Commonly believed historical inaccuracies

patsman07 · 04-01-2021 5:57pm #1

I've often read that Padraig Pearse read the Proclamation "from the steps of the GPO." This always bugged me as I've walked past the building many times and there are no steps there. Images from 1916 show the same.

I know it's not important in the grand scheme of things but I thought it might be interesting to start a thread on similar inaccuracies.

Another example is when people quote Marx's statement that religion is "the opium of the people" to give the impression that religion kept people sedated&oppressed. The quote in context reveals a more sympathetic view of religion:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world,
and the soul of soulless conditions.
It is the opium of the people."

magicbastarder · 04-01-2021 5:58pm

the british cut down our lovely woodlands to build their navy.

happyoutscan · 04-01-2021 6:00pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

the british cut down our lovely woodlands to build their navy.

Never heard this one.

Notoldorwise · 04-01-2021 6:04pm

"Being born in a stable does not make one a horse". A quote falsely claimed to have been uttered by the Duke of Wellington

looksee · 04-01-2021 6:06pm

Vikings wore horned helmets - a great deal has been achieved in dispelling this one but not there yet.

tabbey · 04-01-2021 6:06pm

happyoutscan wrote: »

Never heard this one.

It was regularly trotted out when I was at school.

zerosugarbuzz · 04-01-2021 6:07pm

The whole moon landing fairy tale filmed by Stanley Kubrick

Be right back · 04-01-2021 6:08pm

That Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

mickuhaha · 04-01-2021 6:09pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

the british cut down our lovely woodlands to build their navy.

Wrong. They did it mainly for defence. When queen Elizabeth sent over a plantation the locals kept attacking and retreated to the forests. They decided if they could cut down the trees, they wouldnt have anywhere to hid and the British could finally catch them.

tabbey · 04-01-2021 6:10pm

Notoldorwise wrote: »

"Being born in a stable does not make one a horse". A quote falsely claimed to have been uttered by the Duke of Wellington

A lot of such quotes were actually from O'Connell, "to hell or to Connaught " being another.

04-01-2021 6:11pm

Be right back wrote: »

That Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

> conspiracy theories

storker · 04-01-2021 6:12pm

At the Battle of Waterloo the Prussians turned up near the end when it had already been won.

In WW2 it took five Sherman tanks to kill a Panther or Tiger.

Bellejelles · 04-01-2021 6:20pm

If you look at old photo of gpo there's a step from street just in front of pillers he probably stood under pillers

saabsaab · 04-01-2021 6:46pm

That the Irish Civil War was about the north of Ireland.

04-01-2021 6:51pm

happyoutscan wrote: »

Never heard this one.

Blindboy threw this line out on his podcast a few episodes back.

He's one of (maybe #1) the top streamed podcasts in the country, so...yea that line is still out there.

KevRossi · 04-01-2021 6:56pm

Columbus 'discovered' America.

He wasn't even the first European to do it. Generations of Vikings and possibly St Brendan and others were there before him.

Magellan was first to circumnavigate the globe. It was a Malay called Enrique who did it: https://www.history.com/news/was-magellan-the-first-person-to-circumnavigate-the-globe

ElJaguar · 04-01-2021 7:21pm

2 famous quotes

The Voltaire quote about freedom of speech "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

He never said it.

Also Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms (1521) "Here I stand. I can do no other."

There is no evidence he ever said it.

magicbastarder · 04-01-2021 7:34pm

mickuhaha wrote: »

Wrong. They did it mainly for defence. When queen Elizabeth sent over a plantation the locals kept attacking and retreated to the forests. They decided if they could cut down the trees, they wouldnt have anywhere to hid and the British could finally catch them.

still untrue. the greatest pressures probably came from land clearance for agriculture, firewood and charcoal, pit props, barrel staves etc.

mickuhaha · 04-01-2021 7:51pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

still untrue. the greatest pressures probably came from land clearance for agriculture, firewood and charcoal, pit props, barrel staves etc.

Well most of Munster was destroyed using scorched earth tactics by the British. I would guess I am more right than wrong.

magicbastarder · 04-01-2021 7:54pm

no mention of that here.
https://www.forestryservices.ie/history-of-forestry-in-ireland/

Notmything · 04-01-2021 8:02pm

Napoleon was a short arse.

The Irish were conscripted as cannon fodder in WWI. Well those in England were, but there was no conscription here.

These two were favourites of a college lecturer. I was studying social care so it was a stretch to see how they were relevant to the course.

Bassfish · 04-01-2021 8:31pm

Notmything wrote: »

Napoleon was a short arse.

The Irish were conscripted as cannon fodder in WWI. Well those in England were, but there was no conscription here.

These two were favourites of a college lecturer. I was studying social care so it was a stretch to see how they were relevant to the course.

Was this in Cork by any chance? If so, I know exactly who you're talking about

Mimon · 04-01-2021 8:33pm

Notmything wrote: »

Napoleon was a short arse.

The Irish were conscripted as cannon fodder in WWI.Well those in England were, but there was no conscription here.

These two were favourites of a college lecturer. I was studying social care so it was a stretch to see how they were relevant to the course.

Thought this is widely known.

Notmything · 04-01-2021 8:37pm

Bassfish wrote: »

Was this in Cork by any chance? If so, I know exactly who you're talking about

No, in Carlow.

Mimon wrote: »

Thought this is widely known.

Ive heard it a few times, although its usually in relation to what those dastardly Brits did to us.

Stihl waters · 04-01-2021 8:43pm

Hitler had only 1 ball

odyssey06 · 04-01-2021 8:46pm

The Irish are a Celtic race (genetically)

milehip · 04-01-2021 8:53pm

The American Civil War was fought to end slavery

04-01-2021 9:19pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

The Irish are a Celtic race (genetically)

The Irish are a stew of genes, same as any race.

Notmything · 04-01-2021 9:21pm

milehip wrote: »

The American Civil War was fought to end slavery

Oh go on, enlighten me

bfa1509 · 04-01-2021 9:33pm

US and Russia are enemies.

jelem · 04-01-2021 9:44pm

Notmything wrote: »

Oh go on, enlighten me

if genuine not flame it was to "avoid paying TAX".
the brits ruled and collected taxes which other european blow ins decided
they would not.
the "founding fathers" are in reality criminal tax dodgers whom started an armed
attack on the powers that be to avoid their duties - bit like take up weapons against
the irish government because you see them as corrupt thieves. todays label is
Terrorist.

Notmything · 04-01-2021 9:46pm

jelem wrote: »

if genuine not flame it was to "avoid paying TAX".
the brits ruled and collected taxes which other european blow ins decided
they would not.
the "founding fathers" are in reality criminal tax dodgers whom started an armed
attack on the powers that be to avoid their duties - bit like take up weapons against
the irish government because you see them as corrupt thieves. todays label is
Terrorist.

Yeah, I've no idea what you're talking about. Are you confusing the war of independence and the civil war?

04-01-2021 9:52pm

Notmything wrote: »

Oh go on, enlighten me

I'm not an expert but I think it was an issue of balance of power. There was an even balance between slave owning states and non slave owning states. But as the US expanded west and new states applied to join, each new state threatened to upset the balance of power as some wanted to be a slave state. This was the tinder that led to the war.

So it sounds like it's about slavery*, but like most civil wars it was just a power struggle.

There's probably more reasons, but like I said I'm no expert.

* I mean a noble crusade to end slavery

whisky_galore · 04-01-2021 9:52pm

patsman07 wrote: »

I've often read that Padraig Pearse read the Proclamation "from the steps of the GPO." This always bugged me as I've walked past the building many times and there are no steps there. Images from 1916 show the same.

That he signed or called himself "Padraig Pearse".

The Tans were supposed to be released jailbirds is another one.

odyssey06 · 04-01-2021 9:55pm

jelem wrote: »

if genuine not flame it was to "avoid paying TAX".
the brits ruled and collected taxes which other european blow ins decided
they would not.
the "founding fathers" are in reality criminal tax dodgers whom started an armed
attack on the powers that be to avoid their duties - bit like take up weapons against
the irish government because you see them as corrupt thieves. todays label is
Terrorist.

If you are talking about the American War of Independence I think most history books mention tax ... and no taxation without representation. The irony of slave owners rebelling in the name of freedom was remarked on at the time and subsequently.

odyssey06 · 04-01-2021 9:58pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not an expert but I think it was an issue of balance of power. There was an even balance between slave owning states and non slave owning states. But as the US expanded west and new states applied to join, each new state threatened to upset the balance of power as some wanted to be a slave state. This was the tinder that led to the war.
So it sounds like it's about slavery, but like most wars it was just a power struggle.
There's probably more reasons, but like I said I'm no expert.

I think you need to reread what you wrote ie slave state.

Without slavery as the dividing issue there would have been no war. Any other issue would have been resolved through the federal system ie tariffs, expansion, national bank, indian question.
It was not about power per se... it was about that power being deployed to protect, extend or contain slavery.

04-01-2021 10:01pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think you need to reread what you wrote ie slave state.

Without slavery as the dividing issue there would have been no war.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought the op about this meant that the civil war was to free slaves.

It absolutely was driven by the politics of slavery, but mostly to do with the balance of power, not some noble crusade.

Finty Lemon · 04-01-2021 10:06pm

1916 was a Sinn Fein rising.
They had no involvement and indeed were monarchists at that time.

milehip · 04-01-2021 10:06pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not an expert but I think it was an issue of balance of power. There was an even balance between slave owning states and non slave owning states. But as the US expanded west and new states applied to join, each new state threatened to upset the balance of power as some wanted to be a slave state. This was the tinder that led to the war.

So it sounds like it's about slavery, but like most civil wars it was just a power struggle.

There's probably more reasons, but like I said I'm no expert.

What this guy wrote.

Plus slavery didn't end at the armistice, sharecropping which followed was an ersatz form of slavery.

Check out Lucy Worsley show on it Amercian History Biggest Fibs from bbc. She explains how slavery basically still exists in the US.

odyssey06 · 04-01-2021 10:11pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought the op about this meant that the civil war was to free slaves.
It absolutely was driven by the politics of slavery, but mostly to do with the balance of power, not some noble crusade.

It wasnt fought to end slavery but it was fought to preserve the Union / Federal government which under Republicans was pledged to contain slavery (was that not a noble goal?) ... which the South viewed as ultimately leading to slaverys eventual extinction.
It was a struggle about whether the power of the Federal government would be deployed to protect and spread slavery or to contain and eventually extinguish it.

04-01-2021 10:15pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

It wasnt fought to end slavery but it was fought to preserve the Union / Federal government which under Republicans was pledged to contain slavery (was that not a noble goal?) ... which the South viewed as ultimately leading to slaverys eventual extinction.
It was a struggle about whether the power of the Federal government would be deployed to protect and spread slavery or to contain and eventually extinguish it.

I'd call it a noble side effect of the power struggle between the North and South. A convenient way to justify your actions, as many war victors have done throughout history. Remember Lincoln was under a lot of pressure in the early stages of that war, he needed everything justification he could get.

magicbastarder · 04-01-2021 10:24pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought the op about this meant that the civil war was to free slaves.

but the op on this topic then seems to be confused about which war he's talking about. he mentioned the civil war and then seemed to think the civil war was with the british over tax.
so yes, he's 100% correct that the war with the british was not about slavery, as that's a different war entirely.

04-01-2021 10:30pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

but the op on this topic then seems to be confused about which war he's talking about. he mentioned the civil war and then seemed to think the civil war was with the british over tax.
so yes, he's 100% correct that the war with the british was not about slavery, as that's a different war entirely.

No, you're confusing two posters as one.

odyssey06 · 04-01-2021 10:33pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd call it a noble side effect of the power struggle between the North and South. A convenient way to justify your actions, as many war victors have done throughout history. Remember Lincoln was under a lot of pressure in the early stages of that war, he needed everything justification he could get.

He wasnt under pressure on tariffs or railroads or banks or taxes ... he was under pressure because the South seceded on the election on Northern votes alone of a President committed to contain slavery. Not for any other political issue on which there were regional disagreements.

Slavery was the wedge between the North and South. No slavery in the South, no anti-slavery in the North... no war.
Without slavery political compromises would have been found, coalitions across regional lines - as had been the case for previous 50 years.

It was the ultimate cause of the war not a pretext or fig leaf for it.

Bellejelles · 04-01-2021 10:33pm

The winners write history

04-01-2021 10:35pm

Bellejelles wrote: »

The winners write history

Tell that to Carthage.

04-01-2021 10:36pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

He wasnt under pressure on tariffs or railroads or banks or taxes ... he was under pressure because the South seceded on the election on Northern votes alone of a President committed to contain slavery. Not for any other political issue on which there were regional disagreements.

Slavery was the wedge between the North and South. No slavery in the South, no anti-slavery in the North... no war.
It was the ultimate cause of the war not a pretext or fig leaf for it.

Ok, you're just debating with yourself here. My point has already been made.

odyssey06 · 04-01-2021 10:36pm

Bellejelles wrote: »

The winners write history

Historians write history.
They are not always from the winning side.

Mr.Nice Guy · 04-01-2021 10:50pm

Tim Pat Coogan's quote at the end of the Michael Collins movie where de Valera supposedly said Collins' greatness would be recorded at his expense. A quote that has been queried by numerous historians. This was Coogan's response to Mansergh about it:

The statement involving Joe McGrath that Dr Mansergh challenges was de Valera's rejection in 1966, of a suggestion by McGrath that he become a patron of a Michael Collins Foundation, which would provide deserving students with an education. The foundation suggestion originated from Johnny Collins, Michael's brother, who felt that scholarships would be a more fitting tribute to his brother's memory than McGrath's initial proposal, which had been to erect, at his own expense, a memorial to Collins at Sam's Cross in west Cork.

Johnny's son, the late Michael Collins, a prominent businessman and a chartered accountant, was involved in and supportive of the foundation, as were Michael's brothers, the late Col Pat Collins and Liam Collins of Clonakilty, one of Cork's leading solicitors, also deceased. I knew all three, Michael Collins since our days together in Blackrock, and I would rate them as being among the most honourable men I have ever encountered.

Michael first, and subsequently the other two, told me that when Joe McGrath, who was dying at the time, put the foundation proposal to de Valera he replied: "I can't see my way to becoming patron of the Michael Collins Foundation. It's my considered opinion that in the fullness of time, history will record the greatness of Collins and it will be recorded at my expense". McGrath formally conveyed this response to Michael Collins in his capacity as an administrator of the foundation fund.

Dr Mansergh now asks how can we be sure that those words are exact? If he had raised that question 15 years ago when my book was first published, I can assure him the Collins brothers would have given him his answer.

Hearsay that has come to be taken as fact. The Michael Collins movie in general can be filed under historically inaccurate tosh. De Valera didn't want Collins killed and argued against that action being taken. RTE's John Creedon did a good documentary on it a few years back.

riffmongous · 04-01-2021 10:51pm

Mod: deleted a few non-history posts.

I know this is a soft thread, but if people want to really discuss a point then it's time to start adding sources.

magicbastarder · 04-01-2021 11:22pm

mickuhaha wrote: »

Well most of Munster was destroyed using scorched earth tactics by the British. I would guess I am more right than wrong.

from 'reading the irish landscape' by mitchell and ryan:

Commonly believed historical inaccuracies

Comments