Popular Falsities in History

This prevails in India, Afghans, along with Nepalis. They say nobody has ever been anle to rule them. True to some extent, but very relative.Nepal is off curse too insignificant ot the world politics, but Afghanistan is certianly one of the centres of world politics. 

Here is one:

Mendeleev made the periodicle table of elements.

I read that another scientist (i can remember his name) made that table before mendeleev but he couldn't explane how he made it and how he arranged the elements.

Originally posted by Desimir Here is one: Mendeleev made the periodicle table of elements. I read that another scientist (i can remember his name) made that table before mendeleev but he couldn't explane how he made it and how he arranged the elements.

Originally posted by Yiannis Originally posted by Sparten   That the Greeks were the first democracy. First of all they were hardly a democracy as we beleive it today. It was probably more correct to call it a representative form of government. And it existed in India and Sumeria ot to mention ancient tribal groups long before.      Dear Sparten, this is not a falsity, it is the truth. It was far more than a representative form of government.   It's true that it included a limited number of people (free, male and property holders) but this was the case in many democracies till very recently.   Taking Greek Democracy in the context of it's era, it was a rather extraordinary experiment that was extraordinarily successful. It ensured isonomy, equality, civil rights, public courts and joudges, the right to elect and be elected to office and the right to have private property and bear arms to protect the motherland. In that frame it was pretty much exactly what democracy ir today, in principle, and a bit more because it was "direct" Democracy.   It was a system that was not imposed by someone who has invented it or because the Greeks were so great or something but rather evolved from the social-economical circumstances at this specific time at this specific place on earth over a period of centuries and was not at it's height untill after the battle of Salamis, when even the lowest classes of Athenians obtained the same rights as the rich ones.

Sure, but I qualified it with "modern sence". Also democracy worked a lot better with a city state like Athens in ancient times, rather than in empires or countries. Hiw long did Greek remain a democracy after Alexander?

The Sumerian City States were democratic, until the empires came along.

You agreed with me. Twice in one month? Feeling all right Vivek?

Originally posted by Sparten You agreed with me. Twice in one month? Feeling all right Vivek?

But for your misconception, I always fight for the truth. I say always because I am not a practising lawyer. I did  my law degree merely to add another para to the CV.

Now that telde is not around these days, you can expect more agreement because his ingenious theories had to be countered by equally logical replies.

It's pretty funny that people say that Christ wasn't a Christian.

That's like saying Mohammed wasn't a Muslim, nor Buddha a Buddhist, or Confucius a Confucian.

Pretty ridiculous, in fact. There is the crackpot theory that Paul invented Christianity, but if any of these people actually bothered to read the Bible, and compare what Paul said and what Y'shua/Iesus/Jesus said, they would find that they taught the exact same things.

There are plenty of historical myths surrounding the American Civil War. (and if the name depresses you, and you think it should be called the War Between the States, perhaps we ought to go back to what it was originally called by the victors -- the Rebellion, or sometimes the Southern Insurrection.)

A sampler:

Britain was going to intervene on the side of the Confederacy, but then they lost Antietam, which would have been their Saratoga had they won. (Nothing further from the truth. The British government was going to try to open talks between the two countries, and after Antietam they saw that the Union would destroy the Confederacy and they had no need to try to play peacemaker. If they would have intervened militarily for anybody, they would have done it for the Union, considering how much the rest of the world detested slavery.)

If McClellan had won the 1864 election, the North would have made peace. (In fact, McClellan's only terms for peace were reuniting while keeping slavery, and Davis' only terms were complete independence. Further, Lincoln had formulated a plan in which should he lose, he would destroy the Confederacy before the inauguration, which, as you recall, was a month and a half later in those days. Sherman was to abandon Georgia and march as fast as he could towards Virginia, and catch Lee in a pincer while Grant held him down.)

The Southern states seceded because of state's rights. (They seceded because of slavery. "Whoever dares to say otherwise understands nothing about history!" -The Song of Roland)

The Southern soldiers fought because they wanted to defend slavery. (They fought because they felt the South was being invaded, or, more likely, because they were conscripted.)

Joe Johnston was a master of defensive warfare. (He was horribly incompetent, not possessing the moral courage to give battle for fear that he would lose and thus have his reputation tarnished.)

Sherman's soldiers raped and murdered. (They limited themselves to burning and looting.)

Grant was much stupider than Lee and only won because he had more men and materiel. (Of all the generals in the Union Army, Grant was the most similar to Lee, and of all the conventional generals i.e. excluding Sherman, the most competent.)

Sherman hated blacks. (He made several indiscreet comments, but in general wrote of slaves as the betters of those who owned them.)

The North started the war. (The South did, not by firing on Fort Sumter but by taking other Federal forts which belonged to the national government and were paid for by all taxpayers.)

If Stonewall Jackson had lived, the South would have won. (The South never had a fighting chance. By the time Jackson was dead, all Southern ports were captured or under siege, the population was starving, and a good portion of the Southern manhood killed. Lee was genius enough to prolong the war for four years, but not to win. Nobody could have won the Civil War for the South.)

If Lee had won Antietam/Gettysburg, the North would have seen the South at their doorstep and asked for terms. (Rather, Lee made horrible blunders each time he ventured into Northern territory. Wars of aggression are much more difficult than wars of defense -- Zizka's genius is shown that he did not try to attack beyond Bohemia, and it was only once Prokop and Prokupek began their 'beautiful rides' that the Hussites faced their first serious defeats. When Lee invaded the North, he overextended his supply lines and raised Northern ire to near the level the South's was when it was 'invaded'. Rather than weakening the cause of the Union by invading, he strengthened it.)

Robert E. Lee did not own slaves. (He both owned them and beat them personally.)

U.S. Grant owned slaves. (He inherited them from a father-in-law at a time when he was under financial duress, and set them free.)

Lincoln trampled the rights of individuals every which way while the Confederates upheld the original form of the Constitution. (People who claim this are usually very unaware that the Confederacy rescinded the freedom of the press nearly as soon as the Civil War started. Full knowledge of the defeats that Union armies and navies were inflicting on the Confederacy would have crushed morale.)

The South could have won if A.S. Johnston had lived through Shiloh. (A myth started soon after the Civil War to perpetuate the tale of the "Lost Cause", claiming that the South was not crushed and annihilated by Northern superiority but rather was defeated by chance here and there. Johnston was not superior to Grant or Sherman, possibly not even Thomas, though granted he was the second best of the eight Confederate generals -- not saying much! Lee was the only Washington of the bunch, and he did not have anybody to play the role of Greene -- not even Gates.)

As I like to say, Davis was no Washington, and Lee was no ben Gurion.

There are infinitely many more myths that "sons of the South" have set up to justify their cause. I could go on at much more length. It disgusts me the way these people play with the facts of history.

Regards.


Edited by Timotheus - 30-Sep-2006 at 21:30

He should have listened to Longstreet's suggestion, that is to let the Union forces attack and I clearly doubt that Lee would lose this batle then. Also, I truly don't see your logic in "cutting the supply line" and how exactly a charge over a 1,200 meters stretch (open field, in a clear view of the enemy) of a smaller force ~ 12,500 vs. 18,000 - 22, 000 people in the Union center is the "only realistic hope"? Lee was provoked by the Southern newspapers calling him the Ace of Spades and he pretty much messed it up with the first two days of battle (ABOVE ALL, by not heeding to Longstreet's advice). I think we all know that South was kicking some serious butt when they were fighting the defensive battles, so the incursion into Pennsilvania was a mistake in itself (many historians claim that the mood in Union was such that they were willing to give up on the cause only if South maintained its defensive approach for another month or two. Ever heard of Copperheads?)

For the poster above you, I also think that Grant was an extremely clever general and knew what he was doing. As for the Sherman's March, I am not so sure about the lack of raping + murdering (I have read one too many Civil War magazines to forget about some letters and articles that explicitly deal with this matter). I will not go into the exact cause of the war, but, yes, South did start the war (physically -  by the attack on Fort Sumter, Apr. 1861).

Tainos become extincted !!! Spaniards exterminated them.

Edited by pinguin - 15-Jan-2007 at 22:17

Originally posted by Ikki The lords of the Middle Ages had the right of the "Prima nocte"