Commonly believed historical inaccuracies

Ash.J.Williams · 24-03-2021 5:56pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

Scottish clan tartans, largely a 19th century invented tradition with the mania for all things Scottish.
Irish Americans love "Irish" kilts with spurious Irish family tartans.

Aran jumpers aren't that ancient, a scheme started in the late 1800s/early 1900s to provide local employment and ruthlessly exploited by the tourist industry, souvenir trade and Clancy Bros ever since. The patterns were not intended to identify a wearer whose body had been recovered from the sea either.

Stewert Lee told a Glasgow audience that Scotland was invented by the highland toffee company:)

Manach · 24-03-2021 6:13pm

Hannibal did not bring the modern variety of Elephants over the Alps. Instead he used the sub-species (unfortunately now extinct) found in the Atlas mountains which were both smaller and more nimble than the modern Elephant.

El Tarangu · 24-03-2021 6:47pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

Aran jumpers aren't that ancient, a scheme started in the late 1800s/early 1900s to provide local employment and ruthlessly exploited by the tourist industry, souvenir trade and Clancy Bros ever since. The patterns were not intended to identify a wearer whose body had been recovered from the sea either.

That's very interesting; there was a very well-known Gaeltacht rights activist, who went on to become a councillor and a Senator, Pól Ó Foighil, who was well-known for his insistence on wearing his traditional báinín (Aran sweater cardigan thing) in the senate chamber - to the extent that he changed his name to "Pól 'Báinín' Ó Foighil".

Now, perhaps he was doing this purely in support of local industry rather than in defence of his island heritage, because presumably his parents were old enough to remember when they invented (he was born in 1928).

saabsaab · 24-03-2021 7:21pm

El Tarangu wrote: »

That's very interesting; there was a very well-known Gaeltacht rights activist, who went on to become a councillor and a Senator, Pól Ó Foighil, who was well-known for his insistence on wearing his traditional báinín (Aran sweater cardigan thing) in the senate chamber - to the extent that he changed his name to "Pól 'Báinín' Ó Foighil".

Now, perhaps he was doing this purely in support of local industry rather than in defence of his island heritage, because presumably his parents were old enough to remember when they invented (he was born in 1928).

He was from Thurles!

StupidLikeAFox · 25-03-2021 1:15am

Manach wrote: »

Hannibal did not bring the modern variety of Elephants over the Alps. Instead he used the sub-species (unfortunately now extinct) found in the Atlas mountains which were both smaller and more nimble than the modern Elephant.

Didn't see that bit in silence of the lambs

25-03-2021 1:22am

Probably been said already but the biggest one for me, having been educated in England in the 80s was King Harold being killed by an arrow in his eye in the battle of Hastings in 1066. It was taught to generations of English kids as historical lore. And is completely untrue.

Del.Monte · 25-03-2021 7:11am

Deleted User wrote: »

Probably been said already but the biggest one for me, having been educated in England in the 80s was King Harold being killed by an arrow in his eye in the battle of Hastings in 1066. It was taught to generations of English kids as historical lore. And is completely untrue.

I was educated in Ireland 1966/76 and the story of King Harold's death was attributed to him being struck by an arrow in the eye. I have read nothing since which says this was completely untrue. Given that it was almost a thousand years ago and Twitter/Facebook etc. didn't exist back then I'm happy to accept the arrow in the eye version - unless you've found some actual footage of the battle on YouTube.

Markcheese · 25-03-2021 7:28am

The best we've got is the bayeaux tapestry ,and while there is a guy with an arrow in his eye , no one knows is it supposed to be Harold ..
It is as good a story as any, And that unlikely either ..

Quantum Erasure · 25-03-2021 7:47am

Manach wrote: »

Hannibal did not bring the modern variety of Elephants over the Alps. Instead he used the sub-species (unfortunately now extinct) found in the Atlas mountains which were both smaller and more nimble than the modern Elephant.

I was always confused by this, like where did he get the elephants? Surely it was a bigger task to get them to the alps in the first place..,

Peregrinus · 25-03-2021 8:05am

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I was always confused by this, like where did he get the elephants? Surely it was a bigger task to get them to the alps in the first place..,

They came overland from Carthaginian territories in what is now Spain (where the war first broke out when Hannibal attacked the town of Saguntum, near modern Valencia, which was an ally of Rome). The elephants were probably already in Spain when the war broke out, as part of the Carthaginian forces. After the fall of Saguntum Hannibal marched his army overland to the Alps, tracking northwards to avoid the various Roman settlements along the Mediterranean coast. He had 37 elephants when he started his march; it's not known how many made it to the Alps, but some certainly did.

25-03-2021 8:56am

Del.Monte wrote: »

I was educated in Ireland 1966/76 and the story of King Harold's death was attributed to him being struck by an arrow in the eye. I have read nothing since which says this was completely untrue. Given that it was almost a thousand years ago and Twitter/Facebook etc. didn't exist back then I'm happy to accept the arrow in the eye version - unless you've found some actual footage of the battle on YouTube.

The written accounts of the battle afterwards describe Harold being brutally hacked down by 4 knights. It’s widely accepted now that the tapestry is an early example of ‘fake news’.....a narrative that didn’t appears until 30 years after the battle (history is written by the victors). The normans romanticised his death as their position as the new rulers of England was so tenuous that it looked better if the loved Harold was killed by chance in a battle with a noble enemy than brutally cut to bits by swords.

You’re right that the current understanding of events might be wrong, and that the tapestry is the reliable source. And all of us want to believe the arrow story

But it’s interesting that the story is legend and even now it’s being taught as fact (my niece just learned it) despite having been debunked

ancapailldorcha · 25-03-2021 9:44am

Deleted User wrote: »

The written accounts of the battle afterwards describe Harold being brutally hacked down by 4 knights. It’s widely accepted now that the tapestry is an early example of ‘fake news’.....a narrative that didn’t appears until 30 years after the battle (history is written by the victors). The normans romanticised his death as their position as the new rulers of England was so tenuous that it looked better if the loved Harold was killed by chance in a battle with a noble enemy than brutally cut to bits by swords.

You’re right that the current understanding of events might be wrong, and that the tapestry is the reliable source. And all of us want to believe the arrow story

But it’s interesting that the story is legend and even now it’s being taught as fact (my niece just learned it) despite having been debunked

I was taught the same. While the narrative about the four knights makes more sense for obvious reasons, it's important to note that there are very few surviving sources from the conquest. IIRC, the litany are the Anglo Saxon chronicles, the Bayeux Tapestry commissioned by Bishop Odo (William's brother) and the writings of William of Poitiers who was heavily biased towards William so it's not unreasonable that the four knights narrative has largely disappeared from the public's recollection of the battle.

Manach · 25-03-2021 9:52am

Deleted User wrote: »

The written accounts of the battle afterwards describe Harold being brutally hacked down by 4 knights.

The last book I read on that period and I'd recommend as an overview guide (The Anglo-Saxon Age: A Very Short Introduction by John Blair) does indeed support that, i.e. no arrow.

Ash.J.Williams · 25-03-2021 9:57am

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Didn't see that bit in silence of the lambs

he's obviously talking about the A team

bullpost · 25-03-2021 10:30am

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Actually never heard that, and it is strange since WW2 is known to have started on 1st September 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland, but given that talks had already taken place between Russia and Germany about carving up surrounding countries and Stalin then invaded Poland on 17th September himself, all widely known, I thought.

New book on World war 2 with Stalin , rather than hitler as chief architect:

https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-War-New-History-World/dp/1541672798

Del.Monte · 25-03-2021 12:06pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The written accounts of the battle afterwards describe Harold being brutally hacked down by 4 knights. It’s widely accepted now that the tapestry is an early example of ‘fake news’.....a narrative that didn’t appears until 30 years after the battle (history is written by the victors). The normans romanticised his death as their position as the new rulers of England was so tenuous that it looked better if the loved Harold was killed by chance in a battle with a noble enemy than brutally cut to bits by swords.

You’re right that the current understanding of events might be wrong, and that the tapestry is the reliable source. And all of us want to believe the arrow story

But it’s interesting that the story is legend and even now it’s being taught as fact (my niece just learned it) despite having been debunked

But that's the point, it hasn't been debunked - just questioned - and I see no problem with it being taught until there's some definitive proof otherwise.

magicbastarder · 25-03-2021 12:57pm

a very big caveat is that i haven't watched this, so i don't know if the arrow in the eye hypothesis is challenged:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2DKtmNoiKg

25-03-2021 2:57pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

But that's the point, it hasn't been debunked - just questioned - and I see no problem with it being taught until there's some definitive proof otherwise.

In fairness, it’s a long time since I left school, but my immediate thoughts are that we were taught it as “legend has it that Harold was shot in the eye with an arrow”.

That could be because I’ve heard it discussed many times since though.

riffmongous · 25-03-2021 5:01pm

bullpost wrote: »

New book on World war 2 with Stalin , rather than hitler as chief architect:

https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-War-New-History-World/dp/1541672798

McMeekin also reveals the extent to which Soviet Communism was rescued by the US and Britain’s self-defeating strategic moves, beginning with Lend-Lease aid, as American and British supply boards agreed almost blindly to every Soviet demand. Stalin’s war machine, McMeekin shows, was substantially reliant on American materiél from warplanes, tanks, trucks, jeeps, motorcycles, fuel, ammunition, and explosives, to industrial inputs and technology transfer, to the foodstuffs which fed the Red Army.

This unreciprocated American generosity gave Stalin’s armies the mobile striking power to conquer most of Eurasia, from Berlin to Beijing, for Communism.

Lend-lease was self defeating.. don't even know what to say about that

saabsaab · 25-03-2021 6:25pm

riffmongous wrote: »

Lend-lease was self defeating.. don't even know what to say about that

Hard to say but Stalin wanted the Western powers to fight it out as he looked on from the sidelines. Didn't work out that way as we know. Russia would have probably collapsed without the help from USA and B E. If that happened It would be difficult for BE and the USA to stop Hitler.

rock22 · 27-03-2021 12:28pm

The Us sent about three times as much to Uk as they did to USSR. ($31.4b to $11.3b ).
While important, the USSR would not have been defeated by Hitler even without this aid.

However, without the USSR, the US might have used the atom bomb in Europe against Germany

Fritzbox · 27-03-2021 4:53pm

rock22 wrote: »

The Us sent about three times as much to Uk as they did to USSR. ($31.4b to $11.3b ).
While important, the USSR would not have been defeated by Hitler even without this aid.

However, without the USSR, the US might have used the atom bomb in Europe against Germany

That's hard to say. Without all those American trucks how would the Soviets have moved all those heavy artillery pieces and rocket launchers, hardly going to push them by hand?

saabsaab · 27-03-2021 5:15pm

Fritzbox wrote: »

That's hard to say. Without all those American trucks how would the Soviets have moved all those heavy artillery pieces and rocket launchers, hardly going to push them by hand?

True and in 1944 rations for the Russian troops came from the USA!
They were close to collapse in '42. Stalin considered making a deal with Hitler.

Conall Cernach · 27-03-2021 5:26pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The written accounts of the battle afterwards describe Harold being brutally hacked down by 4 knights. It’s widely accepted now that the tapestry is an early example of ‘fake news’.....a narrative that didn’t appears until 30 years after the battle (history is written by the victors). The normans romanticised his death as their position as the new rulers of England was so tenuous that it looked better if the loved Harold was killed by chance in a battle with a noble enemy than brutally cut to bits by swords.

You’re right that the current understanding of events might be wrong, and that the tapestry is the reliable source. And all of us want to believe the arrow story

But it’s interesting that the story is legend and even now it’s being taught as fact (my niece just learned it) despite having been debunked

On the Bayeux Tapestry itself there is a Saxon getting cut down by a mounted Norman right beside the guy who is shot in the eye. I have seen it conjectured that this is Harold getting killed as the Tapestry itself doesn't say "Harold gets shot in the eye" but "Harold is killed".

breezy1985 · 27-03-2021 6:53pm

Conall Cernach wrote: »

On the Bayeux Tapestry itself there is a Saxon getting cut down by a mounted Norman right beside the guy who is shot in the eye. I have seen it conjectured that this is Harold getting killed as the Tapestry itself doesn't say "Harold gets shot in the eye" but "Harold is killed".

That's the version I heard that there was a misinterpretation of who Harold is in the tapestry

Caquas · 27-03-2021 8:25pm

Vologda69 wrote: »

That Queen Victoria gave only £5 in Famine Relief in the 1840s.

An important example of historical myth which has a basis in Irish reality. It is factually incorrect - Victoria gave £2,000 from her personal funds - but she did not show real concern for the fate of the Irish people. As a constitutional monarch, there were strict limits on her powers but she had more political authority than the current Queen and Victoria wielded immense influence over public opinion in Britain, the Empire and the whole world. Her failure to adequately mobilise the British government or philantropic organisations played a major role in the catastrophe of the Great Famine. Here is a good account based on historical evidence.

https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/queen-victoria-irish-famine

Mick Tator · 28-03-2021 12:45am

Caquas wrote: »

An important example of historical myth which has a basis in Irish reality. It is factually incorrect - Victoria gave £2,000 from her personal funds - but she did not show real concern for the fate of the Irish people. As a constitutional monarch, there were strict limits on her powers but she had more political authority than the current Queen and Victoria wielded immense influence over public opinion in Britain, the Empire and the whole world. Her failure to adequately mobilise the British government or philantropic organisations played a major role in the catastrophe of the Great Famine. Here is a good account based on historical evidence.

https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/queen-victoria-irish-famine

Jesus. Irish Central as a source! Are you for real??

whisky_galore · 28-03-2021 4:13pm

Mick Tator wrote: »

Jesus. Irish Central as a source! Are you for real??

The site than thinks the Quiet Man is a documentary, of present day Ireland.

silliussoddius · 28-03-2021 6:18pm

Should be renamed: Irish Center of the universe

Edgware · 28-03-2021 6:37pm

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I was always confused by this, like where did he get the elephants? Surely it was a bigger task to get them to the alps in the first place..,

Probably escaped from Duffy's circus

Commonly believed historical inaccuracies

Comments