal more care was taken when boring and rifling a... rifle. On the other hand, every vintage pistol I've ever fired has been insanely innaccurate by today's standards.
Where are you getting that assumption from? Both Colt & Smith & Wesson hand-fitted their handguns & they had a reputation for accuracy.It's possible that the rifling could be shot out in an old gun,destrotying accuracy.
The guns of the era were no less accurate than they are today.

2) related to 1): 50 yards is a long distance for a pistol in any era. Any little shake in the shooter's hand would result in a big change in aim point. I'd easily believe 50 *feet* (20 paces is approximately 50 feet, after all). While certainly possible, I rather doubt 50 yard shots would be all that common. That's definately approaching a distance where a rifle would be a much better choice.
I routinely shoot handguns at 50 yard targets & it's really easy to make hits on a man-sized target at 100 yards.Elmer Keith (the father of the 44 S&W Magnum) made a documented hit on a wounded ram at 600 yards using his pet .44 Special load.

[Frantic Freddie]

I agree. You'd struggle to hit a building at 1000 yards with a pistol better than three times out of ten. I also don't think there's anything routine about hitting a buffalo at 1000 yards even using a rifle (except perhaps a modern sniper or hunting rifle with a telescopic sight). That's more than half a mile. I've only fired high-velocity rifles at targets 100 and 200 yards away, and that seemed quite a long way at the time.



http://www.nrahq.org/compete/blackpowder.asp


NRA Black Powder Target Rifle competition allows any safe original, modern production or custom variety black powder rifle to be fired in matches at distances of 100 to 1,000 yards

[Dr Nigel]

Frantic Freddie - OK, I accept that shooting matches use targets out to 1000 yards. But I will assume that the people firing at those targets are mostly pretty damn good shots.

I would also contest the accuracy of mid-19th century weapons compared with modern ones. Any weapon with a rifled barrel that fires a bullet as opposed to a ball will be of comparable accuracy. My (albeit limited) understanding of the mid-19th century firearms is that most (even rifled weapons) fired a ball rather than a bullet. If this is the case, modern weapons will be more accurate.

[TheBlackCat]

The reason no one wanted to fund Colombus was that they were convinced his calculations about the size of the Earth were wrong. His calculations indicated the Earth was much smaller than everyone else had calculated. Everyone else thought that the distance to the orient was too far and no one could make the journey with the current level of technology. It turns out everyone else was right, if it wasn't for the complete accident of there being another, basically unknown continent in the way Columbus would have turned back or been lost at sea.

Paul Revere was among the people who rode to warn the minutemen that the British were en route. However, the British captured him before he could carry out his assignment. "The Midnight Run of Paul Revere" was actually carried out by another man.

Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb. The light bulb had been invented years before. What Edison did was invent a light bulb that lasted long enough without burning out to be a commercially viable product.

Einstein got the Nobel Prize for his work in the photoelectric effect. He never recieved a Nobel prize for relativity.

The Constituion of the United States did not form the first government of the United States. Technically the Second Continental Congress was the first US government, which used the Decleration of Indpendence as a makeshift constitution. After that, there was a constitution known as the Articles of Confederation. This government was in place about 7 years before the current constitution was formed. Additionally, the Framers who wrote the Constitution were not supposed to be making a new government, they were simply supposed to be repairing the Articles. The Constitutional Convention had to be carried out in strict secrecy because what they were doing was technically treason. I have heard some debate over whether the Articles were actually doing that poor a job by the time of the Constitutional Convention, but I do not know how valid the debate is. Also, Thomas Jefferson was not involved in writing the constitution, he was the US embassador to France at the time and thus was not in the country.

[Frantic Freddie]

Frantic Freddie - OK, I accept that shooting matches use targets out to 1000 yards. But I will assume that the people firing at those targets are mostly pretty damn good shots.

I would also contest the accuracy of mid-19th century weapons compared with modern ones. Any weapon with a rifled barrel that fires a bullet as opposed to a ball will be of comparable accuracy. My (albeit limited) understanding of the mid-19th century firearms is that most (even rifled weapons) fired a ball rather than a bullet. If this is the case, modern weapons will be more accurate.
By the 1850s the Minie ball (http://www.hackman-adams.com/guns/58musket.htm) (a misnomer,it's a conical projectile) was invented & used to devastating effect in the American Civil War,shots up to 600 yards were not uncommon.

I'll find some more links to that & the buffalo hunters.


Here's a good story,about General Sedgewick,whose last words were "They couldn't hit an elephant at that dis..."
http://www.sedgwick.org/na/families/robert1613/B/2/9/2/powell-benjaminm1841.html

About 10 o'clock in the morning of the 9th of May, 1864, three days after the battle of the Wilderness, and three days before the battle of the Bloody Angle, Major-General John Sedgwick, commanding the sixth corps of Grant's Army, was killed, near Spottsylvania, by a single shot from a Confederate sharpshooter, over a half mile distant.

[Dr Nigel]

I stand corrected.

[Gillianren]

They crossed the Mississippi River by steam-powered ferry boats designed to haul wagons.

not everyone. the Ingallses, for example, drove across the river while it was frozen. (okay, I can't actually remember if that was the Mississippi or not, and I'm too lazy to look it up. but I think it safe to say that an awful lot of people did not, in fact, use steamships.)

[Sam5]

not everyone. the Ingallses, for example, drove across the river while it was frozen.

That's pretty clever. Man, that must have been a rough way to travel in the old days.

I crossed the river on an Amtrak one time, someplace up North, and it was all frozen over.

[Eroica]

I think the story of "racism" in Latin America is not accurate in modern history books. The Spanish freely inter-married with the Indians and formed the totally new "race" that today we call "Hispanics" or "Latinos", and there are a few hundred million of them in Latin America and the US today. Only a few of the Spanish families refused to mix with the Indians. I'm in the middle of James Michener's Texas at the moment. I don't know how accurate it really is, or how good a researcher he was (he frequently refers to nineteenth century Scots-Irish as coming from Northern Ireland, which didn't exist until 1920!), but he mentions that a couple of Spanish officials (Jesuits?) once drew up a list of 84 racial categories found in Mexico in the seventeenth or eighteenth century, beginning with Peninsulares (Spaniards born in Iberia) and ending with, I think, Negro-Native Americans! If true, it shows: 1) that such intermixing did indeed take place, as you point out; and 2) that some people took such racial/racist distinctions seriously. However, Michener makes a point of stating that very few of their contemporaries took such lists seriously.

[Sam5]

I'm in the middle of James Michener's Texas at the moment. I don't know how accurate it really is, or how good a researcher he was (he frequently refers to nineteenth century Scots-Irish as coming from Northern Ireland, which didn't exist until 1920!), but he mentions that a couple of Spanish officials (Jesuits?) once drew up a list of 84 racial categories found in Mexico in the seventeenth or eighteenth century, beginning with Peninsulares (Spaniards born in Iberia) and ending with, I think, Negro-Native Americans! If true, it shows: 1) that such intermixing did indeed take place, as you point out; and 2) that some people took such racial/racist distinctions seriously. However, Michener makes a point of stating that very few of their contemporaries took such lists seriously.

Thanks for the information. I’ve been interested in genetics and race mixing for many decades. I think it’s because I’ve traveled around the US a lot and down into different parts of Mexico and Central America. And one thing I’ve notice is that quite a lot of people tend to look alike if they were born and raised in just one town or village, yet, if I drive a 100 or so miles away, to another town or village, I can see other people who tend to look very much alike within the village, but they don’t look like the people from the other village.

I figure this might be some kind of family-group genetics that make them look alike, especially if they marry within their own village. So in effect, I think we might be able to classify various villages as containing separate and distinct “village races” of people. Or maybe I should call that “family groups” or something rather than “races.” Any ideas about this?

[ausduck1]

Thanks, Triangle Man.

Here's another one. At the Battle of Hastings in 1066, King Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye. Er, well, actually it may not have been him, it could have been one of about half a dozen people who were with him at the time. But he did die (or receive a fatal wound) in the battle.


Just watched a documentary that analysed just this Battle - seems that William and Harold were pretty evenly matched as leaders and the Battle of Hastings could have gone either way... but the death of the army's leader was, at the time, basically the end of the battle. But I digress.

In the panel of the Bayoux tapestry that shows the infamous arrow in the eye it also shows a fallen figure with the legs hacked off, and other figures as well. The $64K question is... which one is Harold?? It was proposed (in the documentary) that Harold was the fallen figure, as apparently there are acounts of him receiving wounds to the legs which dismounted him, then the coup-de-gras was administered. But it just goes to show the interesting ways tht history is 'preserved' and then interpreted years later
http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/figuren/a130.gif

[Gillianren]

oh, and let's not forget Henry VIII and his wives, only two of which he (directly) killed. (there's no evidence from her lifetime that Anne Boleyn had a large mole on her neck and eleven fingers, either.)

[Frantic Freddie]

Oh yeah,and Billy the Kid didn't kill 21 men,one for every year of his age when he died,he can be connected to only 4 men & one of those only peripherally.

[Halcyon Dayz]

Lore has it that the English king Richard III murdered his nephews.
There is, however, not a single shred of evidence.

[Disinfo Agent]

I'm in the middle of James Michener's Texas at the moment. I don't know how accurate it really is, or how good a researcher he was (he frequently refers to nineteenth century Scots-Irish as coming from Northern Ireland, which didn't exist until 1920!) [...]Not as a separate entity from the rest of Ireland, since the whole of Ireland was a part of the U.K. at the time. But he could be using modern political borders as a geographical reference. Many historians do that.

[...] but he mentions that a couple of Spanish officials (Jesuits?) once drew up a list of 84 racial categories found in Mexico in the seventeenth or eighteenth century, beginning with Peninsulares (Spaniards born in Iberia) and ending with, I think, Negro-Native Americans! If true, it shows: 1) that such intermixing did indeed take place, as you point out; and 2) that some people took such racial/racist distinctions seriously. However, Michener makes a point of stating that very few of their contemporaries took such lists seriously.I have trouble believing that ordinary humans could be that intricately minute, even in their prejudice. Quite probably, many of those 84 terms were either synonyms, or overlapped with one another to some extent. However, it's true that Latin American colonial societies usually produced more racial categories than just 'white', 'black', and 'indian'.
This essay (http://www.vacilando.org/index.php?x=810) has a brief overview of race concepts in colonial and postcolonial Latin America, in case you're interested (warning: it uses some non-PC terms).

[Disinfo Agent]

Sam5, what you wrote in your latest post reminded me of this (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-01-09.htm).
Couldn't plain environmental factors have some role in what you observed?

[Eroica]

Not as a separate entity from the rest of Ireland, since the whole of Ireland was a part of the U.K. at the time. But he could be using modern political borders as a geographical reference. Many historians do that.That occurred to me, but it still jars on my ears (especially when it would have been so much easier and more accurate to say Ulster). It's like dividing the German settlers of Texas into East Germans and West Germans.

[Disinfo Agent]

That occurred to me, but it still jars on my ears (especially when it would have been so much easier and more accurate to say Ulster). It's like dividing the German settlers of Texas into East Germans and West Germans.Could it be that his "Northern Ireland" doesn't coincide entirely with modern Ulster?

[ausduck1]

We even have re-interpretations of our own colonial history in Australia - seems that Ned Kelly (1854-1880) was not a criminal thief and a murderer but a contemporary socialist intent on improving the conditions of poor Irish settlers by..... being a thief and a murderer.
*ducking all the Aussie commentary I KNOW I'm going to get!*
http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/tiere/a030.gif

[Sam5]

Sam5, what you wrote in your latest post reminded me of this (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-01-09.htm).
Couldn't plain environmental factors have some role in what you observed?


That's an interesting article.

[Eroica]

Could it be that his "Northern Ireland" doesn't coincide entirely with modern Ulster? I'm afraid that won't cut the mustard! The Scots-Irish were the descendants of those Scottish Protestants (mainly) who colonized parts of Ulster in the Plantation of Ulster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantation_of_Ulster). Six counties were settled: all are in Ulster (which has three other counties), but only four are in Northern Ireland. Donegal and Cavan are not part of Northern Ireland.

[Disinfo Agent]

After looking at this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster) of the Wikipedia, I think I see where you're coming from.

Unionists sometimes refer to Northern Ireland as "Ulster", but that usage is controversial and disputed by many, especially geographers who use the term exclusively to apply to the nine-county province of Ulster. Three counties in the province of Ulster, Cavan (An Cabhán), Donegal (Dún na nGall) and Monaghan (Muineachán) are part of the Republic of Ireland.So, "Ulster" really stretches across the border into the Republic of Ireland, making it larger than the region of the modern U.K. known as "Northern Ireland".
You're probably right in questioning the author's terminology, in that case. He may be using the term "Northern Ireland" in a literal, rather than political, sense: a part of the island which lies to the North. But it seems that saying "Ulster" wouldn't be 100% accurate, either, since you say that not all the counties of Ulster were settled by Scots-Irish.

[tbm]

Greetings.

Being of traceable Irish heritage, I am fascinated by the recent tact of this thread. A few years ago, my father traveled to Ireland and visited his ancestral relatives. He actually stood on what was once the doorstep of his great-grandfather's home and spent time with his modern-day distant relatives. I hope to do the same someday.

Regards, tbm

[Eroica]

But it seems that saying "Ulster" wouldn't be 100% accurate, either, since you say that not all the counties of Ulster were settled by Scots-Irish.Well, all the Scots-Irish came from Ulster, just not from all of it! :D

A few years ago, my father traveled to Ireland and visited his ancestral relatives. He actually stood on what was once the doorstep of his great-grandfather's home and spent time with his modern-day distant relatives. He's done more than I've ever done! :o I don't even know if any of my great-grandfathers' houses are still standing!

[RobWolfe]

Shooting a buffalo from 1000 yards in those days may not have been that difficult. From what I've read about the size of the herds, it seems to me that you could just aim in the direction of the herd and would be unlikely to miss a buffalo. You may not hit the one you were aiming at but how many hunters would admit to that?

[Frantic Freddie]

Shooting a buffalo from 1000 yards in those days may not have been that difficult. From what I've read about the size of the herds, it seems to me that you could just aim in the direction of the herd and would be unlikely to miss a buffalo. You may not hit the one you were aiming at but how many hunters would admit to that?

Just hitting an animal with a bullet ain't enough,you've got to bring it down.Those men didn't have the time to chase a wounded animal,so they had to make the 1st shot count,even at 1000 yards.The guns they used were single-shots.

The technology of the day-heavy barrels,set triggers,tang & globe sights-is still in use today & still working.

[TheBlackCat]

Acutally, generally speaking buffalo hunters would ride on a train until they ran into a heard of buffalo. The train would stop, the buffalo hunter would set up a gatling gun, and he would mow down as many as he could before the heard moved on. Buffalo were considered vermin to be extreminated by the quickest and simplest method possible.

[Gillianren]

Acutally, generally speaking buffalo hunters would ride on a train until they ran into a heard of buffalo. The train would stop, the buffalo hunter would set up a gatling gun, and he would mow down as many as he could before the heard moved on. Buffalo were considered vermin to be extreminated by the quickest and simplest method possible.

Well, yes, this is roughly how it worked after the introduction of the train to the area. However, Wild West Tech mentioned no gatling guns, only rifles, even then--and it wasn't so much that they were vermin as that the local native tribes lived on them, and kill the buffalo, kill the natives.

However, for quite some time, buffalo hunters worked as has been described--men alone on the prairie with rifles (set on a stand), aiming one at a time at buffalo. At that time, they were killing buffalo for their hides, which were extremely valuable; their tongues, which were considered an aphrodisiac; and their meat, if the hunter had a need for it such as, well, working for a railroad as a meat supplier.

[Frantic Freddie]

Well, yes, this is roughly how it worked after the introduction of the train to the area. However, Wild West Tech mentioned no gatling guns, only rifles, even then--and it wasn't so much that they were vermin as that the local native tribes lived on them, and kill the buffalo, kill the natives.

However, for quite some time, buffalo hunters worked as has been described--men alone on the prairie with rifles (set on a stand), aiming one at a time at buffalo. At that time, they were killing buffalo for their hides, which were extremely valuable; their tongues, which were considered an aphrodisiac; and their meat, if the hunter had a need for it such as, well, working for a railroad as a meat supplier.

Well,before Wild West Tech was on TV,I actually read books about the West :D & your answer is essentially correct.Gatling guns ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun) were never used by hunters,mounted on railcars or not.They were a military weapon,too expensive & totally unsuited to hunting,just as the modern Browning M2 ("http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg04-e.htm"http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg04-e.htm) would be for hunting today.

[Gillianren]

Well,before Wild West Tech was on TV,I actually read books about the West :D & your answer is essentially correct.Gatling guns ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun) were never used by hunters,mounted on railcars or not.They were a military weapon,too expensive & totally unsuited to hunting,just as the modern Browning M2 ("http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg04-e.htm"http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg04-e.htm) would be for hunting today.

The Wild West isn't my era of historical interest, but I do quite like the show. (I'd like it even better if they did an Elizabethan version, but I suspect fewer people would watch it.) This means that most of my information about the West, excluding what I picked up in California history class in high school or while studying the Civil War in college, comes from that show.

[jkmccrann]

We even have re-interpretations of our own colonial history in Australia - seems that Ned Kelly (1854-1880) was not a criminal thief and a murderer but a contemporary socialist intent on improving the conditions of poor Irish settlers by..... being a thief and a murderer.
*ducking all the Aussie commentary I KNOW I'm going to get!*
http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/tiere/a030.gif

Isn't it ridiculous! Trying to turn that vagabond into some sort of Aussie folk hero, mainly because we lack figures for just such roles. But why do we need them anyway?

[Eroica]

Isn't it ridiculous! Trying to turn that vagabond into some sort of Aussie folk hero, mainly because we lack figures for just such roles. But why do we need them anyway?
It's just possible that the same could be said about most folk heroes. ;)

[jkmccrann]

It's just possible that the same could be said about most folk heroes. ;)

True enough, and reading through some of your previous posts on this thread Eroica I notice a great deal of discussion about the difference between Ulster & Northern Ireland (NI in the political sense).

I find that intriguing because I've been told that our family heritage (at least a part of it), is derived from Ulster, but I've never really looked into the matter. I wonder if that is itself Scots Irish, I'm guessing there's a fair chance given the Mc. In any case, it took an interesting route to get to Melbourne, at least in this line. Via various countries in Africa, Ethiopia (Addis Adaba), Zimbabwe, many parts of South Africa (from Jo'Burg to the Cape), Canada, the United States, even Western Australia before arriving down south here in Melbourne.

I only mention this here because I wonder if you'd have any insight into whether McCrann would really be from Ulster and perhaps Scots Irish.

On a side note, I notice you're from Dublin, I actually haven't made it across the Irish Sea on all the visits I've made to that part of the world, but last year in Fiji I met a couple of young `intern-year' dotors on the overseas posting/vacation jaunt and had a great time with them that has definitely encouraged me to visit Dublin in the near future, perhaps next year. From all accounts its really taken off of late, and that's something I've heard all over the place.

The `Emerald Tiger' et al.

[Eroica]

I find that intriguing because I've been told that our family heritage (at least a part of it), is derived from Ulster, but I've never really looked into the matter. I wonder if that is itself Scots Irish, I'm guessing there's a fair chance given the Mc.
Apparently the name McCrann originated in County Leitrim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Leitrim), which is in Connacht, but neighbouring Ulster. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that your family isn't Scots-Irish. People do move around a lot!

[Heid the Ba']

McCran(n)s are pretty rare in Scotland, the family I have met were protestant, which proves nothing at all.

Maybe you need the Scots-Irish arithmetic test:

Will six go into thirty two?

a) five and a bit times.
b) no
c) over your dead body

:lol:

"Six into thirty two won't go" was a Loyalist slogan a while back. It refers to the number of counties in NI and Eire.

[jkmccrann]

McCran(n)s are pretty rare in Scotland, the family I have met were protestant, which proves nothing at all.

Maybe you need the Scots-Irish arithmetic test:

Will six go into thirty two?

a) five and a bit times.
b) no
c) over your dead body

:lol:

"Six into thirty two won't go" was a Loyalist slogan a while back. It refers to the number of counties in NI and Eire.


Um, a) ???

[jkmccrann]

Ah, seeing you subscript, I think that makes me pretty much dinky-di Aussie.

[jkmccrann]

Apparently the name McCrann originated in County Leitrim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Leitrim), which is in Connacht, but neighbouring Ulster. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that your family isn't Scots-Irish. People do move around a lot!

Really! Thanks for that, will be sure to visit the area when I get over there.

[devilmech]

You're right. The Vikings (Norsemen) didn't have two horns sticking out of their helmets.

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/7594/hotwpi31lj.th.jpg (http://img292.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hotwpi31lj.jpg)

That image is rather humorous. Where did you drag it up from?

[Hamlet]

That image is rather humorous. Where did you drag it up from?

If I'm not mistaken, that is from the "Viking Funeral" scene in Mel Brooks' movie History of the World: Part I (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082517/).

[Gillianren]

"Mc" and "Mac" both come from the Gaelic (or Gaelic, if you prefer*) for "son of." So McCran would be "son of Cran." Just like my last name was, before Ellis Island, Nelsen--"son of Nels"--and is now, well, Nelson.

*Gaelic and Gaelic are, yes, the same word, but pronounced differently in Scots Gaelic (Gah-lic, like Emeril talking about Allium sativum) and Irish Gaelic (Gay-lic, and what it sounds like, we'll be quiet about and keep polite).

[Eroica]

So McCran would be "son of Cran." Close. Actually, the Gaelic version is Mac Rinn, which means "Son of the Spear" (or so it's thought!).

[Lianachan]

A bheil a' Ghàidhlig agaibh, Eroica?

[Lianachan]

*Gaelic and Gaelic are, yes, the same word, but pronounced differently in Scots Gaelic (Gah-lic, like Emeril talking about Allium sativum) and Irish Gaelic (Gay-lic, and what it sounds like, we'll be quiet about and keep polite).

A lot of people seem to pronounce the Scottish Gaelic as Gay-lic too. They tend to get scorn heaped upon them, and rightly so.

*edited afterthought - am I correct in assuming that I'm the only person here who uses Gaelic in their location? Note to fellow language pedants - English placenames with Gaelic etymology (like Inverness) don't count!

[Heid the Ba']

Don't look at me, Lowland and proud of it. Ok, weegie and slightly embarrassed........

[Eroica]

A bheil a' Ghàidhlig agaibh, Eroica?
Níl a' Ghàidhlig agam ach tá roinnt beag Gaeilge agam! :)

[Lianachan]

Níl a' Ghàidhlig agam ach tá roinnt beag Gaeilge agam! :)

That's fair enough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differences_between_Scottish_Gaelic_and_Irish).

(I must admit having to look up some of your weird, alien and foreign words. Níl....? Pah!)

:)

I see you've modified your location slightly! I'd never thought about the etymology of the place name Dublin, but it's extremely obvious now I see your use of the Gaelic name.

Now to launch a campaign to get Heid The Ba' to change his location to Dùn Eideann........

[Disinfo Agent]

A lot of people seem to pronounce the Scottish Gaelic as Gay-lic too. They tend to get scorn heaped upon them, and rightly so.

*edited afterthought - am I correct in assuming that I'm the only person here who uses Gaelic in their location? Note to fellow language pedants - English placenames with Gaelic etymology (like Inverness) don't count!Well, 'Gaelic' is just an English name with Gaelic etymology, too...

[Gillianren]

In Irish Gaelic (which I know a little of; I took four credits' worth in college), it's Gaelige. (Gwee-luh-guh, according to the pronunciation I was taught, though I'll gladly take correction from an actual Irish person.) I don't know about in Scots Gaelic. I further don't know which of them is the root of the English word, though the English word may be old enough so that they were still essentially one language; I don't remember when they separated.

No, the most Gaelic I, personally, know is a song about happy little boats floating on the bay, I'm afraid. (And it's hard to change a Greek-based place name into its Gaelic version. But I have been watching The Celts, which my daughter's adoptive parents gave me for Christmas a few years ago.)

[Disinfo Agent]

I further don't know which of them is the root of the English word, though the English word may be old enough so that they were still essentially one language; I don't remember when they separated.English did not exist yet when Gaelic languages first appeared. The separation between the Germanic ancestor of English and the Celtic branch... well, that information should be googlable, but needless to say it was a long, long time ago. It's worth pointing out too that the separation likely occurred on the European mainland, not in the British Isles.

[Lianachan]

English did not exist yet when Gaelic languages first appeared. The separation between the Germanic ancestor of English and the Celtic branch... well, that information should be googlable, but needless to say it was a long, long time ago. It's worth pointing out too that the separation likely occurred on the European mainland, not in the British Isles.

Gaelic in Scotland was mainly a spoken language, and was hardly written. As such, regional variations are pretty extreme - to the extent that some dialects are barely mutually comprehensible. In Scottish schools where Gaelic is taught, they use a standard "modern" Gaelic - which I believe is based strongly on the dialect from the Isle of Lewis. The separation of the Celtic branch of language is indeed extremely old - and there are of course further divisions within Celtic, which are themselves very old. The language spoken in the Highlands by the Picts (probably being similar to Welsh and Manx) bears very little resemblence to Gaelic, for example, despite the antiquity and "Celticness" of both languages. All Scots Gaelic dialects ultimately stem from the migrations of Irish Gaels into Scotland. The "local" Gaelic in some parts of Scotland is closer to Irish than in others, and I understand that in some parts of northern Ireland (using the term geographically) there can be noticed a Scots Gaelic influence on the Irish language (there were migrations of Scots into Ireland later).

[Eroica]

I further don't know which of them is the root of the English word... Curiously the word Gaelic (or, rather, its earliest form, which was something like Goídel) is Celtic but not Gaelic!

The Celtic languages can be divided into two groups, P-Celtic and Q-Celtic. Originally there was just Q-Celtic; then a split occurred (When? We don't know. Perhaps about 1000 BC?) and most Celtic dialects replaced initial Qs with Ps. The earliest Celtic speakers in Britain and Ireland were P-Celts. Welsh, Cornish and Breton are/were P-Celtic.

When the first Q-Celts arrived in Ireland (c150-100 BC we think), they were referred to as "wildmen", or Goídel, by the Irish P-Celts, and that's where the words Gael and Gaelic and all their variants come from. The Gael eventually conquered the island and the P-Celtic dialects became extinct in Ireland.

[Heid the Ba']

Happy now?

[Gillianren]

Yup, this thread hijack is all my fault (insert disapproving tone here).

[SolusLupus]

Gillian's cute when she's disapproving.

(I was going to say angry, when I realized I couldn't really claim she's angry, per se)

[Lianachan]

I don't see how a discussion about the history of languages could be thought of of hijacking anyway.

[Disinfo Agent]

This thread was hijkacked away from astronomy some 3 or 4 pages ago. Come to think of it, it was more about geography than astronomy, to begin with. Let's hope the moderators continue not noticing. ;)

[SolusLupus]

Maybe if we offer the BA a 10% of profits if anyone here publishes a Bad History or such novel?

[Lianachan]

This thread was hijkacked away from astronomy some 3 or 4 pages ago. Come to think of it, it was more about geography than astronomy, to begin with. Let's hope the moderators continue not noticing. ;)

The thread is called Bad History......

[Gillianren]

You know, if the meds work, I just might--if I can concentrate on one thing long enough to do research after.

[Disinfo Agent]

The thread is called Bad History......But the subforum is called Bad Astronomy Stories. It's supposed to be about the Bad Astronomer's website.

P.S. I'm not complaining, though. I love history.

[SolusLupus]

Well, since this thread has become more about complaining about the thread being hijacked...

Wait.

You all hijacked this thread, to talk about how it was hijacked. HAHAHAH!

You all are silly.

...so am I, but still.

[jkmccrann]

Curiously the word Gaelic (or, rather, its earliest form, which was something like Goídel) is Celtic but not Gaelic!

The Celtic languages can be divided into two groups, P-Celtic and Q-Celtic. Originally there was just Q-Celtic; then a split occurred (When? We don't know. Perhaps about 1000 BC?) and most Celtic dialects replaced initial Qs with Ps. The earliest Celtic speakers in Britain and Ireland were P-Celts. Welsh, Cornish and Breton are/were P-Celtic.

When the first Q-Celts arrived in Ireland (c150-100 BC we think), they were referred to as "wildmen", or Goídel, by the Irish P-Celts, and that's where the words Gael and Gaelic and all their variants come from. The Gael eventually conquered the island and the P-Celtic dialects became extinct in Ireland.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I once heard talk that Basque & Welsh were fairly closely related languages in the scheme of things. Might have a google on that.

[Eroica]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I once heard talk that Basque & Welsh were fairly closely related languages in the scheme of things. Might have a google on that.
Absolutely not. It has been suggested that the pre-Celtic inhabitants of Britain and Ireland may have been related to the Basques, and the languages spoken in these islands before the introduction of Celtic languages may have been akin to the Basque language. I think there may even be some DNA evidence to support this theory.

[George]

The Gael eventually conquered the island and the P-Celtic dialects became extinct in Ireland.
Wow. I grew up being told to mind my "p's and q's". I did not realize that could have got me killed at one time. :) Yikes:eek:

[Disinfo Agent]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I once heard talk that Basque & Welsh were fairly closely related languages in the scheme of things. Might have a google on that.Absolutely not. It has been suggested that the pre-Celtic inhabitants of Britain and Ireland may have been related to the Basques, and the languages spoken in these islands before the introduction of Celtic languages may have been akin to the Basque language. I think there may even be some DNA evidence to support this theory.I hope Eroica's post won't be misunderstood!
What he means (I hope) is that Basque and Welsh are absolutely not related, although there may be a relation between the Basques and pre-Celtic settlers of the British Isles. There are many hypotheses (and myths) about the origin of the Basque language, but it remains a language isolate to this day.

[Eroica]

I hope Eroica's post won't be misunderstood!
What he means (I hope) is that Basque and Welsh are absolutely not related, although there may be a relation between the Basques and pre-Celtic settlers of the British Isles....
Yes, that was all I meant. Apologies all round if it sounded condescending. :o

[Disinfo Agent]

Your post did not sound condescending to me, Eroica. I just thought it might be misinterpreted, since you replied with a negative to jkmccrann's negative statement "Forgive me if I'm wrong, but..." ;)

[Eroica]

Your post did not sound condescending to me, Eroica. I just thought it might be misinterpreted, since you replied with a negative to jkmccrann's negative statement "Forgive me if I'm wrong, but..." ;)
Oh, I get it ... now. I should have edited that negative bit out. :)

[ngc3314]

Now to launch a campaign to get Heid The Ba' to change his location to Dùn Eideann........

Heid the Ba' is one of the Dunedain? Who knew? I figured that would be a lot farther west...

(Say, is there an emoticon hereabouts for "ducking and covering"?)

[Lianachan]

One piece of bad history that really annoys me is more a piece of missing history.

Everybody is well acquainted with the Dunkirk evacuation in World War 2, right? In the UK, there's (quite rightly) mention of the brave armada of little boats and much waving of wee union flags.

But - how many people are aware of Churchill's sacrifice of the 51st Highland division? Left behind and placed under French command, partly to fight a delaying rearguard action to give those selected for rescue time to escape, but mostly to show the French government that Britain wasn't abandoning them..... Over 8,000 killed or captured, including the fathers and grandfathers of several friends of mine. It's time their contribution was recognised! This is one of the main reasons why Winston Churchill is not held in such high esteem up here as in the rest of the UK. In some quarters, he is despised.

[Heid the Ba']

But it couldn't have been captured it re-appeared in North Africa within months........

It certainly wasn't the most obvious choice of division based on location, but was the one most likely to do the job. (Or is this just Jock paranioa?)

[Lianachan]

But it couldn't have been captured it re-appeared in North Africa within months........

It certainly wasn't the most obvious choice of division based on location, but was the one most likely to do the job. (Or is this just Jock paranioa?)
Most of the division was captured/killed, but not all of it. Some parts of it weren't in France at the time, for example. There's a bit about the history of a part of that division on this (http://www.army.mod.uk/blackwatch/history/second_world_war.htm) Ministry of Defence website.

I think the general feeling is that the troops were disposable, what with only being Highlanders and everything. There's an excellent book about it, but for the life of me I can't remember the author or book names. The copy I read belonged to the father of a friend, and had been given to him by the author (with a wee thankyou note hand written in the dust cover) - he was a medical orderly, and was wounded and captured.

*edit - found the book, it's Churchill's Sarifice Of The Highland Division: France 1940 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185753378X/qid=1132064666/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_11_2/026-1356479-9879631) by Saul David.

[Heid the Ba']

Apologies, I'm on a computer that doesn't let me use smilies.

Non-Scots just talk amongst yourselves for the rest of this post........

The 51st in North Africa was the 9th Highland Division (a Territorial/training formation) re-numbered, with details from the "old" 51st. Of course the Great War 9th was a "Scottish" division, not a "Highland" one, so why you were given the number of that division in 1939 is the subject of some dispute. My favourite designation is the late war 50th Lowland (Mountain) Division.

.........and now a return to your scheduled programme.

[Lianachan]

Apologies, I'm on a computer that doesn't let me use smilies.

Non-Scots just talk amongst yourselves for the rest of this post........

The 51st in North Africa was the 9th Highland Division (a Territorial/training formation) re-numbered, with details from the "old" 51st. Of course the Great War 9th was a "Scottish" division, not a "Highland" one, so why you were given the number of that division in 1939 is the subject of some dispute. My favourite designation is the late war 50th Lowland (Mountain) Division.

.........and now a return to your scheduled programme.

Indeed. But - all irrelevant to my point, which is essentially that it's about time these guys got some recognition for what they did around Dunkirk.

The 9th Highland Infantry division were formed in 1939, after the 51st was ordered (in 1938) to make a copy of itself. I have no idea why they were given the number 9. But they were still a bona fide Highland division.

Better MOD link (http://www.army.mod.uk/51bde/index.htm)

[Philip A]

What was the fighting strength of the Highlanders at the time? Were they at full strength, or close to it?

[hewhocaves]

If it hasn't been added to the "bad history" pile.

Polish Cavalry attacking German Tanks in 1939. Never happened. Certainly not en masse as the Germans wanted everyone to think, and not trying to spear tanks with lances, either.

John

[SolusLupus]

Y'know, I've been recently doing some research into Poland...

The Hussars were pretty darn cool.

Did you all know that I'm directly related to a man mentioned in the Polish National Anthem? At least, that's what my mother claims; I haven't done much actual research into it.

(My name is Vincent Dubach. The man in specific is General Dumbraski... assuming he's a general. Like I said, NO research whatsoever)

[hewhocaves]

Y'know, I've been recently doing some research into Poland...

The Hussars were pretty darn cool.

I'd read somewhere (i forget where now) that someone suggested that the wings on the hussaria would make a sort of screeching sound when they charged. Something reminiscent of a dive bomber diving. Which, if true, must have been an awesome psychological advantage on the 17th century battlefield.

But yeah, regardless, they were an incredible military tool and routinely defeated forces larger than themselves. Which was necessary because Commonwealth Poland had a miniscule army and a lot of enemies.

Yes, there is a general Dambrowski in the polish national anthem.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/repertoi/dabrowski.html

John

[SolusLupus]

I'd read somewhere (i forget where now) that someone suggested that the wings on the hussaria would make a sort of screeching sound when they charged. Something reminiscent of a dive bomber diving. Which, if true, must have been an awesome psychological advantage on the 17th century battlefield.

I read something that suggested otherwise. It was mainly a visual effect, or it was to keep them from being lassoed... not the sound. You have to consider: They'd be charging into an area rife with combat, and they're riding Warhorses with thundering hooves.

Though if the noise was a very loud screeching, not sure on that. I kinda doubt it, though.

But yeah, regardless, they were an incredible military tool and routinely defeated forces larger than themselves. Which was necessary because Commonwealth Poland had a miniscule army and a lot of enemies.

Yeap, a small army for a large size. Also, Poland was a sea of freedom in an ocean of fundamentalism; it allowed peoples of different nationalities and religious denominations equal freedom within Poland (with, maybe, some racism here and there; no one is perfect).

Yes, there is a general Dambrowski in the polish national anthem.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/repertoi/dabrowski.html

I'm related to him, directly. I'm of noble blood.

And yes, that should've provoked an "ew" from you if you thought about it.

[hewhocaves]

yeah, I'm not sure I buy the dive bomber sound myself. (Hey... more bad history!). Then again, I'm not really sure how much lassoing was going around in medeival battles.

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that the vertical metal bars probably prevented (or at least hindered) being sliced from behind. It also had a visual effect (mostly because they were the only troops in the field with "wings".). It made them instantly recognizeable from anywhere. (bad news for the Turk at Vienna.)

Oh, and it occurs to me that people may have no idea what we're talking about. Here's a polish lancer, circa 1650
http://www.icbleu.org/artur/husakon.jpg
Please note, in addition to the massive wings over the lancer (balance, maybe for the 20' lance?), the gold trim and leapord skin pelts. This was a very rich country with a very large nobility. In fact, one of the main complaints about the PL Commonwealth was that it was becoming too Oriental and too Middle Eastern in their dress and style (the old "Alexander" problem).

Oh, and Congrats on your nobility Lonewulf. My family is descended from minor Polish nobility, but we lost everything in the two world wars. *shrug*.

To everyone else, being Polish nobility isn't really as exciting as it seems. When Lonewulf mentioned the 'free society' he was, in part, very correct. The society was ridiculously free for the nobility and pretty much free for everyone else. Nobility, interestignly enough, comprised between 10 and 15% of the whole population and, on occasion, crossed religious lines. (i.e. there were Jewish nobles and muslim nobles etc...) So those 10 - 15% could vote, had pretty much every right we have, etc... It wasn't too bad for the rest of the people, either. Independent farmers were common and there was a large (mostly Jewish) middle class. In fact the Jews constiuted a country within the country having seperate, parallel legal systems and what not. Religious toleration was mandatory. In fact, we got in more trouble with Rome than with Islam! Next to the venetian republic, historians consider us to be the most prgressive state by the 1750s. (and we hit full republic in 1792, and as a result got wiped out by the Germans and Russians).

So the point about nobility is that, two hundred years of intermrriage and war means that pretty much every pole is pretty closely related to a noble at some point.

so, long story short.. it's fascinating history and well worth a read. If interested, pick up a copy of "The Polish Way"

John

[SolusLupus]

http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/index.htm The picture in this article shows a full lancer charge by the Hussars. Very cool stuff.

[hewhocaves]

I've been to that site. good place :-)

[LurchGS]

if you want to know about the history of Poland, check out books by Dr William Urban.

[hewhocaves]

I've not read anything by W. Urban. Looking him up on BN com, he seems most interested in 15th century baltic history than Poland specifically.

God's Playground by norman davies is pretty much the standard for western readers.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=yE3Y0jYClL&isbn=0231128177&itm=3

davies' has made a career out of writing about poland

other books i would suggest include The Polish Way by Adam Zamoyski
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=yE3Y0jYClL&isbn=0781802008&itm=1
which is a nice single volume, an easy read and accesible and

bitter glory by Richard M. Watt
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=yE3Y0jYClL&isbn=0760709971&itm=1
which is an excellent acountof poland in the interwar years (1919-39)

Bitter Glory especially dos a good job of presenting several angles on the history.


Getting back to 'bad history', the industry leader in bad history on television, the History Channel, was at it again. Last night they had an episode of Battlefield Detectives on - the battle of Britan. I just couldn't look at it seriously! Here's why:

1) to illustrate the map of germany taking over europe, they colored in countries as the germans overran them. Only they used a map OF MODERN DAY EUROPE! *slams head into wall*.

2) their 'hi-tech computer graphics' was a televised version of Electronic Arcade's game 'European Air War'. While I understand that computer games are becoming more lifelike, realistic and use a better physics model it really hasn't gotten to the point where it can be used to answer serious historical questions. And to top it off, at one point they showed portions of the main menu to show what certain german fighter planes looked like! *slams head again*. I would expect that the history channel could afford a picture of a messerschmidt.

3) They eroneously stated that the Polish ariforce was destroyed on the ground on the first day of the September Campaign. which is false. The airforce was dispersed and remained efective throughout the campaign, inflicting heavy losses on the germans. (from the german point of view). however, much like the ground campaign, they were simply overwhemed by superior numbers.

In short the whole epoisode looked like it was put together on a shoestring budget and at the last minute. The main point of the episode - that it was the RAF integrated 'Fighter Command' with a multilayered defense - was the significant factor in the british victory in the Battle of Britan is sound. however the presentation of the episode has the effect of marginalizing this otherwise good argument.

[LurchGS]

I've not read anything by W. Urban. Looking him up on BN com, he seems most interested in 15th century baltic history than Poland specifically.


I'm not an expert - I just know that Dr Urban has been flown to Poland BY Poland (the govt, museums, schools) a fair number of times for his input into something (I suppose I should find out...)


God's Playground by norman davies is pretty much the standard for western readers.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=yE3Y0jYClL&isbn=0231128177&itm=3

davies' has made a career out of writing about poland

other books i would suggest include The Polish Way by Adam Zamoyski
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=yE3Y0jYClL&isbn=0781802008&itm=1
which is a nice single volume, an easy read and accesible and

bitter glory by Richard M. Watt
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=yE3Y0jYClL&isbn=0760709971&itm=1
which is an excellent acountof poland in the interwar years (1919-39)

Bitter Glory especially dos a good job of presenting several angles on the history.


Getting back to 'bad history', the industry leader in bad history on television, the History Channel, was at it again. Last night they had an episode of Battlefield Detectives on - the battle of Britan. I just couldn't look at it seriously! Here's why:

1) to illustrate the map of germany taking over europe, they colored in countries as the germans overran them. Only they used a map OF MODERN DAY EUROPE! *slams head into wall*.


ouch - that's not right - though you can imagine why they did it - what american child of today would recognise pre-war europe?


2) their 'hi-tech computer graphics' was a televised version of Electronic Arcade's game 'European Air War'. While I understand that computer games are becoming more lifelike, realistic and use a better physics model it really hasn't gotten to the point where it can be used to answer serious historical questions. And to top it off, at one point they showed portions of the main menu to show what certain german fighter planes looked like! *slams head again*. I would expect that the history channel could afford a picture of a messerschmidt.


ok, that is REALLY deep. I wonder if this was actually a HC production, or if they bought some grad student's product.

3) They eroneously stated that the Polish ariforce was destroyed on the ground on the first day of the September Campaign. which is false. The airforce was dispersed and remained efective throughout the campaign, inflicting heavy losses on the germans. (from the german point of view). however, much like the ground campaign, they were simply overwhemed by superior numbers.

In short the whole epoisode looked like it was put together on a shoestring budget and at the last minute. The main point of the episode - that it was the RAF integrated 'Fighter Command' with a multilayered defense - was the significant factor in the british victory in the Battle of Britan is sound. however the presentation of the episode has the effect of marginalizing this otherwise good argument.

Another thing I rarely see mentioned in any discussion of WWII history - Bletchley Park - while it WAS the site of the breaking of many of the german codes, it's rarely brought to light that the 'Bomb' (the computer that did most of the work) was a Polish invention smuggled into England. This piece of gear was insanely important to the allied victory, but it's nearly never mentioned

(you are not alone in swearing at the HC - Mom is a professional historian, Dad a very good ammateur - more than once they've fired off missives to the HC when something they consider glaring makes it past the board)

[hewhocaves]

I'm not an expert - I just know that Dr Urban has been flown to Poland BY Poland (the govt, museums, schools) a fair number of times for his input into something (I suppose I should find out...)

i'm not saying he's good or bad. i'll try to pick up something by him and see if he's a good read :-) I like to feel immersed by the historical authors i read - the ones that i picked i think are entertaining as well as informative. your mileage may vary.

ouch - that's not right - though you can imagine why they did it - what american child of today would recognise pre-war europe?

yeah, well. then we need to fix the children, agreed? (stupid 15 second culture)


ok, that is REALLY deep. I wonder if this was actually a HC production, or if they bought some grad student's product.
undergrad, more like. it was bad. and i'm better at the game than the jokers they had playing it LOL.


Another thing I rarely see mentioned in any discussion of WWII history - Bletchley Park - while it WAS the site of the breaking of many of the german codes, it's rarely brought to light that the 'Bomb' (the computer that did most of the work) was a Polish invention smuggled into England. This piece of gear was insanely important to the allied victory, but it's nearly never mentioned


ah! excelltent point!


(you are not alone in swearing at the HC - Mom is a professional historian, Dad a very good ammateur - more than once they've fired off missives to the HC when something they consider glaring makes it past the board)

yeah, the day after thanksgiving is apparantly lowest common denominator day. HC had a UFO block on most of the day. apparantly, the consumption of turkey makes us all stupid, in their opinion. if you want to look for the bad history there... it's in the deciison to air that dreck!

and that is why i have hundreds of actual books crammed into my tiny apartment.

[Parrothead]

I have a copy of Davies' Heart of Europe: A Short History of Poland from a E. European history course I took in university about 15 years ago.

Another thing I rarely see mentioned in any discussion of WWII history - Bletchley Park - while it WAS the site of the breaking of many of the german codes, it's rarely brought to light that the 'Bomb' (the computer that did most of the work) was a Polish invention smuggled into England. This piece of gear was insanely important to the allied victory, but it's nearly never mentioned

It is mentioned in William Stevenson's book A Man Called Intrepid (a movie was made in the 70's, starring David Niven). They managed to get the machine out, a week before the German invasion in 1939.

[hewhocaves]

I have a copy of Davies' Heart of Europe: A Short History of Poland from a E. European history course I took in university about 15 years ago.

Fascinating stuff, no doubt. And they certainly did muff their chance sometime in the 1500s.

As for the Bletchley Park thing, I'm not surprised. Battles and big events often grab the front page. Personally, I was very surprised when the 50th anniversary Warsaw Uprising was covered fairly well in the US. That's a desperate story if you want to read one (not the ghetto one, the big uprising in 44').

But yeah, when you're trapped between the sickle and the swastika you kind have a real need to know what your neighbors are up to. Another contributing factor to the reliance on intelligence was that it was realtively cheap GNP-wise. Interstingly enough, Poland was making fairly decent military equipment, but was selling it off to other countires to help stabilize the economy (there was a depression on, after all). One of the underlying points of why this all happened in 39' was that the Germans were fairly close to completing their armament goals while Poland was still three or four years away.

Oh, and it didn't help that there was a drought.

John

[jaydeehess]

Has anyone read the fiction "Cryptonomicon"? One of the heroes is a code breaker in WW2. I was curious just how much license was taken with actual history in that book. The math is all OK.

[Graham2001]

It is mentioned in William Stevenson's book A Man Called Intrepid (a movie was made in the 70's, starring David Niven). They managed to get the machine out, a week before the German invasion in 1939.

I'd be careful trusting A Man Called Intrepid, according to Nigel Wests Counterfeit Spies (http://tinyurl.com/adbmt), William Stevenson played 'fast & loose' with some of the facts.

[Duane]

Next time you're in 1865 you'll have to try it. :)

Wouldn't it just be easier to get a 1860's era gun and try shooting a mansized target from 50 yards?

I don't think it's impossible either, it would just be really really hard.

[CRHTO]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned before ...

Has anyone here heard of Anatoly T Fomenko and his book History: Science or Fiction?

[Walrus]

Fomenko is certainly......... imaginative. His "New Chronology" is the historical equivalent of the many bizarre conspiracy theories that are regularly discussed on this board. I recall reading somewhere that in the 1980s the Soviet academic establishment grew increasingly distressed with his theories, which are in violation not only of established scientific and archaeological evidence but also of official Marxist-Leninist doctrine. (In the Soviet Union, history was regarded as a science- my copy of the official Soviet history was published by the "USSR Academy of Sciences Institute of History.") Ultimately he became a popular writer with a distinctly Russian nationalist bent. I personally don't know of any reputable historians who think that Fomenko's "theory" is even worth an in-depth rebuttal, although someone has probably bothered at some point. It's obscure enough in the U.S. that I doubt any of my history professors here have heard about it. It's not as well-known as Gavin Menzies' work, which I got to publically debunk a few years ago.

[CRHTO]

Fomenko is certainly......... imaginative. His "New Chronology" is the historical equivalent of the many bizarre conspiracy theories that are regularly discussed on this board. I recall reading somewhere that in the 1980s the Soviet academic establishment grew increasingly distressed with his theories, which are in violation not only of established scientific and archaeological evidence but also of official Marxist-Leninist doctrine. (In the Soviet Union, history was regarded as a science- my copy of the official Soviet history was published by the "USSR Academy of Sciences Institute of History.") Ultimately he became a popular writer with a distinctly Russian nationalist bent. I personally don't know of any reputable historians who think that Fomenko's "theory" is even worth an in-depth rebuttal, although someone has probably bothered at some point. It's obscure enough in the U.S. that I doubt any of my history professors here have heard about it. It's not as well-known as Gavin Menzies' work, which I got to publically debunk a few years ago.

I had never heard of it until the author (or one of his supporters, I don't remember) came to speak at my university last year. Apparently he was invited by a professor emeritus of mathematics. My Roman history professor told us about it and we all had a good scoff at it. There were a fair number of people at Fomenko's lecture that took him quite seriously, though, from what I heard.

Where did you get an official Soviet history? I want one! Buried in a box somewhere I have a biography of Che Guevara published by a soviet press, but I've never had a chance to read through it.

[Disinfo Agent]

In the Soviet Union, history was regarded as a science- It's regarded as a science outside the Soviet Union, too.

[Walrus]

I bought my Soviet history from a used book store in St. Petersburg. It's in 11 volumes (it's supposed to have 12- I'm not sure what became of the last one.) Unless you read Russian, I'm not sure how much use it would be to you. Mine was printed during the Brezhnev era, but there's an earlier Stalin-era equivalent that I've seen in a research library. I had a real adventure mailing it home- anyone who's ever been in a Russian post office will know why.

As for Disinfo Agent's comment, I respectfully disagree. I personally come from an academic background (the William and Mary history department) that firmly classifies history as one of the humanities, rather than as a social science. While some of the work that historians do (like establish chronologies) might be regarded as scientific, much of the more interesting work professional historians do does not satisfy falsifiability. For instance, there is a universal historical consensus that the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945; but there is an utterly vitriolic, decades-old argument as to exactly why the US government chose to do this. Unless some "scientific" method is found to determine what people were thinking 60 years ago is found, and a way to evaluate exactly what the interplay of various human actors in making the decision is invented, any historian writing on the subject will be reduced at least partially to speculation. This particular example erupted into open political conflict in the mid-1990s when the Air & Space Museum put the Enola Gay on display, and no one could agree on an "official" narrative to present with the plane. In the end, they settled on no narrative, just to stem the political outcry. Although I wish that history could be a science (as it would make my life much easier), it isn't one.

[Disinfo Agent]

As for Disinfo Agent's comment, I respectfully disagree. I personally come from an academic background (the William and Mary history department) that firmly classifies history as one of the humanities, rather than as a social science. While some of the work that historians do (like establish chronologies) might be regarded as scientific, much of the more interesting work professional historians do does not satisfy falsifiability. For instance, there is a universal historical consensus that the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945; but there is an utterly vitriolic, decades-old argument as to exactly why the US government chose to do this. Unless some "scientific" method is found to determine what people were thinking 60 years ago is found, and a way to evaluate exactly what the interplay of various human actors in making the decision is invented, any historian writing on the subject will be reduced at least partially to speculation.And a method has been found. Look at the records. Look at the circumstances of the time. Look at the alternative procedures, and what they would have entailed. Argue for/against. Await criticism and further evidence.
It seems to me that this is exactly what geology and paleontology do. Are they not sciences, in your opinion?

[Walrus]

There is a problem with the "historical sciences" that they don't satisfy falsifiability very well. Still, paleontology and geology have a distinct advantage over history in that they provide overarching theories that describe past and present natural processes. In paleontology, it's evolution. In geology, it's concepts like plate tectonics. Unfortunately, an over-arching "theory of history" is elusive, and past contenders (like Marxism) have had unintended consequences, to say the least. Karl Popper railed against the idea of a predictive theory of history (he called it "historicism"- he was concerned about Leninism and Fascism, which both had this characteristic). Although geology and paleontology rely on guesswork, their practitioners have a "road map." Sadly, historians do not. In the abscence of well-established principles of historical development, equivalent to those in historical sciences such as paleontology and geology, I believe it is misleading to call history a science. If one is willing to excuse a "science" from the criteria of testability could history be referred to as such.

Unfortunately, it's not a simple as just "looking at the records." It's a matter of interpreting them, and this is where things get hairy. In the case of Hiroshima, the historical records aren't clear, as the various officials involved had a variety of opinions and attitudes regarding the bomb's use. Meanwhile, the only way to evaluate "alternative procedures" is to argue from a counterfactual standpoint, which, while seductive, is ultimately impossible. There's no way to prove anyone's counterfactual scenario false. With Hiroshima, the argument generally revolves around the number of US casualties in a hypothetical invasion of the Japanese home islands. Those who believe that the bomb shouldn't have been dropped quote contemporary sources who said the invasion would only cost 30,000-70,000 US casualties, while apologists for the bomb argue that US casualities would have exceeded 1 million. As the invasion never happened, we can only speculate- there is no way to definitively evaluate the "no bomb" scenario. Like I said, I really wish that it was as simple as just quoting contemporary sources. But a historical scenario isn't just a math problem we can evaluate- at some point, it comes down to utter speculation. In these cases- and the bombing of Hiroshima is a perfect example- different groups of historians spend their entire careers arguing one side or the other. It becomes a case of "he said, she said," because the evidence for a more definitive argument doesn't exist. The "discussion" devolves into a vitriolic festival of name-calling.

Given this troubling dimension of historical study, it's little wonder that so many historians have eschewed positivist conceptions of reality. While I wholeheartedly disagree with the antiscientific bent of many modern historians, history is not a science in anything but the most generous sense."

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

The Question, A-Bomb, Or No A-Bomb, Becomes Easy, If you Remember, Three Things:

Unlike with Normandy, The Japanese, Knew EXACTLY, Where we Would Be Landing, on The Island of Kyushu; There Simply Aren't, That Many, Suitable Locations.
They Had Trained, Kamikaze Pilots, To Dive on Loaded Transports; Japanese Estimates, Were That they Would, Take Out, At Least, a Division, If Not Two, That Way.
Also, The Civillian Populace, Was Readied to Fight, Guerrilla Warfare, To a Level, Not Even Experienced, Later, in Vietnam; They were Even Taught, to Kick an Allied Soldier, In The Groin, To Incapacitate him. Estimates, Made at The Time, Anticipated Losses, Equal to What Instead, Befell Hiroshima, For Each Side, Per Month, If Not Weekly!!!!

Add to That, Fears that The Soviets, Would Invade Hokkaido, And Therefore, Have a Say, In Post-War Japan, As they Already Did, In Germany, And, you Have a Recipe, For a Kill As Many, As you Can, War-Winning Weapon:

Ergo, The Atomic Bomb!!!

[hewhocaves]

I'm going to agree with Walrus on this one. History is not a hard science like physics or geology and it has trouble being a "soft" science as well. (actually, all of the soft sciences have problems, hence their 'softness'.)

Part of the problem, especially when determining intent, lies in the data. With the geological record, you can at least presume that the intent of the record is factual. geology isn't trying to disorient you intentionally. Trilobites don't pop up in the Pliestocene.

But can you say that about every historical document, especially when determining intent? Could you honestly believe that every government memo, every private diary doesn't have the possibility of being ironic, deceptive or coy? Can you be certain that what the writer wrote was his honest thoughts, or something simply to placate his superiors?

Furthermore, conclusions which seem obviously clear today may not have been clear at the time. People have been known to hesitate needlessly or jump ahead carelessly.

Lastly, whole reams of history have been intentionally subverted and/or destroyed. There has been (and still is) outright censorship. And people can change positions instantly and over a whim. Taken together all these things mean that history just can't be held up to the same standards - it's too complex and irreduceable. even if you knew what everyone was thinking at the present moment, you could not extrapolate our future for the next hundred years. Because, remember, that is another function of science - to be able to predict specifically based on current theorey.

john

[hewhocaves]

Add to That, Fears that The Soviets, Would Invade Hokkaido, And Therefore, Have a Say, In Post-War Japan, As they Already Did, In Germany, And, you Have a Recipe, For a Kill As Many, As you Can, War-Winning Weapon:

Ergo, The Atomic Bomb!!!


btw.. following that line of reasoning, we should have been able to project our nuclear supremecy into taking over all of europe. after all, we had the technology and the capability for continued production of the atomic bomb. in the short term we should have been able to leverage that into pushing the soviets back into russia.

clearly, the "war winning bomb" is not, in and of itself, a war winner. I think you'll find that the answer lies more in the American idea of ending wars nicely and neatly. There's a big explosion, a parade and every one goes home. It's almost as if hollywood scripted it. It's very sellable to the public.

John

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

btw.. following that line of reasoning, we should have been able to project our nuclear supremecy into taking over all of europe. after all, we had the technology and the capability for continued production of the atomic bomb. in the short term we should have been able to leverage that into pushing the soviets back into russia.

We Should Have!!!

If Patton, Hadn't Discredited himself, Followed By his Death, After Being Hit By a Car, we Just, Might Have!!!

World War II, Left the Western Allies, Especially The United States, In EXACTLY The Same Positon, As Nazi Germany, Had Been After The Invasion of Poland; a Powerful Army, Tempered By Combat, With Resources Captured, From a Technologically Advanced Enemy ....

The Soviets, On The Other Hand, Had an Army On Its Last Legs, With Most Of their Millitary Aged Men, Laying Either Dead or Dying, In Fact, Fully 80%, Of Russian Men Born In 1923, Were Already In The Ground, Most Of them, Probably Killed As Teenagers, In The Suicidal Battles, of 1941.

Also, To Make The Soviet Situation, Even Worse, The Germans Intentionally Surrendered, The Choice Artifacts, To The West, Thus Making themselves, Too Useful, to Execute, a la Wehrner von Braun!

clearly, the "war winning bomb" is not, in and of itself, a war winner. I think you'll find that the answer lies more in the American idea of ending wars nicely and neatly. There's a big explosion, a parade and every one goes home. It's almost as if hollywood scripted it. It's very sellable to the public.

John
Unfortunately However, This Is Also True ...

Such a War, Would Probably Have Followed American Occupation, of Japan and Southern Korea, And Involved an Invasion, From Both Ends, of The Soviet Union, at Once ...

The Form, It Would Have Taken, Would Most Likely, Have Been a Blitzkrieg Style Encirclement, Followed By a Threat to Use Nuclear Weapons, On Populated Areas ...

If Done Correctly, Probably After, The Nuclear Destruction of Moscow, The Soviets Most Likely, Would Have Agreed To a Retreat, To The Pre-1939 Frontiers, If Only, So they Could Better Respond, To Ukrainian Nationalists, Even Then Rising, In the Forrests, Around Kiev!!!

[Disinfo Agent]

There is a problem with the "historical sciences" that they don't satisfy falsifiability very well. Still, paleontology and geology have a distinct advantage over history in that they provide overarching theories that describe past and present natural processes. In paleontology, it's evolution. In geology, it's concepts like plate tectonics. Unfortunately, an over-arching "theory of history" is elusive, and past contenders (like Marxism) have had unintended consequences, to say the least. Karl Popper railed against the idea of a predictive theory of history (he called it "historicism"- he was concerned about Leninism and Fascism, which both had this characteristic).Note that, although we can say that the theory of evolution in general does describe the past, the present and the future, paleontology (http://www.google.pt/search?hl=pt-PT&q=define%3A+paleontology&btnG=Pesquisa+Google&meta=) per se only concerns itself with the past.

I am familiar with Popper's ideas, but what he criticises is historicism, the notion that history progresses in a well-defined, general direction (as in feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism). I don't think he ever denies that history can be a science, as long as it concerns itself with the accurate description of the details of the past, rather than trying to identify broad trends to predict the future.

I do agree that history is a very special science, if nothing else because we can never travel back in time, to test our reconstructions of the past. We must rely on indirect evidence and lots of interpretation. But then, all we know about electrons is though indirect observation, too.

Although geology and paleontology rely on guesswork, their practitioners have a "road map."What road map is that?

In the abscence of well-established principles of historical development, equivalent to those in historical sciences such as paleontology and geology, I believe it is misleading to call history a science. If one is willing to excuse a "science" from the criteria of testability could history be referred to as such.I disagree that history is not subject to falsification. A new document that is discovered, a new archeological find, can refute an existing theory.

Unfortunately, it's not a simple as just "looking at the records." It's a matter of interpreting them, and this is where things get hairy.Of course, no science is ever as simple as looking at the data. There is always interpretation.

In the case of Hiroshima, the historical records aren't clear, as the various officials involved had a variety of opinions and attitudes regarding the bomb's use. Meanwhile, the only way to evaluate "alternative procedures" is to argue from a counterfactual standpoint, which, while seductive, is ultimately impossible. There's no way to prove anyone's counterfactual scenario false.

With Hiroshima, the argument generally revolves around the number of US casualties in a hypothetical invasion of the Japanese home islands. Those who believe that the bomb shouldn't have been dropped quote contemporary sources who said the invasion would only cost 30,000-70,000 US casualties, while apologists for the bomb argue that US casualities would have exceeded 1 million. As the invasion never happened, we can only speculate- there is no way to definitively evaluate the "no bomb" scenario.There's no way to prove anything in science, as a rule. What we do is gather evidence that either supports or contradicts our theories.

Like I said, I really wish that it was as simple as just quoting contemporary sources. But a historical scenario isn't just a math problem we can evaluate- at some point, it comes down to utter speculation.I agree, but, as I wrote above, no natural science is ever as simple as quoting a source or solving a math problem. (Not that solving a math problem is necessarily trivial.)

In these cases- and the bombing of Hiroshima is a perfect example- different groups of historians spend their entire careers arguing one side or the other. It becomes a case of "he said, she said," because the evidence for a more definitive argument doesn't exist. The "discussion" devolves into a vitriolic festival of name-calling.Then it has ceased to be a discussion over history.

Given this troubling dimension of historical study, it's little wonder that so many historians have eschewed positivist conceptions of reality. While I wholeheartedly disagree with the antiscientific bent of many modern historians, history is not a science in anything but the most generous sense."Again, I disagree. It's a very special science, with very special restrictions and caveats attached to it, but it is a science.

[Disinfo Agent]

I'm going to agree with Walrus on this one. History is not a hard science like physics or geology and it has trouble being a "soft" science as well. (actually, all of the soft sciences have problems, hence their 'softness'.)

Part of the problem, especially when determining intent, lies in the data. With the geological record, you can at least presume that the intent of the record is factual. geology isn't trying to disorient you intentionally. Trilobites don't pop up in the Pliestocene.

But can you say that about every historical document, especially when determining intent? Could you honestly believe that every government memo, every private diary doesn't have the possibility of being ironic, deceptive or coy? Can you be certain that what the writer wrote was his honest thoughts, or something simply to placate his superiors?

Furthermore, conclusions which seem obviously clear today may not have been clear at the time. People have been known to hesitate needlessly or jump ahead carelessly.Do you honestly believe that good historians aren't aware of those problems? :)

Lastly, whole reams of history have been intentionally subverted and/or destroyed. There has been (and still is) outright censorship.In most of the world today, I think the main problem in history is not outside censorship, but the biases of historians themselves. However, that problem also exists in other sciences.

And people can change positions instantly and over a whim. Taken together all these things mean that history just can't be held up to the same standards - it's too complex and irreduceable. even if you knew what everyone was thinking at the present moment, you could not extrapolate our future for the next hundred years. Because, remember, that is another function of science - to be able to predict specifically based on current theorey.That's not history. It's historicism.

Think about the following questions:

- Can biology predict which species will be around in a hundred years?
- Can chemistry predict where a molecule will be in a hundred years?
- Can physics predict for how long Saturn will have rings?

[Walrus]

"It's a very special science, with very special restrictions and caveats attached to it, but it is a science."

I think this actually makes my point perfectly. History can only be a "science" when one makes special excuses for it. I personally think it's unfair to the definition of "science" to include a field like history, which is in practice a generally unscientific endeavor. "Indirect evidence" for things like electrons is very different than historical evidence, because electrons behave consistently; human actors do not. The problem is that most historical "theories" are not falsifiable for one reason or another. Take, for instance, the argument over the provenance Beowulf. There's only one manuscript, and there's no reason to believe that any new Old English manuscripts will ever be available. Specialists have spent the last two centuries poring over the manuscript and every related piece of material, hoping to establish Beowulf's provenance. But in history, there are no "smoking guns"- and because of this, perfectly well-informed and competent scholars have come to very different conclusions, and there is no satisfactory way to dismiss their contradictory claims. Beowulf is such an unusual artifact that it its provenance has vital implications for understanding the nature of Anglo-Saxon culture, but we have no way of disproving anything but the more outrageous claims that have been made about it. Because certain vital points of history lack falsifiable evidence, we are stuck at the level of conjecture indefinitely. I hate to make the comparison, but history is only a science in the sense that "Intelligent Design" is- only when one is allowed to operate on a principle of "I don't understand how this happened, so I'll invent causal relationships in the abscence of evidence" can they be considered "science."

"We Should Have!!!"

This counterfactual scenario is out of touch with the political and military realities of 1945. Roosevelt accepted the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe because there was nothing that really could be done about it. If the Soviet army had really been so drained and useless, I don't see why the western allies would have requested Soviet assistance in the Pacific. Another major problem is that the political will simply didn't exist for an anti-Soviet war in 1945. The American populace was tired of the war, and the Soviets were our allies at the time. Although many figures in the US military were deeply distrustful of Communism, an unprovoked aggressive war against the Red Army was not something that the US government would approve.

[Disinfo Agent]

"It's a very special science, with very special restrictions and caveats attached to it, but it is a science."

I think this actually makes my point perfectly. History can only be a "science" when one makes special excuses for it.Except I wrote "restrictions", not "excuses".

I personally think it's unfair to the definition of "science" to include a field like history, which is in practice a generally unscientific endeavor. "Indirect evidence" for things like electrons is very different than historical evidence, because electrons behave consistently; human actors do not.I do agree that history involves a different kind of evidence, even a different methodology, than the natural sciences.

The problem is that most historical "theories" are not falsifiable for one reason or another. Take, for instance, the argument over the provenance Beowulf. There's only one manuscript, and there's no reason to believe that any new Old English manuscripts will ever be available. Specialists have spent the last two centuries poring over the manuscript and every related piece of material, hoping to establish Beowulf's provenance. But in history, there are no "smoking guns"- and because of this, perfectly well-informed and competent scholars have come to very different conclusions, and there is no satisfactory way to dismiss their contradictory claims. Beowulf is such an unusual artifact that it its provenance has vital implications for understanding the nature of Anglo-Saxon culture, but we have no way of disproving anything but the more outrageous claims that have been made about it. Because certain vital points of history lack falsifiable evidence, we are stuck at the level of conjecture indefinitely.There may well be things science will never understand in other fields of knowledge, too. E.g.:

- What's inside a black hole?
- Did anything exist before the Big Bang?
- What caused the unusual axial tilt of Uranus?

I hate to make the comparison, but history is only a science in the sense that "Intelligent Design" is- only when one is allowed to operate on a principle of "I don't understand how this happened, so I'll invent causal relationships in the abscence of evidence" can they be considered "science."I vehemently disagree. ID is, essentially, a "God in the gaps" argument. History is nothing of the sort.

"We Should Have!!!"

This counterfactual scenario is out of touch with the political and military realities of 1945. Roosevelt accepted the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe because there was nothing that really could be done about it. If the Soviet army had really been so drained and useless, I don't see why the western allies would have requested Soviet assistance in the Pacific. Another major problem is that the political will simply didn't exist for an anti-Soviet war in 1945. The American populace was tired of the war, and the Soviets were our allies at the time. Although many figures in the US military were deeply distrustful of Communism, an unprovoked aggressive war against the Red Army was not something that the US government would approve.Since you apparently believe that history is nothing more than an arbitrary reconstruction of the past according to certain preconceptions of the historian, I take it what you wrote about WWII above is all, strictly, an arbitrary reconstruction molded on your preconceptions. Is this right?

[Walrus]

The "We Should Have" and what follows is a reference to what ZaphodBeeblebrox said in his post.

I do not believe that history is "arbitrary," but I'm familiar with what actual historians do. Being familiar with science as well, I do not feel that it is honest to conflate the two. While I wish that history was a science, so much of history is untestable that I believe it is better categorized as one of the humanities than as a science. Decades ago, when positivism was more popular in the academy, there was such a thing as "scientific history"- but it died out. I personally believe that this was due to its failure to live up to its billing. The work that these historians did was just as marred by preconception and bias as those of their less "scientific" peers. I like, even love, science, but I'm not willing to cut corners to categorize history as a science. It's not fair to either science or history to conflate the two.

[Disinfo Agent]

Decades ago, when positivism was more popular in the academy, there was such a thing as "scientific history"- but it died out. I personally believe that this was due to its failure to live up to its billing. The work that these historians did was just as marred by preconception and bias as those of their less "scientific" peers.That's why I don't give much credence to labels. I'm especially skeptical of fields which make a question of naming themselves "scientific". :)

[Walrus]

If you're so "skeptical" of history, why are you so determined that it be classified as a science? I think historians are merely being honest when they eschew the title "scientist." Science is under assault in our society (as in the ID debate) and science does not benefit when people who do not consistently apply the scientific method decide that they are "scientists." When untestable scholarship is passed off as "science," opponents of science gain yet another piece of evidence to back their assault on scientific enterprise. It would be nice if history could be a science, but due to the nature of historical evidence, it is impossible for history to meet the rigorous standards of inquiry that science demands.

[Disinfo Agent]

If you're so "skeptical" of history, why are you so determined that it be classified as a science?I was not talking about history.

[hewhocaves]

sciences, like geology, are based on a few fundamental principles - uniformatism, (punctuated by catastrophism), successional deposition, etc... etc... We can expect those laws to remain constant for the future as well as the past.

History, because it is solely about human behavior, is much more mutable, to the point where it *seems* random. However, it is not actually random. People react in their individual and collective self-interests against perceived threats all the time. The trouble is in determining whether people are acting in their indiivdual or collective self interest or whether they even perceive the threat. Again, because people are prone to lying, changing minds, having epiphanies, making mistakes, etc... it is very difficult from the historical record to determine with a scientific certainty what someone is thinking. And so very much of history surrounds that.

Determining whether someone actually existed, whether a battle took place, etc... gets you closer to the field of archaeology (though I'm not sure you would call it archaeology if it only happened a few years ago) which is a science. Now granted these two fields overlap a great deal, and i think some of the problems in the current discussion may be from the indiscriminate mixing between the two. Because certainly, you can determine from physical evidence uncovered that, for example, there was a battle of gettysburg, where masses of men congregated, and probably where a great deal of the fighting took place. Interestingly enough, photographic evidence may not help much here as many of hte Matthew Brady photos had moved the bodies to make for better photography. This also helps to illustrate some of the problems of the historical record.

Getting back to the end of WWII - Zaphod, I would totally like to agree with you; as my family has a vested interest in the fate of post WWII eastern europe. But i still maintain the decision was not that simple.
firstly, at the end of the war (and into '46) it's Truman and not Roosevelt who is in power. So you suddenly have a change in the focus of the war. IIRC, R kept T mostly in the dark about the war (after all, he was veep for only the last term, which hadn't been very long) when he became president. Add to that that Churchill, who was the real push behind getting Stalin out of EE, was replaced by (Atlee?), leaving Stalin the only one there from beginning to end. Its conceivable that Truman was overwhelmed by the position at first, or more likely that he had different goals than Roosevelt did. Remember, we sold the war as "defeat germany and japan" for several years. Look at the way the current war is going with the perception that it' under false pretenses. Going to war with one of our "closest allies" at the time would have, at teh very least, been a massive blow to the faith in our government.
Then there is the USSR's POV. Having expended 15 - 30 million lives and felt at times like they were carrying the burden of the whole war on their shoulders (and at times they were) and still feeling like second-hand relatives, they felt entitled to the security that EE provided. Remember, war between the Nazis and the Soviets was ideological as well as political. It's nastier, then.
Lastly, for whatever reason, Roosevelt has the reputaiton of being a typical, trusting American with regards to Stalin. I.e., he took S at his word regarding the care of EE. Of course this seems ridiculous now, but no more so than Chameberlin taking Hitler at his word.

IT is possible that with a firm hand we might have pressured the Soviets for a "free" eastern europe. Most of the governments in exile were based in London, after all. Of course that would have been a reversal of the original problem which started the war - the guarantee of the soverignity of those very same countries. With the threat of nukes to back up our arguments (though how we'd be able to fly a nuke to moscow -in what plane? from what base? without it gettign shot down?) might be a problem, Stalin couldn't necessarily bank on that fact. Guaranteeing the pre-war national integrity of EE would be very marketable to the public, providing there was a 'smoking gun' incident. (we did a good job with the Berlin wall, after all), but that would imply a commitment to a consistent foreign policy that western powers have not, as of yet, shown. If anything it represents the one maxim that could be considered a *scientific* law. Namely, that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

:)
John

[Ken G]

To jump in on this discussion, I do see several ways that historical investigation could be classified as scientific. Both ways relate to the scientific perspective that a good theory should be consistent with the facts, and should also "make sense" of the facts. In other words, knowing the theory should make it easier to understand and remember the disparate historical factoids, providing a lattice for structuring the facts in a meaningful way that informs their importance. That is essentially the same as what natural science does. The difference is, as you've mentioned, that natural science involves recreatable phenomena, or at least observations of phenomena in action.

But the two situations I can think of where history in effect also does this is, first, when new historical information comes to light, such as the discovery of a diary, or an old photograph, or maybe a new translation of an old text. The existing theories may then be judged based on how well they stand up under, and help make sense of, the new information. Second, the data can stay the same, but a new interpretation of them may be suggested, analogous to a new physical law suggested to explain entirely pre-existing data. The new interpretation can be judged based on whether or not it seems consistent with more of the existing data, and if it does a better job of organizing and understanding all the information at hand. That too sounds very much like what natural science does, to me.

For some situations, like the provenance of Beowulf, it sounds like neither of these is likely to happen, so indeed the unfortunate pursuers of that bit of history will likely never achieve convergence. But that can happen in other sciences also, like long-range weather forecasting. A big part of good science is choosing the right question to attack, and accepting that many of the phenomena in nature are simply too complex or too poorly constrained to make scientific progress.

[parallaxicality]

Lastly, whole reams of history have been intentionally subverted and/or destroyed. There has been (and still is) outright censorship. And people can change positions instantly and over a whim. Taken together all these things mean that history just can't be held up to the same standards - it's too complex and irreduceable. even if you knew what everyone was thinking at the present moment, you could not extrapolate our future for the next hundred years. Because, remember, that is another function of science - to be able to predict specifically based on current theory.

john

What about the Piltdown Man? The geological and paleontological records are historical records just like any other, and are unearthed by people with agendas to follow and theories to support. Those records can and have been deliberately subverted in the past; it is only the rigour of peer review and re-examination that ensures any kind of raliability, as it is with history.

[Disinfo Agent]

History, because it is solely about human behavior, is much more mutable, to the point where it *seems* random. However, it is not actually random. People react in their individual and collective self-interests against perceived threats all the time. The trouble is in determining whether people are acting in their indiivdual or collective self interest or whether they even perceive the threat. Again, because people are prone to lying, changing minds, having epiphanies, making mistakes, etc... it is very difficult from the historical record to determine with a scientific certainty what someone is thinking. And so very much of history surrounds that.I disagree that history is that much dependent on discovering what people thought. Finding out what they did can be enough of a challenge.

Lastly, whole reams of history have been intentionally subverted and/or destroyed. There has been (and still is) outright censorship. And people can change positions instantly and over a whim. Taken together all these things mean that history just can't be held up to the same standards - it's too complex and irreduceable. even if you knew what everyone was thinking at the present moment, you could not extrapolate our future for the next hundred years. Because, remember, that is another function of science - to be able to predict specifically based on current theory.What about the Piltdown Man? The geological and paleontological records are historical records just like any other, and are unearthed by people with agendas to follow and theories to support. Those records can and have been deliberately subverted in the past; it is only the rigour of peer review and re-examination that ensures any kind of raliability, as it is with history.Allow me to agree and disagree with both of you... :)

Yes, evidence can be faked (or, simply, grossly misinterpreted) in other sciences, too. In that respect, history is just like any other science.

On the other hand, the Achilles heel of history is that so much of it is based on documental evidence. That means reading and interpreting what authors of the past wrote. What if they lied through their teeth? What if the documents are forgeries? What if they're destroyed? What if several interpretations of the documents are possible, but the biases of historians make them blind to the correct one?... This is where I understand those who hesitate to call history a science.

However, it seems to me that these problems are also present in other sciences, albeit in lesser degree.

[hewhocaves]

What about the Piltdown Man? The geological and paleontological records are historical records just like any other, and are unearthed by people with agendas to follow and theories to support. Those records can and have been deliberately subverted in the past; it is only the rigour of peer review and re-examination that ensures any kind of raliability, as it is with history.

The difference, of course, is that with Piltdown Man, further tests (i.e. radioactive dating) were able to totally overthrow the "evidence", thus establishing the forgery.

Interestingly, this goes to helping explain what I've been trying to get at - namely that we are able to determine the forgery and yet still can't for certain say who perpetrated the forgery and why. (unless theres been some new info on it that I'm not aware of).

But I do understand and accept the parallels between scientific investigation and historical investigation. I think one of the things that people need to remember is the degree of proof necessary for history is different than the degree of prrof necessary for science. And I'm not talking about "was there a nuclear blast over Hiroshima" sort of history. I'm talking about serious, in depth history - the kind that doctorate thesises are written about.

Again, knowing THAT something occured is a good and wonderful thing. But real, serious wisdom is gained when you know WHY spomething occured. And from a historical point of view, knowing WHY something happened means knowing why people made certain decisions. And at that point you're trying to look into the minds of people long dead through an incomplete record of their life. And there just isn't enough data there to make the grade as a science.

After all, the point of history is to examine ourselves as a culture critically; not just collect a series of dates and names (which is one of the things that bugs me so much about HS History).

[hewhocaves]

I
On the other hand, the Achilles heel of history is that so much of it is based on documental evidence. That means reading and interpreting what authors of the past wrote. What if they lied through their teeth? What if the documents are forgeries? What if they're destroyed? What if several interpretations of the documents are possible, but the biases of historians make them blind to the correct one?... This is where I understand those who hesitate to call history a science.


The Piri Reis map is a good example of the "several interpretations" problem.
What we have here is just a map, with little to no documentary evidence accompanying it. Some people (not I, btw) claim that the bottom of the map represents antarctica. The question is, how do we judge this claim? Do we put more weight on compass direction (no good mapmaker is going to confuse north with west and turn the whole of South America sideways)? Do we put more weight on inferring land connections (he did find Antarctica and connected it to SA through inference)? Do we attribute this to user error - specifically is it actual misdirection (in case the map should fall into enemy hands) or wishful thinking in its entirety (i.e. similar to "there be dragons here")? Do we presume that this map is the sole survivor of several maps, all very accurate, but destroyed in the succeeding centuries? Or do we consider this an abberation? Or is it some combination of the many possibilities listed above??

We can't run tests on it, the historical record is spotty, there's little corroborating evidence (other than some urban legends linking it to the library at Alexandria). On the other hand, certain parts of it (west africa and brazil) are pretty well done, so it's not outright incompetence.

Now, the trouble with analyzing it from a strictly scientific point of view is that if you let this map in as accurate with it's medicore pedigree, then you have to let a lot of other junk in as well (Donation of Constantine, etc...). On the other hand, if you keep it out, then you pretty much have to keep out ALL the maps from that period, because most of them have something funky wrong with them. (I like the ones with either a "northwest passage" or california as an island" in particular). So, you need to evaluate these things on a case by case basis. The analogy sort of goes back to a piltdown man because part of the map is really useful, but part of the map is unexpected.
The end result is a judgement call - where the community as a whole makes a collective decision, namely that they'll use the good part of the map and leave the unespected part of the map for later people to figure out.

Anyway, not the worlds best analogy, but i hope it helps

John

PS: here's the map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Piri_reis_world_map_01.jpg

[Disinfo Agent]

The Piri Reis map has been discussed here a few times (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18618&highlight=Piri+Reis). From the looks of it, there are serious problems with the the claim that the map represents Antarctica.

P.S. Found this (http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/FOG9.html), too.

[Walrus]

With regard to my post that ended up hijacking this thread- in the Soviet Union, history was officially a "hard" science. In terms of official ideology, the Marxist-Leninist conception of historical development was more "valid" than any other science. The argument we're currently having would have been completely unacceptable, because it would have been a direct attack on the ideological basis of the regime. History was privilidged with its own Institute at the USSR Academy of Sciences. (Does the National Academy of Sciences currently have any historians as members? My cursory search suggests not. Lots of anthropologists and historians of science, but no historians in the typical sense.) The degree of ideological penetrtaion into Soviet historical studies encouraged thoughful people to go into other fields, so history was a particularly fruitless field of research in the USSR.

[Disinfo Agent]

With regard to my post that ended up hijacking this thread-I don't think we've strayed too much from the topic. It is titled "bad history". ;)

P.S. Edited to delete redundant remark.

[hewhocaves]

With regard to my post that ended up hijacking this thread- in the Soviet Union, history was officially a "hard" science. In terms of official ideology, the Marxist-Leninist conception of historical development was more "valid" than any other science. The argument we're currently having would have been completely unacceptable, because it would have been a direct attack on the ideological basis of the regime. History was privilidged with its own Institute at the USSR Academy of Sciences. (Does the National Academy of Sciences currently have any historians as members? My cursory search suggests not. Lots of anthropologists and historians of science, but no historians in the typical sense.) The degree of ideological penetrtaion into Soviet historical studies encouraged thoughful people to go into other fields, so history was a particularly fruitless field of research in the USSR.

This would be the same USSR that lost a generation of geneticists becasue established theorey differed from ideology. As a result, I'm not sure that their "science" is any more valid than, say, ID.

[hewhocaves]

The Piri Reis map has been discussed here a few times (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18618&highlight=Piri+Reis). From the looks of it, there are serious problems with the the claim that the map represents Antarctica.

P.S. Found this (http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/FOG9.html), too.

I'm not arguing the actual validity of the map, (as I pointe dout before, I beleive it's hogwash) but using it to point out the problems with accepting historical documents at face value. It has been inferred from previous posts that history is comperable to geology or paleontology because it consists of collecting historical documents and drawing conclusions from them. I would suggest that because the validity of the documents are often in question that there is another layer of uncertainty which precludes it from being judged the same way as a hard science.

John

[Lianachan]

I'm not arguing the actual validity of the map, (as I pointe dout before, I beleive it's hogwash) but using it to point out the problems with accepting historical documents at face value. It has been inferred from previous posts that history is comperable to geology or paleontology because it consists of collecting historical documents and drawing conclusions from them. I would suggest that because the validity of the documents are often in question that there is another layer of uncertainty which precludes it from being judged the same way as a hard science.

John

There is also, of course, another line of evidence that can be used to back up historical documents. For example, history tells us that there was a battle at the Pass of Killiecrankie in Scotland in 1689. This battle is well recorded in documents of the time, and afterwards. However, even if those documents never existed or were untrustworthy, there's still the physical evidence of musket balls, belt buckles, parts of shields and various other parts of the paraphanelia of 17th century warfare that have been found at the proposed battle site. From the finding of such artifacts, it's even possible to tell much about the way the battle progressed.

A good example of that is the way that archeologists were able to track the movements of individual soldiers at the Battle Of The Little Bighorn, using distinctive firing pin markings on their spent cartridges.

I guess that's a long winded way of say that archeaology can be used to back up history. In fact, the evidence from the battlefield of the Little Bighorn has cast doubt on the official historical version of the battle - it looks like it was conducted considerably more quickly that recorded, and there was no heroic "last stand".

[Disinfo Agent]

I'm not arguing the actual validity of the map, (as I pointe dout before, I beleive it's hogwash) but using it to point out the problems with accepting historical documents at face value. It has been inferred from previous posts that history is comperable to geology or paleontology because it consists of collecting historical documents and drawing conclusions from them.You wrote above:
The Piri Reis map is a good example of the "several interpretations" problem.
What we have here is just a map, with little to no documentary evidence accompanying it. Some people (not I, btw) claim that the bottom of the map represents antarctica. The question is, how do we judge this claim? Do we put more weight on compass direction (no good mapmaker is going to confuse north with west and turn the whole of South America sideways)? Do we put more weight on inferring land connections (he did find Antarctica and connected it to SA through inference)? Do we attribute this to user error - specifically is it actual misdirection (in case the map should fall into enemy hands) or wishful thinking in its entirety (i.e. similar to "there be dragons here")? Do we presume that this map is the sole survivor of several maps, all very accurate, but destroyed in the succeeding centuries? Or do we consider this an abberation? Or is it some combination of the many possibilities listed above??But it seems that the map is not that difficult to analyse--and dismiss as not based on factual observations.

I would suggest that because the validity of the documents are often in question that there is another layer of uncertainty which precludes it from being judged the same way as a hard science.I agree. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=623989#post623989)

[hewhocaves]

There is also, of course, another line of evidence that can be used to back up historical documents. For example, history tells us that there was a battle at the Pass of Killiecrankie in Scotland in 1689. This battle is well recorded in documents of the time, and afterwards. However, even if those documents never existed or were untrustworthy, there's still the physical evidence of musket balls, belt buckles, parts of shields and various other parts of the paraphanelia of 17th century warfare that have been found at the proposed battle site. From the finding of such artifacts, it's even possible to tell much about the way the battle progressed.

A good example of that is the way that archeologists were able to track the movements of individual soldiers at the Battle Of The Little Bighorn, using distinctive firing pin markings on their spent cartridges.

I guess that's a long winded way of say that archeaology can be used to back up history. In fact, the evidence from the battlefield of the Little Bighorn has cast doubt on the official historical version of the battle - it looks like it was conducted considerably more quickly that recorded, and there was no heroic "last stand".


I agree. If history is simply recording dates and events, then its much more straightforward. However, history is just as concerned with why people do the things they do, and from a strictly scientific point of view, an unaccpetable level of uncertainty comes in at athat point (for reasons ennumerated in previous posts).

John

[hewhocaves]

But it seems that the map is not that difficult to analyse--and dismiss as not based on factual observations.

I think i'm not being clear in my point. my point is not that the map as antarctica is dismissable, but that the actual step has to be taken to dismiss it. You don't get this, say in paleontology, where if you find the leg bone of a t-rex, you have to ask yourself "is it a leg bone?" (ok, granted, you MIGHT if a) its a ridiculously small fragment, b) you're really bad at identifying bones - but at that point its a problem with the identifyer).

In other words, in science you have the data and its absolute. your theorey has to take it into account. whereas in history, there is the possibility that the data is mistaken, confused or an outright fraud. And usually you need circumstantial evidence from contemporary sources to figure that out. there's rarely a 'smoking gun', as it were.

Or, to put it another way, if there were no other maps from that time it would not be unreasonable to conclude that antarctica had been discovered, because there's nothing within that particular piece of evidence itself that says otherwise.

That's why you can't take historical documents at face value blindly. It's also why you need coorboration, physical evidence (i.e. archeology, et al), before you can draw your conclusions. Its why we needed to find actaul viking settlements in the new world before that became canon and its exactly why celtic, phonecian, iberain, neanderthal, finno-ugrarain, atlantean and the loch ness monster's claims on getting here first continue to be fringe psuedo-history.

Anyway, getting back to pointing out bad history, I mentioned the "donation of constantine" which granted the Papal States dominion of the traditional "western roman empire" area (and was the basis of the secular papacy). Here's the wikipedia article. This may be one of the earliest renaissance debunkings. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_constantine

john

[Disinfo Agent]

I think i'm not being clear in my point. my point is not that the map as antarctica is dismissable, but that the actual step has to be taken to dismiss it. You don't get this, say in paleontology, where if you find the leg bone of a t-rex, you have to ask yourself "is it a leg bone?" (ok, granted, you MIGHT if a) its a ridiculously small fragment, b) you're really bad at identifying bones - but at that point its a problem with the identifyer).Well, there was the case of the Piltdown Man, as Parallaxicality mentioned above...

[hewhocaves]

Well, there was the case of the Piltdown Man, as Parallaxicality mentioned above...

I'm getting dizzy, so i'm going to step away from this convo after this post.

As I explained before, Piltdown actually illustrates the flaw. Until radioactive dating it was considered mainstream science (its always fun to look at anthro books from that period, as a result). It wasn't until a new way of testing evidence was discovered that the forgery was revealed. You can do that in a hard science. It's difficult to have that out in history.

And once again, this totally misses the point I've been trying to make. (and this is why I'm leaving the discussion). History is NOT about dates and events, but about PEOPLE and DECISIONS. WHY is just as important as HOW.

I'm sorry, I can't get any closer to the crux than that. If you can come up with an argument that reduces human behavior to a series of demonstrable ideas, pm me and I'll be happy to continue. Beyond that, I feel that I've bloodied my scalp sufficiently and will now seek a new wall.

Enjoy,

john

[Disinfo Agent]

I see no reason for dizziness. You have been arguing that history is special among the sciences, to the point of not being a science at all. I've been arguing that it isn't that special.
In the end, I don't think our ideas even differ that much, given that I acknowledged, in this post (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=623989&postcount=186), that I "understand those who hesitate to call history a science", and you accepted, in this one (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=624213&postcount=187), that there are, in any case, meaningful "parallels between historical investigation and scientific investigation".

[beskeptical]

Maybe if we treated history more like a science there'd be more consistency in it.

I'd sure like to see more evidence based history. Why shouldn't we be reading the primary sources of information as much as we read the secondary sources?

[HenrikOlsen]

Because in most cases primary sources doesn't exist.
The one writing down what happened very seldomly was the one it happened to.

[TriangleMan]

And even if the main person in the event did the writing it is usually in their memoirs, written long after the event happened.

[beskeptical]

Because in most cases primary sources doesn't exist.
The one writing down what happened very seldomly was the one it happened to.But that isn't true and here in lies the problem. Look how it is difficult for the thread members to even articulate primary sources.

All of the historical texts had to have gotten their information somewhere. So where are the citations?

And even if the main person in the event did the writing it is usually in their memoirs, written long after the event happened.Yes, but the primary source is where the historian got the information, not necessarily a first hand account of an event.

I have read a number of texts that had many primary sources that were quite shocking. Columbus' writings, for example, are horrendous. He talks openly about how to make slaves out of the natives he encountered in the Americas. But to read historical accounts without the primary sources you'd almost have to conclude the author decided the readers wouldn't be capable of putting the writings in context so the author excludes the information. That's not science, that's pure opinion in disguise.

[Walrus]

beskeptical- I'm still not sure exactly what your position is. What do you mean by "articulating" primary sources? In reality, most primary sources are difficult to access for a variety of reasons. Appealing to primary sources sounds good until you discover that they're, say, written in an archaic language or locked away in an inaccessible archive. While there is a lot of unnecessary editorializing done by historians, telling people to just read the primary sources is like giving non-scientists reams of raw observation data to interpret- what are they supposed to do with them?

[Lianachan]

Because in most cases primary sources doesn't exist.
The one writing down what happened very seldomly was the one it happened to.
The ones writing it down are the ones that won the wars, for example, too - so you get a distinct bias from that too.

[beskeptical]

If I report on some scientific research, I include the study details and the citations for background information. If I write a biology text, I include the citations for the information. Any text or research paper without such citations would be hard to verify and therefore hard to trust.

Read a history text and see if there is very much supported in the way of citations. Where did the author get the information? We are to rely on that author's reputation as a history scholar. It begins to get away from science which I consider evidence based.

Why shouldn't the sources of at least some of the information be included? Actually, the history texts and papers I've read that do include the sources, like the Columbus' writings I mentioned, are way more interesting to read. Not all history is buried in hieroglyphs and Dead Sea scroll fragments. And even those can be included because no one said primary sources couldn't be translated. If there is controversy in the translation that can be noted.

BTW, a primary source in history can never, by definition, be the same as a primary source in new research like a biology study. Even a video recording of an event is not the same 'primary' source as a report on, for example, prospective research.

But a primary source is what the historian used as the source of information. It might be journal entries, it might be an archaeological dig, it might be a combination of a lot of different things. But it should be documented nonetheless, where the information came from, so the reader can assess the accuracy beyond the mere reputation of the author.

[hewhocaves]

two bits to add to the discussion:
1) so I've been chatting on an alternate history board recently in a thread where someone stated (and I'll paraphrase for conciseness) that it was poland's fault that WWII started. Specifically because Poland rejected an arrangement where Russain troops would occupy their land to ward off a German invasion. According to the poster, this destroyed the french plan to create an alliance of eastern european nations against germany.
Now all of these events arte true. Poland did reject such a treaty. Such a treaty, if executed along the french plan would, on paper, be an effective deterrent against Hitler. This would have prevented WWII as we know it.

Of course the argument falls apart when you expand your horizons to take into account the greater picture. The plan fails to take into account the historical animosity between the affected "allies". It fails to take into account the many mistakes the west made allowing Germany to rearm and remobilize. But from a strictly scientific point of view a+b=c it is correct. That, in a nutshell is the problem of a strict scientific interpretaion of history. It fails to take into account the human element.

2) As a result of my discussion I'm thinking of writing an 'alternate history' story wherein the Germans go to war over Czechoslovakia. One of the essential pieces I will need for this story is the planned dispositions of the armies - German and Czech. (i want it to be as accurate as possible). The german plan was called "Case Green". Case Green is notoriously difficult to locate, because it was never implemented. We know it existed through refrences made, but I have never heard of it being published. I suspect that if it was, it would be in either German or Czech. The plan is only seventy years old, yet it's extrordinarily difficult to locate the primary source. Imagine the difficulty of locating sources five hundred or a thousand years ago.

now I do agree that historians need to be as complete as possible. My point is that in my two examples we find two of the major problems in history. In the first we have the problem of inclusiveness - how wide must we cast our net? In the second we have the problem of incompleteness - there is not a perfect hisotrical record. The two issues combine to create a very difficult problem for historians and one that generates considerable discussion to this day.

John

[Lianachan]

But a primary source is what the historian used as the source of information. It might be journal entries, it might be an archaeological dig, it might be a combination of a lot of different things. But it should be documented nonetheless, where the information came from, so the reader can assess the accuracy beyond the mere reputation of the author.
Archaeological information is very much dependant on the interpretation of the archaeologists who dig it up. I am, for example, heavily involved in research into brochs (will be hopefully nvolved with a dig at one in the summer of 2006, which I can walk to from my house :)) - and this particular area of study is one which is severly blighted by the interpretations of antiquarians long gone. The common perception of brochs is based on a 20 year old interpretation of the archaeological evidence. This, I daresay, is likely true of many things where archaeological evidence is used to support historical research. Plus, of course, there's the old saying Ask four archeaologists a question, and get six different answers.

[The_Radiation_Specialist]

Ive never heard of Bad History, but I have several Horrible History books. They are awesome!

[beskeptical]

Archaeological information is very much dependant on the interpretation of the archaeologists who dig it up. I am, for example, heavily involved in research into brochs (will be hopefully nvolved with a dig at one in the summer of 2006, which I can walk to from my house :)) - and this particular area of study is one which is severly blighted by the interpretations of antiquarians long gone. The common perception of brochs is based on a 20 year old interpretation of the archaeological evidence. This, I daresay, is likely true of many things where archaeological evidence is used to support historical research. Plus, of course, there's the old saying Ask four archeaologists a question, and get six different answers.One doesn't build Rome in a day.

So let's take this a step at a time. Current history, and as you say, whatever is used to determine history is full of interpretation and opinion. You won't see me disagreeing there.

I can make an analogy of the same in medicine which used to be called an art more than a science. Well, now medicine is moving much closer to science and away from art. Psych is the last to change. We had all this nonsensical Freudian 'observation' upon which a lot of psych was based. So was astronomy for that matter, now that I think about it. But I digress.

Anyway, as time goes by the 'art' of observation improves and becomes much more systematic and scientific. Take your archeology, for example. We now have genetic research that is backing up about 90% (rough estimate) of what archaeologists had interpreted as the human migrations from the archeology research. Language research also contributed to the study of human migration. Genetic research confirmed language research was highly accurate as well but there were a few occasions where a language replaced an existing one instead of having evolved over time and distance.

The point I am making is we can get science into history. And we can replace a lot of those personal observations with real science. It will take time, it won't happen all at once. But the first step is to recognize history as a science and start making observations as one does in science. Test the observational method before applying it. Confirm the interpretation is based on valid methods. And, at least, cite the sources so the reader can have a basis to confirm or refute the conclusions.

[hewhocaves]

Ive never heard of Bad History, but I have several Horrible History books. They are awesome!


I've taken some "bad History" courses in college. The worst was at Jersey City State College in JC, NJ (although it's now called "The New Jersey City University" (rolls eyes).

Essentially, in a 100 level course the instructor inferred that Germany won WWII. Mostly because she explained how the germans won the battle of El Alamein. I still remember the discussion.

Me: the germans WON at El Alamein?
Instructor: Yes.
M: So they made it into Palestine, got all the oil?
I: (pause) Oh no. They were stopped.
M: Stopped? Where??
I: At the battle of Cairo!
M: Cai... ro? They were stopped at Cai-ro. Riiiiight. Erm. Before or after they crossed the Suez?
I: After, of course.

This, btw, wasn't her only gaffe. I used to keep the notes she made for us in class. Imaginative reading.

John

[Parrothead]

The point I am making is we can get science into history ... .

I agree that science can be brought in and support or expand on historical claims. An example would be the recent study of some Napoleon's soldiers from the Vilnius graves (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4534540.stm)

The team analyzed dental pulp from 72 teeth, taken from the remains of 35 soldiers.

Dental pulp from seven soldiers contained DNA from B. quintana, and pulp from three soldiers contained DNA from Rickettsia prowazakii, which causes epidemic typhus.

In all, 29% of the soldiers tested had evidence of either R. prowazkii or B. quintana infection.The researchers said this suggests that louse-born diseases such as typhus and trench fever may have been a major factor contributing to Napoleon's retreat from Russia.

While this new evidence does show that disease definately played a part in the retreat, how much of a factor it was, will remain speculative.

To me the most fascinating part of history deals with why decisions were made and analysis of those decisions. It is these areas where we rely on opinions of others, be it writings of those present at a certain time/event, gov't documents or from other sources and form our own opinions of events, their causes and effects. It is in this respect that various opinions is essential. I compare studying history to studying literature, a story is told and we draw our own conclusions.

As to books and citing of sources, I can live with a bibliography at the minimum (a few of my university texts formatted that way), a more detailed citing of works is preferable (especially, if it is something I find myself really getting interested in).

[MG1962A]

I agree that science can be brought in and support or expand on historical claims. An example would be the recent study of some Napoleon's soldiers from the Vilnius.

One of the major problems with science = history is the current nature of history. Example the socio-economic effects of 911 can not be quantified by any form of observational science.

Why? Because the observations are too subjective - world reaction was different on the 12th - or a month later or a year later - this means the observation is unrepeatable.

The other issue is you dont have a base line observation point. There are too many factors such as environment culture etc, that will change the perception of the observer.

Once documentation and social commentry peter out as we go backwards - Science will and does play a much greater part - example the retreat from Russia mentioned earlier.

There is no doubt disease played a part - Science is quantifying what diseases may have played that roll, and to what extent.

Lets jump forward to WW2 - Science wont add to the body of knowledge. The US army kept very particular records of the frequency of disease and types within its combatants.

So I guess the answer becomes - the more remote the history - the more science needs to step in and fill the gap

MG

[beskeptical]

Parrothead, just what I had in mind. Move towards more science and away from pure unmeasurable opinion.

MG1962A, this is a common mistake I see when physical scientists don't quite get how social scientists work with multiple variables in a 'hard science' way.

But in reality, it can be done and there are many techniques, some better than others. It doesn't mean social science practice can't be improved. It certainly can and has a ways to go to get to the kind of accuracy one gets in the physical sciences. But that is no reason to not use scientific principles or to claim when scientific principles are used they are worthless.

[Parrothead]

One of the major problems with science = history is the current nature of history. Example the socio-economic effects of 911 can not be quantified by any form of observational science.

Why? Because the observations are too subjective - world reaction was different on the 12th - or a month later or a year later - this means the observation is unrepeatable.

The other issue is you dont have a base line observation point. There are too many factors such as environment culture etc, that will change the perception of the observer.

I completely agree, I guess I should have expanded more on my earlier post. I agree science can help "fill in gaps" as you stated, that is what I was meaning to say. Historians (and others) will use methods comparable to the "scientific method" in analysing history or validity of documents, writings, etc. I enjoy reading about various events in history and quite frankly, I prefer volumes where historians lay out multiple views and leave out their own conclusions, leaving the reader to form their own opinions/conclusions. I do not believe history should be viewed as a science (I should have made that point clear in my earlier post). LOL, I majored in Political Science and that is a contradiction in terms, if there ever was one. ;)

[Bobunf]

Why shouldn't we be reading the primary sources?

You should without question. Original sources are widely available for most of what’s taught in high school and undergraduate history courses. Quantity is a problem; you can’t expect the kids to read ten books a night. Language isn’t a problem; what’s not already in English can, and has been, translated very competently.

With material properly selected and introduced, the kids will be much more interested; some will find this intimate contact with their past fascinating and exciting, for some, a life changing experience.

Take a few documents concerning the American Revolution, for example:

Hear the English trying to understand and figure out the rationale of colonies: Adam Smith in 1776 “Causes of the Prosperity of New Colonies.” Also worth reading if one is interested in colonizing space and bodies therein.

Read the Stamp Act of 1765: “An act for granting and applying certain stamp duties and other duties in the British colonies and plantations in America towards further defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same…” And, from another point of view, the “Declaration of Rights of the Stamp Act Congress.”

Hear the Americans heading towards revolution: Benjamin Franklin, “A Plan for Colonial Union,” Samuel Johnson, “Taxation, No Tyranny,” or, from the other side, Jonathan Boucher (a teacher of George Washington), “A View of the Causes and Consequences of the American Revolution.”

Original sources can and should be used in areas other than history. Many American high schools seemed to have forgotten about teaching mathematics and have moved on to computers, calculators and whiz-bang sound-good courses. But imagine the excitement of studying plane geometry from Euclid’s “Elements.” The concept of mathematical proof first bubbling forth 2500 years ago. Discovery, wonder and delight permeate the work.

And then move to the struggles to prove the Fifth Postulate, and then to non-Euclidean geometry—easy to do with the Fifth Postulate staring you in the face; and what a delight. Some kids will be sorry for the course to end.

Textbooks are popular, in part, because they are sometimes very lucrative for academics; a con-flict of interest to the detriment of students, and a conflict unlikely to be resolved in this century.

Bob

[Gillianren]

In some cases, though, there are no original sources. Certainly there are no extant original sources. This has been brought to my attention rather forcibly during my research for a book project I'm working on. My collaborator and I are trying to trace certain aspects of early Pagan history, but we can't, because there is no documentary evidence. There's a heck of a lot of speculation, but the most notable example of the destruction of that history is the wholesale destruction by the Spanish of Aztec documents and even buildings. There are records that the Aztec codices existed, but the codices themselves were in most cases destroyed. The buildings were torn down and the stones themselves were rendered mute, turned into Catholic churches. All we have left is interpretation and extrapolation.

[grant hutchison]

The buildings were torn down and the stones themselves were rendered mute, turned into Catholic churches. All we have left is interpretation and extrapolation.It's ironic that the conquistadors were unable to tear down the lower tiers of some Inca buildings: the stones were too big. So they couldn't even knock down structures that had been erected by a group of people they despised. In Cuzco, you can still see Spanish colonial buildings sitting on top of three layers of massive Inca stonework.

Grant Hutchison

[HenrikOlsen]

You should without question. Original sources are widely available for most of what’s taught in high school and undergraduate history courses. Quantity is a problem; you can’t expect the kids to read ten books a night. Language isn’t a problem; what’s not already in English can, and has been, translated very competently.
You're american so you can be excused for believing history is something that covers a few hundred well documented years.
Not every civilization wrote everything down, not every civilization saved what was written.

[Wolverine]

Don't mind me, I'm just dusting. This thread really belongs elsewhere as it doesn't directly pertain to Phil's site. BABBling it is. :)

[Disinfo Agent]

It's ironic that the conquistadors were unable to tear down the lower tiers of some Inca buildings: the stones were too big. So they couldn't even knock down structures that had been erected by a group of people they despised. In Cuzco, you can still see Spanish colonial buildings sitting on top of three layers of massive Inca stonework.

Grant HutchisonAre you sure they ever tried to tear down the foundations of those buildings?

[grant hutchison]

Are you sure they ever tried to tear down the foundations of those buildings?I wasn't talking about foundations: I'm talking about walls ten feet high in some places, six feet in others. The smaller upper stonework has been toppled until they reached a layer they couldn't move, then they either abandoned the effort or built on top. There's a big chunk of curved Inca wall poking out the side of the church of Santo Domingo in Cuzco, for instance, which creates a very odd effect. It's difficult to believe that the builders didn't make considerable efforts to get rid of it. But you're right, it's a deduction from observation; I haven't read any correspondence between the local bishop and the builders.

Grant Hutchison

[beskeptical]

In some cases, though, there are no original sources. Certainly there are no extant original sources. This has been brought to my attention rather forcibly during my research for a book project I'm working on. My collaborator and I are trying to trace certain aspects of early Pagan history, but we can't, because there is no documentary evidence. There's a heck of a lot of speculation, but the most notable example of the destruction of that history is the wholesale destruction by the Spanish of Aztec documents and even buildings. There are records that the Aztec codices existed, but the codices themselves were in most cases destroyed. The buildings were torn down and the stones themselves were rendered mute, turned into Catholic churches. All we have left is interpretation and extrapolation.No, what you should have left is a conclusion that the information was lost.

If one has speculation or conclusions other than that, then the researchers should support those conclusions with whatever facts led them to that answer. Either it is completely made up or the conclusions were based on something. What was the something? Perhaps current Aztec practices or beliefs still being carried on today in Mexico for example.

[LurchGS]

I've taken some "bad History" courses in college. The worst was at Jersey City State College in JC, NJ (although it's now called "The New Jersey City University" (rolls eyes).

Essentially, in a 100 level course the instructor inferred that Germany won WWII. Mostly because she explained how the germans won the battle of El Alamein. I still remember the discussion.

Me: the germans WON at El Alamein?
Instructor: Yes.
M: So they made it into Palestine, got all the oil?
I: (pause) Oh no. They were stopped.
M: Stopped? Where??
I: At the battle of Cairo!
M: Cai... ro? They were stopped at Cai-ro. Riiiiight. Erm. Before or after they crossed the Suez?
I: After, of course.

This, btw, wasn't her only gaffe. I used to keep the notes she made for us in class. Imaginative reading.

John


Gah! both my parents would be spinning in thier graves - if they were dead. Mom is a historian by profession, and Dad's second calling (after physics) is world history (US Revolution and later - focusing on WWII and Civil wars)

while I'm not much of a history freak, even *I* know about Al Alemein - and that that defeat was not good for Romel's career

[hewhocaves]

You're american so you can be excused for believing history is something that covers a few hundred well documented years.
Not every civilization wrote everything down, not every civilization saved what was written.

I agree 1000% Henrik... it's a VERY american POV.
And it's not always even a conscious choice. The countries looted during WWII didn't ask for their archives to be ransacked.
We have a realtively easy time of it in the states. our language has remained relatively constant and our archives are almost completely intact. Its not like that in much of the world.
Furthermore, if you choose to limit yourself with strictly the history of Wextern Europe then yes, you will find a trememndous amount of information translated competently into english. However, WE comprises only a fraction of the planet's historical record. As you move away from it, i think you will find a decreasing amount of information which is both readable and accessible to the curious layman.

Beskeptical, I beleive Gillianren impled exactly that when she said that all that was left was interpretaion and extrapolation. To say that all you have left is a lack of info is pedantically obvious. It approaches a defeatist attitude, a sort of "well, we don't have a sizeable amount of info, so there is no point in persuing the problem". Fortunatley, historians don't work like that. Where needed, they can draw parallels with other, similar situations, extrapolate from the evidence already gathered with the proviso that future evidence may overturn some of these conclusions. Especially as we move into the more distant past we find that interpretation becomes invaluable. Pre-christian pagan religions of slavic europe is another area where there is little documentation, despite the fact that in some parts of lithuania these practices continued past 1000 AD.

John

[parallaxicality]

I've noticed something interesting recently; there seems to be a move among militant atheists to present the case that the Judaic preacher Yeshweh, otherwise known as Jesus of Nazareth, never existed. Their first line of attack is that all of the accounts of Jesus's life are based on hearsay. I found this odd. After all, were it not for the word of Tacitus and Cassius Dio, would we have any evidence that Queen Bouddica ever existed? And how much historical evidence do we have for the existence of Queen Cleopatra that wasn't composed after her death?

True, there is precious little historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, and a lot of what survives is probably made up, but there are a few fragments that could be authentic (Jospehus's "He was the Christ" paragraph is clearly forged, but his offhand comment that James was the brother of Jesus called the Christ is probably authentic). It's also clear from historical sources that Judea at the time was awash with wannabe Messiahs and prophets who were predicting the end times. Also, Rome was falling in love with eastern mystery cults of which Christianity was only one. Had history gone a different way, the Romans may have embraced Mithraism, and the western world would be worshipping a cow instead of a cross. Jesus is only important because of his subsequent role in history, which happened long after his death. At the time, he was nothing special, and it's not surprising that there's little surviving evidence of his existence.

[Gillianren]

I've noticed something interesting recently; there seems to be a move among militant atheists to present the case that the Judaic preacher Yeshweh, otherwise known as Jesus of Nazareth, never existed. Their first line of attack is that all of the accounts of Jesus's life are based on hearsay. I found this odd. After all, were it not for the word of Tacitus and Cassius Dio, would we have any evidence that Queen Bouddica ever existed? And how much historical evidence do we have for the existence of Queen Cleopatra that wasn't composed after her death?

True, there is precious little historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, and a lot of what survives is probably made up, but there are a few fragments that could be authentic (Jospehus's "He was the Christ" paragraph is clearly forged, but his offhand comment that James was the brother of Jesus called the Christ is probably authentic). It's also clear from historical sources that Judea at the time was awash with wannabe Messiahs and prophets who were predicting the end times. Also, Rome was falling in love with eastern mystery cults of which Christianity was only one. Had history gone a different way, the Romans may have embraced Mithraism, and the western world would be worshipping a cow instead of a cross. Jesus is only important because of his subsequent role in history, which happened long after his death. At the time, he was nothing special, and it's not surprising that there's little surviving evidence of his existence.

Precisely. Now, I can hardly be called a militant atheist, obviously, but I've noticed the trend among others of my religious stripe. It's fashionable among young Pagans to deny the historical existence of a Jesus as well. I'll grant that the evidence is scant, but I mean, at the time, he was yet another Hebrew executed for sedition. There was, according to the Bible itself, at least one other in custody at the same time, so who's going to keep track of all of them?

[hewhocaves]

must have made for an interesting classified section back then:

"Wanted: Messiah or savior for Jewish people. Self starter. Must posess people skills, knowledge of the Torah and Roman Law. Good benefits, excellent possibility of posthumous merchandising deals. Some weekends and holidays. Miracle workers preferred."

man, those thunderclouds gather overhead quickly when I make jokes these days. lol.

John

[HenrikOlsen]

The queue would have been round the block, the place was knee deep in selfproclaimed messiasses and prophets at the time.