History is fake.

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
3,978
Portugal
#41
Too much '' gobbledygook..',, imo.

bottomline is..., 'religious books are not viable historical source or records.., as its timeline itself is its main problem...''

Complex historical source as in religious book translates to being 'problematic and unreliable..'

plain and simple.
sharing this video/link..., and your opinion.
Don’t know what is “gobbledygook”, but if you mean non-intelligible, you should improve your reading skills. They are fundamental to the study of history.

And, to be “plain and simple” you should also read a history book and forget the pseudo-history stuff that you see in the internet, if you really like to learn about history.

If you want to look for sources don’t expect full reliability. Or avoid them if your reading skills are low to the point that you didn’t understand my first post. But recall that all, all sources should be analysed and must be submitted to the historical method, not just the religious ones or the ones with simpler language.
 
Aug 2014
478
Crete
#43
History must be described with constant reference to the original sources. We know this from those sources and each one is that much reliable because of those reasons... and so on, statement by statement, together with common sense, history must be described that way or can be misleading and completely false, depending on the ethnicity and the purpose of the historian, Nothing should be taken for granted unless you have all the sides and check the original sources and their reliability.
 
Mar 2017
766
Colorado
#44
From 2009 to 2013, there were a variety of news articles announcing the discovery of the tomb of Cleopatra VII's (THAT Cleopatra) sister Arsinoe, in Ephesus. I assumed they knew what they were doing. There are lots of reports. I just found out how they identified her.

There's no royal insignia or carvings or anything. It's all done by circumstantial evidence (multiple YouTube videos):
1) Only 4 other burials occurred within the city and they were important MEN.
2) The tomb had a structure above it ... maybe a small temple or shrine that was quite fancy.
3) There's nothing fancy inside the tomb, but the masonry is quite good ... they put a lot of effort into it.
4) It's in an octagonal shape ... just like the MIDDLE course of the Pharos lighthouse (not the whole lighthouse, just the middle) ... an "obvious" connection to Alexandria
5) The skeleton is of a 13-18 yr old girl ... Cleopatra met Caesar when she was 18, and her younger sister was in this time period
6) Arsinoe was exiled to Ephesus (after taking the throne during the civil war in Alexandria that Caesar finished) and Cassius Dio says Marc Antony had her killed there.

Except it can't possibly be her. Apparently, neither the BBC or the involved archaeologists or any newspaper writers can READ ... or even ADD.

Cleopatra met Caesar when she was 21, which would make Arsinoe 20. Cleopatra didn't meet Marc Antony until she was 28, so if Marc Antony had Arsinoe killed immediately, she would have been 27.

Frankly, even this is stretching it. Look up any birth/death dates for Arsinoe IV and you will see 41 BCE. I don't think anyone really knows and they use Cassius Dio + the earliest Cleopatra:Antony date for her death. It would only make sense that the Cleopatra:Antony political/romantic liason took a couple of years to be established, before Cleopatra could have asked Antony to execute a member of Egyptian royalty. I'm beginning to wonder if the basic story is true. I've only seen it in Cassius Dio. If no other historian mentions it, it falls into 'rumor'.

All of this leads up to a great archaeologic discovery, that's a flatout lie. It can't possibly be true, yet newspapers all over the world were still reporting it 5 yrs ago ... because it was an appealing story with a connection to a sexy historical queen.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,781
Spain
#45
Sorry history is very much about interpretation and there are very few facts.

For instance before Waterloo Napoleon stated

"Wellington is a bad general, the English are bad troops and we’ll settle this matter by lunchtime."


Obviously he was over confident and underestimated his opponent .

Or did he? was he just saying this to bolster the confidence of his men?
Its a fact he said it but what he meant by it is open to interpretation.
Kevin...

History is only about facts.. interpretations never are history... only tales for supporters. History: Battle of Waterloo took place June 18th 1815 and it was a British-Prussian-Dutch-and little German States Victory.
interpretation: British Army was the best in the world and history (non-history). British Army was the worst in Universe (non-History). Interpretation always is subjective... only what a guy likes...Facts are facts...
Lepanto was a Spanish-Venetian-Pope victory... (fact)... Lepanto was a very insignificant battle (interpretation.. non history).. If I say Austrohungarian terrorists trained in Servia, with Serbian guns and with collaboration of servian officers... they killed the Thronefölger... is a fact.. non an interpretation... if I say Serbia have non responsabilities in WW1 and Austria-Hungary is the "guilty"... it is non-history.. only interpretation...

That is the reason because I don´t like Ancient history (It is only as a Marvel´s tale!)... I love Facts without interpretation.. without manipulation. Without any kind of subjectivism.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,561
Sydney
#46
.
"
That is the reason because I don´t like Ancient history (It is only as a Marvel´s tale!)... I love Facts without interpretation.. without manipulation. Without any kind of subjectivism. "

Then never get into paleolithic archeology , tons of papers are written over a bone fragment
 
Mar 2017
766
Colorado
#47
The more I look at ancient history, the more I like it. It takes a little work, and I feel like I'm solving puzzles to get at the truth.

Other people like reading well documented, factual history. Nothing wrong with that either.


However, I would suggest that *ALL* history requires interpretation: if it's Herodotus writing about Egypt during the Persian conquest, or the New York Times. If I find a modern news story that interests me, I have to cross-check it to see how much is true. I don't think any written word escapes the opinions of the writers.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,781
Spain
#48
The more I look at ancient history, the more I like it. It takes a little work, and I feel like I'm solving puzzles to get at the truth.

Other people like reading well documented, factual history. Nothing wrong with that either.


However, I would suggest that *ALL* history requires interpretation: if it's Herodotus writing about Egypt during the Persian conquest, or the New York Times. If I find a modern news story that interests me, I have to cross-check it to see how much is true. I don't think any written word escapes the opinions of the writers.

Dios,

I´ve read Herodotus when I was 13 yo...and he was more child than I was...he's not a historian ... he's a kid telling stories that have no reality ... that´s the reason because I don´t like Ancient History... I liked Pausanias and his description of Greece because he was not a storytelling.. but only facts.. what he was seeing with his own eyes....I like facts, facts. and only facts. Without interpretations and without any kind of Morale.. or any kind of lesson...If Herodotus is an historian.. Silvester STallone is an actor!!!
 
May 2011
13,383
Navan, Ireland
#49
Kevin...

History is only about facts.. interpretations never are history... only tales for supporters. History: Battle of Waterloo took place June 18th 1815 and it was a British-Prussian-Dutch-and little German States Victory.
interpretation: British Army was the best in the world and history (non-history). British Army was the worst in Universe (non-History). Interpretation always is subjective... only what a guy likes...Facts are facts...
Lepanto was a Spanish-Venetian-Pope victory... (fact)... Lepanto was a very insignificant battle (interpretation.. non history).. If I say Austrohungarian terrorists trained in Servia, with Serbian guns and with collaboration of servian officers... they killed the Thronefölger... is a fact.. non an interpretation... if I say Serbia have non responsabilities in WW1 and Austria-Hungary is the "guilty"... it is non-history.. only interpretation...

That is the reason because I don´t like Ancient history (It is only as a Marvel´s tale!)... I love Facts without interpretation.. without manipulation. Without any kind of subjectivism.
Sorry Martin there are very few 'facts' in history and a great deal if not most of it is 'interpretation' .

The battle of Jutland occurred on this date (fact) this number of ships were sunk and x number of men killed (fact) who won the battle? oh well now that depends on your point of view.

An historical event can be viewed from many different angles or interpretations all of which may be perfectly valid.

George Washington -- American hero of the Revolution? or a traitor to the lawful crown?
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,781
Spain
#50
Sorry Martin there are very few 'facts' in history and a great deal if not most of it is 'interpretation' .

The battle of Jutland occurred on this date (fact) this number of ships were sunk and x number of men killed (fact) who won the battle? oh well now that depends on your point of view.

An historical event can be viewed from many different angles or interpretations all of which may be perfectly valid.

George Washington -- American hero of the Revolution? or a traitor to the lawful crown?
Exactly... nobody knows who won the battle of Jutland (or the Skagerrar)... British sustained more casualties... but German Fleet never more was a threat.... I only said.. Britishi casualites X.. German Casualties Y.... and I add.. After Jutland.. German Navy never more (yes I know "Little Jutland" and the 1917 and 1918 raids) was a real threat for Royal Navy....Who was the winner? That´s not history but interpretation.. for British.... it was a British victory. they say because they are British... and they based on German Navy never more was a threat... Germans say it was a German victory. they sunk more ships and killed more people and they back to their harbours without great casualties and without being destroyed.... Jutland was not Trafalgar and was not Leyte!

I agree wit hou.. a fact (History) can be viewed from many different angles (not history).

The same about Peninsular War... for British historian was a war between British and French... Spaniards were watching TV at home... for the Spanish historian was a war between Spanish and French.. British were doing tourism in Peninsula!... Fact.. a War (1808 - 1814). Fact: An Imperial defeat.. Interpetations are not history. Many years later... (I have the papers but I need to find)... around 1830 in a British newspapers... Wellington and Jourdan had a controversy... For Wellington.. British decided the Peninsular War.. for Jourdan (Chief of Joseph´s HQ and the French Expeditionary force in Peninsula) the war was decided by the Spaniards. But Wellington and Jourdan´s opinions are not history.. not fact.. only interpretation...
If you are British and you like Britain you are going to say the War was won by Britain... If you are Spanish and you like Spain you are going to say the war was won by Spain... that is the reason because History is not science... but a nice tale!

About Washington I have not doubt.. as Bolivar or San Martin.. they were treators!
 

Similar History Discussions