How accurate do you think History really is?

[Stravo]

When you see the apologists for various religions, political parties, corporate interests and nationalities at work today in our mass media saturated world and begin to see how certain events can be twisted by concerted attacks like say the way the War in Iraq is desperately trying to be woven as a crusade to free the people of Iraq when everyone who was paying attention back then knows damn well we went in there out of a fear of WMD's you have to wonder - what other agendas may have twisted history to the point where we may not be getting the 'true' story.

For instance the Punic Wars are told almost primarily from a Roman POV. What if the Carthaginians were actually relatively cool people and they were forced into a corner to fight against Rome or Rome was a far bloodier and brutal enemy than let on in the histories. We will never know now.

Primary sources for history themselves can easily be tainted by prejudice and agendas and being that they are primary sources they form the foundation for any analysis of history.

Granted in the modern age with video, film, recordings, etc it is much much harder to rewrite history so to speak but I'm thinking of ancient and medieval texts where we are at the mercy of whatever the writer, artists, historian, theologian was trying to push in his commentary or narrative.

Are we getting a full picture of historical events? Are we proceeding from false assumptions when we look back upon our history? Or do you think modern historians can decipher some of the clues that might bring out a better picture of what actually happened?

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

"History is made by the victor."

All in all, whatever we know of the past is probably far more tainted and unreal than we could imagine it. The Catholic Church in its early days selectively decided, based merely on their own prejudicial judgements, what gospels would make it into their HOLY BOOK, the central tenets of their faith. And billions today still swear by that book.

Considering as you said how easily information is twisted even today, with almost anyone who is willing able to offer their opinion, the amount that could have been fraudulently claimed in the past seems staggering. We know now that the case for the Spanish-American Wars, based on the destruction of the U.S.S. Maine, may have been entirely constructed from thin air by the media. And that was only a century and a half past.

I imagine that the Carthaginians could have been green-skinned hippies who rode elk from place to place and greeted the Romans with lollipops, and it wouldn't have made a wit of diefference to our historical documentation of them.

[Zero]

I don't believe that anything I've ever read in a history book probably occurred as it was taught to me. Things are excluded or forgotten, or simply hidden. I think that the events outlines probably happened, in some way or form, but I doubt it was the way the history books state it, and I'm almost certain that we don't know all the motivations.

But this is just sort of a personal oppinion. I won't claim to be any sort of expert on anything, and I don't think I could justify my position with facts of any kind.

[Lord Zentei]

"History is made by the victor."

All in all, whatever we know of the past is probably far more tainted and unreal than we could imagine it. The Catholic Church in its early days selectively decided, based merely on their own prejudicial judgements, what gospels would make it into their HOLY BOOK, the central tenets of their faith. And billions today still swear by that book.

Considering as you said how easily information is twisted even today, with almost anyone who is willing able to offer their opinion, the amount that could have been fraudulently claimed in the past seems staggering. We know now that the case for the Spanish-American Wars, based on the destruction of the U.S.S. Maine, may have been entirely constructed from thin air by the media. And that was only a century and a half past.

I imagine that the Carthaginians could have been green-skinned hippies who rode elk from place to place and greeted the Romans with lollipops, and it wouldn't have made a wit of diefference to our historical documentation of them.

Modern history is based on rational scrutiny of objectively verifyable evidence, with peer review. It is not as far off as all that.

The way information is twisted today is mostly in the media, which is not by a long shot what descides what ultimately goes into the history books (except as sources of evidence to be scrutinized). For instance, how would the Romans prevent modern historians from re-analyzing ancient evidence, and piecing it together with archaeological studies?

To be sure, there is much room for controversy, but historians tend to be careful about that sort of thing, more nowadays than, well, historically.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

What evidence would be left over? That of the conquerors. Archeological evidence dturdy enough to be preserved for us will come from the civilization which dominated and assimilated the other one. Architecture, culture, and history would be replaced.

We simply don't have the vidence required that comes from Hannibal's ancestors, or the gallic shamans of old, or the Toltec civilizations. We have a distorted view of evidence because evidence is all manufactured by others.

[Lord Zentei]

What evidence would be left over? That of the conquerors. Archeological evidence dturdy enough to be preserved for us will come from the civilization which dominated and assimilated the other one. Architecture, culture, and history would be replaced.

Bullshit. Ancient relics of defeated civilizations do indeed exist. Moreover and more importantly, not all records were ordained by a single authority in any place or time.

We simply don't have the vidence required that comes from Hannibal's ancestors, or the gallic shamans of old, or the Toltec civilizations. We have a distorted view of evidence because evidence is all manufactured by others.

Wow, and all records are manufactured to deceive? It's not as though the people of ancient times had anything better to do than pull wool over their descendant's eyes, is there?

[Elfdart]

One of the characters in a Jane Austen novel said it best:
"One would think history would be more interesting since so much of it is made up."

Or as Henry Ford said:
"History is bunk."

[Lord Zentei]

Or as Henry Ford said:
"History is bunk."

Ford is history.

[CarsonPalmer]

History quickly replied "Ford is bunk." Realistically, our perception of anything within the last 300-400 years is very accurate, and beyond that is generally accurate. Our records on the Crusades tend to be detailed and honest, and the records of the Romans are relatively intact.

[Stark]

Ridiculous. Much of even Roman Republican history is reassembled from disparate, broken sources. Before that it's even MORE vague, with far too much guessing involved to be more certain beyond 'around this time something like this happened'.

Blame the fire of Alexandria.

[CarsonPalmer]

But sketchy is not inaccurate. Inaccurate would be something along the lines of getting the wrong picture, which in a way is worse then not having a picture at all.

[Lusankya]

If you want to look at how horribly history can be mangled, look at the case of Richard III.

Cotemporary accounts of him describe him as being handsome and a brave fighter in battle, who wielded a waraxe - not an easy weapon to wield - and he was very popular in England's north where he spent most of his time before he became king. He also spent a lot of effort campaigning to stop Edward IV from killing their brother Clarence, and barely spoke to the King after Clarence's death.

Yet in the months following his death, he suddenly became a horrible hunchback who was directly responsible for the deaths of most of his family. who oppressed the people... rah rah rah. I'm certain you know the propaganda.

This was the man who invented the first system of bail, decreed that all English laws should be written in English and was the only noble not to be bribed by the king of France on King Edward's short-lived campaign. (It was short-lived because the English were bribed into going home.)


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

[Ypoknons]

For instance the Punic Wars are told almost primarily from a Roman POV. What if the Carthaginians were actually relatively cool people and they were forced into a corner to fight against Rome or Rome was a far bloodier and brutal enemy than let on in the histories. We will never know now.

Yet there are facts that made us wonder. Hannibal overrun much of the Roman army, this the Romans admit - and yet only parts of Italy, and Capua being one of the big ones I can remember, defected to the Carthaginians, but so nevertheless major cities were few. If the Carthaginian were morally superior, and could offer some superior government, we should have seen more deflections from people so recently brought in the Roman fold. We could make the arguement, of course, that in histories the Romans were much stronger than they said and that they were simply hesitant against Hannibal, but that would require burden of proof. So we can makes guesses, that is for sure, and that history is not perfect, we in many cases we really can get a good picture of what's going on, at least in this example.

[CmdrWilkens]

History requires sorces but modern historians are much akin to scientists in terms of their skepticism as to how honest the victors would tell the tale. They look for evidence which cannot be faked in terms of excavated equipment deliniating locations of battles and corroboration from multiple sources to piece together a picture of what most likely happened. The immediate histories of the past have tended to be just as tainted as out 24/7 news media is but we can account for that by looking at the next generation of works on an event and comparing the two to try and seperate the wheat from the chaff. It isn't perfect but it gives a close enough approximation.

[Stark]

But sketchy is not inaccurate. Inaccurate would be something along the lines of getting the wrong picture, which in a way is worse then not having a picture at all.

Perhaps this is true in a single case, or a few cases: however, the thousands of holes in our knowledge about various points of law, government, culture and technology leave plenty of room for us to be totally wrong about a great many things.

[Lord Zentei]

But sketchy is not inaccurate. Inaccurate would be something along the lines of getting the wrong picture, which in a way is worse then not having a picture at all.

Perhaps this is true in a single case, or a few cases: however, the thousands of holes in our knowledge about various points of law, government, culture and technology leave plenty of room for us to be totally wrong about a great many things.

So what? You are insinuating that we have room to be wrong on many things => we must be getting the wrong overall picture which is an incredibly retarded position. The sources we have received arrive from numerous independant sources; these are analyzed in tandem and scrutinized in conjunction with archaeology. Or did you think that we took the ancients on their word? For an example of how this works, look no further than Rye's bitchslapping of EmperorSolo51 in the "Is Satan a God" thread. Modern analysis of ancient sources is more accurate than before, thanks to information technology and the ability to contrast and compare sources that would otherwise have been isolated and inaccessible to a single group of researchers. When you claim that we cannot know enough of the past to get an accurate overall picture, you are arguing from ignorance.

[Stark]

Fuck off. I'm pointing out that there is space in between sources - and in grey areas created by the dubious reliability of most sources - for conclusions other than those we hold. I'm *not* arguing LOLZ MARIUS WAS AN IMMORTAL EGYPTIAN. There are many specific pieces of information about the past that we will never, ever have, and many more we will only have by inference. Or are you insinuating that we have accurate information about everything ever?

[Lord Zentei]

For instance the Punic Wars are told almost primarily from a Roman POV. What if the Carthaginians were actually relatively cool people and they were forced into a corner to fight against Rome or Rome was a far bloodier and brutal enemy than let on in the histories. We will never know now.

Funnily enough, a modern reading will reveal more or less precisely that: the Romans essentially forced the Carthagians into a corner and were pretty damn bloody: the Carthagians were summarily exterminated and the survivors sold into slavery - a nation "disappeared". Note that the Carthagians were by no means saints, but neither were the Romans.

As for forms of government: the Italian cities had become so firmly alliied with Rome that they did not defect to Hannibal; the Romans had essentially succeeded in creating a nation-state. Carthage, on the other hand had not succeeded in doing so, and failed to appreciate what exactly that meant in terms of capturing territory.

If you want to look at how horribly history can be mangled, look at the case of Richard III.

Cotemporary accounts of him describe him as being handsome and a brave fighter in battle, who wielded a waraxe - not an easy weapon to wield - and he was very popular in England's north where he spent most of his time before he became king. He also spent a lot of effort campaigning to stop Edward IV from killing their brother Clarence, and barely spoke to the King after Clarence's death.

Yet in the months following his death, he suddenly became a horrible hunchback who was directly responsible for the deaths of most of his family. who oppressed the people... rah rah rah. I'm certain you know the propaganda.

This was the man who invented the first system of bail, decreed that all English laws should be written in English and was the only noble not to be bribed by the king of France on King Edward's short-lived campaign. (It was short-lived because the English were bribed into going home.)

All of which happens to vindicate modern historic research rather than disparage it. What exactly are you trying to prove with this?

[TrailerParkJawa]

I saw a fascinating program on National Geographic about the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. After the quake the mayor and his supporters created a large spin campaign to downplay the effects of the quake. They under reported the number of dead, they touched up photos, and focused more on the fire (which was an accepted urban risk).

Only recentliy have I heard that over 3000 people died in the quake. When I was a kid I remember the toll being 700 or so. So not all history is correct or even close.

[Lord Zentei]

I saw a fascinating program on National Geographic about the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. After the quake the mayor and his supporters created a large spin campaign to downplay the effects of the quake. They under reported the number of dead, they touched up photos, and focused more on the fire (which was an accepted urban risk).

Only recentliy have I heard that over 3000 people died in the quake. When I was a kid I remember the toll being 700 or so. So not all history is correct or even close.

Once again, someone confuses media news spin with historical research. What is so fucking hard to figure out about this distinction? Moreover, the truth was eventually revealed.

Anecdotes of this kind have nothing to do with our ability to build a coherent overall picture of past events.

[Lusankya]

If you want to look at how horribly history can be mangled, look at the case of Richard III.

Cotemporary accounts of him describe him as being handsome and a brave fighter in battle, who wielded a waraxe - not an easy weapon to wield - and he was very popular in England's north where he spent most of his time before he became king. He also spent a lot of effort campaigning to stop Edward IV from killing their brother Clarence, and barely spoke to the King after Clarence's death.

Yet in the months following his death, he suddenly became a horrible hunchback who was directly responsible for the deaths of most of his family. who oppressed the people... rah rah rah. I'm certain you know the propaganda.

This was the man who invented the first system of bail, decreed that all English laws should be written in English and was the only noble not to be bribed by the king of France on King Edward's short-lived campaign. (It was short-lived because the English were bribed into going home.)

All of which happens to vindicate modern historic research rather than disparage it. What exactly are you trying to prove with this?

I was attempting to show how unreliable sources could be when looking for historical data:

Are we getting a full picture of historical events? Are we proceeding from false assumptions when we look back upon our history? Or do you think modern historians can decipher some of the clues that might bring out a better picture of what actually happened?

Please note how the thread is not in its entirity about vindicating modern research, but was asking about the view that we were getting of historical events? Yeah. Use that grey piece of goo in your skull before you go mindlessly calling things irrelevant. I'm not writing for the idiot brigade. I'm assuming that you all have the ability to read what I wrote and think, 'Ooh yes! This is one horribly obvious case of when most people lack even a vaguely truthful recounting of history.'

I believe that my point is that it's one case in which we're not merely getting a partial understanding of events from the most commonly used sources: we're getting a complete fiction invented by Tudor revisionists. The most 'comprehensive' account of Richard's reign was Thomas More's history, which paints Richard III to be a villain of meladromatic proportions.

Modern historians may be able to find evidence that contradicts the version that was commonly accepted for 500 years, but given that almost all sources were either written in Tudor times or edited by the Tudors. Even Richard III's portrait was edited later on to portray him as a hunchback. Still, given the blatant bias in most of the historical sources of the time, a historian has very little to work on when reconstructing data. No matter how good the tools or techniques a historian uses, in the end they're limited by the raw data they can find. This is especially true in the case of events and personages (as opposed to lifestyles). The only advantage that a modern historian has over the mediaeval chronicler is that they exist outside the politics of the time.


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

[weemadando]

"History is made by the victor."

Correction. History is made by the literate.

[Lord Zentei]

All of which happens to vindicate modern historic research rather than disparage it. What exactly are you trying to prove with this?

I was attempting to show how unreliable sources could be when looking for historical data.

Which is meaningless, since history is the science of analyzing the data in a rigorous manner. Attempting to evaluate the reliability of sources without considering the reliability of the discipline that is intended to do so is complete nonsense. You might as well try and claim that fossil evidence is "unreliable" without taking into account the analytical methods used by paleontologists.

Are we getting a full picture of historical events? Are we proceeding from false assumptions when we look back upon our history? Or do you think modern historians can decipher some of the clues that might bring out a better picture of what actually happened?

Please note how the thread is not in its entirity about vindicating modern research, but was asking about the view that we were getting of historical events? Yeah. Use that grey piece of goo in your skull before you go mindlessly calling things irrelevant. I'm not writing for the idiot brigade. I'm assuming that you all have the ability to read what I wrote and think, 'Ooh yes! This is one horribly obvious case of when most people lack even a vaguely truthful recounting of history.'

The view we get of historical events cannot be segregated from the methodology used to analyze the evidence for them. If you try to do so, you are takling about chronicles, not history.

I believe that my point is that it's one case in which we're not merely getting a partial understanding of events from the most commonly used sources: we're getting a complete fiction invented by Tudor revisionists. The most 'comprehensive' account of Richard's reign was Thomas More's history, which paints Richard III to be a villain of meladromatic proportions.

So specific sources are unreliable of you take them at face value. Wow, what a revelation. They are not to be taken directly as sources of the things they describe, but of the political attitudes of the people who wrote them. As such, they are damned accurate.

Modern historians may be able to find evidence that contradicts the version that was commonly accepted for 500 years, but given that almost all sources were either written in Tudor times or edited by the Tudors. Even Richard III's portrait was edited later on to portray him as a hunchback. Still, given the blatant bias in most of the historical sources of the time, a historian has very little to work on when reconstructing data. No matter how good the tools or techniques a historian uses, in the end they're limited by the raw data they can find. This is especially true in the case of events and personages (as opposed to lifestyles). The only advantage that a modern historian has over the mediaeval chronicler is that they exist outside the politics of the time.

Nonsense. He also has the advantage of being able to view the sources he has in the context of sources from the times immediately following the events in question, as well as sources from neighbouring regions, all these to be analyzed with archaeology, with modern forensics and data search methods.

[thejester]

When you see the apologists for various religions, political parties, corporate interests and nationalities at work today in our mass media saturated world and begin to see how certain events can be twisted by concerted attacks like say the way the War in Iraq is desperately trying to be woven as a crusade to free the people of Iraq when everyone who was paying attention back then knows damn well we went in there out of a fear of WMD's you have to wonder - what other agendas may have twisted history to the point where we may not be getting the 'true' story.

For instance the Punic Wars are told almost primarily from a Roman POV. What if the Carthaginians were actually relatively cool people and they were forced into a corner to fight against Rome or Rome was a far bloodier and brutal enemy than let on in the histories. We will never know now.

Primary sources for history themselves can easily be tainted by prejudice and agendas and being that they are primary sources they form the foundation for any analysis of history.

Granted in the modern age with video, film, recordings, etc it is much much harder to rewrite history so to speak but I'm thinking of ancient and medieval texts where we are at the mercy of whatever the writer, artists, historian, theologian was trying to push in his commentary or narrative.

Are we getting a full picture of historical events? Are we proceeding from false assumptions when we look back upon our history? Or do you think modern historians can decipher some of the clues that might bring out a better picture of what actually happened?

Any study of histiography will reveal that there's a constant battle between historians over the 'true story'. Postmodernists will argue that there's no such thing; traditionalists will argue that there is and ultimately a historian is striving to achieve it. I fall somewhere in between; I think the mere fact we are humans means biases will always creep into our work and so obtaining 'the truth' is impossible; but a good historian should always strive as much as possible to eliminate those biases. But to address your example, any historian worth his salt would acknowledge the deficiency of Carthaginian sources when writing a history of the Punic Wars, and acknowledge the likely biases of the sources they use.

Having said that, it's also important to acknowledge what role history has in society. Societies will interpret history in accordance with their own views, sometimes blatantly but more often subtely. It's interesting that in the Australian media the story of Gallipoli or the First World War in general is labelled 'the ANZAC story/legend/myth' yet then portrayed as fact. Despite a mass of work that deflates the ideas that the Australians were uber-soldiers of doom, that they were all resourceful bushmen, etc etc, the myth of ANZAC is perpetuated because the general public wants to hear it. The Australian people are defined by it - or at least, they define thesmelves by a certain view of it.

[Lusankya]

All of which happens to vindicate modern historic research rather than disparage it. What exactly are you trying to prove with this?

I was attempting to show how unreliable sources could be when looking for historical data.

Which is meaningless, since history is the science of analyzing the data in a rigorous manner. Attempting to evaluate the reliability of sources without considering the reliability of the discipline that is intended to do so is complete nonsense. You might as well try and claim that fossil evidence is "unreliable" without taking into account the analytical methods used by paleontologists.

Fossil evidence is actually more reliable than many historical documents because they don't contain out and out lies.


You're really missing the point. Perhaps you know nothing about late Mediaevel English history, but I was referring to a large body of fabricated evidence that has been taught as fact for over 500 years, and probably will continue to be taught as fact in most future historical textbooks. You're trying to turn my claim that commonly accepted historical stories may actually be based on lies. Now, since you obviously don't have two brain cells to rub together, I'll try to explain it simply for you.

Most people 'know' that Richard III was a villainous hunchback who terrorised England until good ol' Henry Tudor saved the day.

However, analysis of the historical evidence outside of the political situation after Richard III's death reveals much of the Tudor documentation to be unsubstantiated propaganda.

Sadly, most records of the period are Tudor ones.

And the Tudor version of events is still the most common one taught in schools.

THEREFORE: 'History' as most people know it is actually wildly different from the facts.


I could have used a different example, however this is one of the more extreme cases, making it obvious and thus good to use as an example, and it also happens to be the area of history that I know the most about, and thus feel the most qualified to speak about.


Now, where in that does it mention modern historical methods? Or am I simply saying that the history that most people think to be true may actually be a lie? Now, stop trying to pretend that I'm arguing about something that I didn't even mention. Jerk.


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!