History is fake.

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,950
Sydney
Most of those whoring history are propagandist twisting basic facts to fit their audience desired narrative
since you do exactly the same , twisting propaganda as History
then damning it .... you fit with them
 
  • Like
Reactions: martin76

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,643
Spain
Exactly as you wrote, Sparky... save facts.. nothing is history but opinion...it is like a match...1980, European Cup Winner´s Cup final: Valencia 0 - Arsenal 0. Extra-time: Valencia 0 - Arsenal 0. Penalties. Valencia 5 - Arsenal 4. Valencia won. Fact... All what we can speak about fact.. it is only opinion... hooliganism, philias and phobias.
 

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,306
History is a conservative subject and occaisionally new data is hard to become widely accepted. Learned teachers and scholars will sometimes have very fixed ideas and don't like being told something different - it lessens their 'expert' statsus (I came across that as a youingster and learned a painful lesson from it :D ). Sometimes there isn't the data to make an accurate description of the past. The Romans for instance were usually geared toward telling history as an interesting story, and although some of their writers really did try to be objective, they didn't know anything about their origins apart from myth and legen and interpreted what they knew from the existing standards of their own time, leading to a distorted vision they couldn't avoid. But as we all know, those in a position to tell history will sometimes tell their own version for propaganda purposes. So where's the truth? That's what makes history interesting. It's getting past dogma, mistakes, and myth. History isn't something you l;earn in five minutes. It's a lifetime profession.
 
  • Like
Reactions: martin76

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,643
Spain
History is a conservative subject and occaisionally new data is hard to become widely accepted. Learned teachers and scholars will sometimes have very fixed ideas and don't like being told something different - it lessens their 'expert' statsus (I came across that as a youingster and learned a painful lesson from it :D ). Sometimes there isn't the data to make an accurate description of the past. The Romans for instance were usually geared toward telling history as an interesting story, and although some of their writers really did try to be objective, they didn't know anything about their origins apart from myth and legen and interpreted what they knew from the existing standards of their own time, leading to a distorted vision they couldn't avoid. But as we all know, those in a position to tell history will sometimes tell their own version for propaganda purposes. So where's the truth? That's what makes history interesting. It's getting past dogma, mistakes, and myth. History isn't something you l;earn in five minutes. It's a lifetime profession.

It is not possible to say better. Where is the truth? and still more difficult... The Truth? What´s the Truth?
 
Mar 2017
873
Colorado
I like that there are "discussions" about the pieces of history that don't quite fit. Historians pull in multiple references from disparate sources, trying to make their point.

There's a line in the sand. A good number of historians believe that Augustus modified Marc Antony's will. There are articles and at least one book on JSTOR defending this.

When I read the primaries about Caesar's will, each of them is a little different. We have Cicero's nastigrams, and Marc Antony's response to an insulting Augustus' letter, but we don't have a copy of a will that should have been the template for all future emperors? They preserved all kinds of stuff: why not that? It turns out there's a small group of German historians that question the authenticity of the language in Caesar's will. I read what I thought was the final word on this: the entire book was "what about this? what about that? ..." listing inconsistencies and reasons to be suspicious ....... BUT never reached any conclusion. I do know more about Roman adoption and the exact wording of the will than any sane person has use for.

My point is, if you read something and say "wait a minute ... that doesn't make sense", you're not the first person to notice it. Likely there's articles that draw in all sorts of references to address it.

There's an interesting corner that's gotten hot just in the last 10 months or so. In order to support the thesis "there was pre-Columbian pans-oceanic trade" you need the complete story: what was picked up, how it was transported, where it went, who received it. That's a pretty tall order and has yet to be done. However, the Graham Hancock style "looks Egyptian to me!" has been completely abandoned for DNA evidence. There are chickens in Peru that have Polynesian DNA, there are plants in South America that can only have come from the Old World ... and vice versa. The real scientists are staying away from explaining "how" things got where they are (other than completely destroying random ocean travel by plants and chickens), they just describe what they found ... but the evidence is building. There's already years' worth of circumstantial artifact evidence ... not as convincing as DNA.

So, like a real science, history isn't static when new data fills in some of the holes. Ancient Egypt is pretty static: it's been thoroughly studied and the Egyptians left us plenty of documentation. Just see how people on the "Just Ancient Egypt" thread get excited when Zahi Hawass hints of something new.
 
Oct 2015
367
Belfast
A few years ago, I went on a tour of an old Victorian gaol in Belfast - Crumlin Road Gaol. One point of the tour was the condemned cell and also the "drop cell" beneath it. I was told by the guide that the last hanging carried out in the prison was on December 20, 1961. They even put it in writing over a patch of ground where the executed prisoners are buried.

The thing is, other sources say that the last hanging was carried out on December 23, 1961. History had been sanitized, I suspect because the original date is too close to Christmas. One other thing, the guide explained that a rectangular patch of concrete on the floor of the drop cell, beneath the trap door was where the hangman lay the bodies out. In the 1990's I had a conversation with a former inmate of the gaol. He told me that the rectangular patch of concrete was actually a filled in pit which was intended to aid in the drop.
 

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,306
The "Doesn't make sense" paradigm is basically what got me interested in studying Rome more seriously. I had gotten keen on Roman history via swords and sandals epics, I Claudius on tv, and laughed along with Lurcio's antics in Up Pompeii, so reading Suetonius was an obvious step. Hang on....

I discovered a civilisation that had something to say for itself. True, it had a strict social order and enforced it with hard punishment. It was a society that relied on slavery, made blood sports public entertainment, a ruthless commercial sphere, constant legal wrangles, little concern for what we regard as important humanities, a society that considered itself the epitome of civilisation. Yet I discovered the other side of the equation. The establishment of peace for its citizens, the desire for free will and self determination, the joy of life, and the good humour of ordinary Romans. As tyrannical as some Caesars would be, where was the fear? Where was the oppression? True, as a slave it must have been tough unless you were lucky but the free citizens of the empire often enjoyed a life of opportunity, and despite the glass ceilings of Roman culture, there were still ways to progress. No wonder the post Roman world looks back and wishes it could be the same.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,950
Sydney
In roman comedies , one of the recuring theme was the house slaves mercilessy bossing their master .
the harsh life of slaves was for those doing the worst jobs ....mining , operating the threadmills , drudge works
these were for the difficult slaves and were in fact punishment .

often ,the life of slaves was identical to the life of poor free labor minus the chances of social promotion

historians tend to reflect in the past their prejudices and their fantasies of the present
 

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,306
Slavery in Rome was not so easily defined. The Romans simply classed it as those made the property of others and unable to make their own decisions, basically en par with animals, or as Cato described them - "Talking tools". Note how Dio often says that men forced to act according to someone elses suggestions were "made slaves of" whilst remaining free patrician citizens in social order.

Those consigned to manual labour in rural industries faced short and heavily worked lives. Some slaves might become trusted servants of the wealthy, allowed to live with a partner and have children (even if those offspring were property of the master), run businesses, or perform sensitive political or domestic tasks. There are some examples of men choosing slavery as a means of advancement - you might think that odd, but a learned man sold off to an important owner might well find his talents useful. Manumission was always possible for the trusted slave, and in fact, Augustus had to pass a law limiting the numbers of slaves freed. becoming a freedman wasn't so bad either - you had your life back plus the support and patronage of your former owner. Of course, some domestic slaves were badly treated. Wives finding their husband was using a slave for sex might well become intensely upset over it and vent their wrath on the unfortunate servant. On the other hand, some slaves made a comfortable life in the kitchens or teaching the children of the house.

Nonetheless the Romans were well aware of the dangers that slavery posed them. One quote was that a man knew how many enemies he had by the number of slaves he kept. One senator proposed a law to force slaves to wear some form of identification of their status. This was turned down because it was thought that if that was done then slaves would realise how many of them there were. One law said that if a slave murdered his master, all slaves of that household would be put to death, in order to prevent others from being encouraged to such lawlessness and to help maintain order among the household by self interest. Yet when that law became necessary in the real event of a murdered master, the citizens of Rome could not bear the harshness of the sentence and demanded leniency.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,739
History is a conservative subject and occaisionally new data is hard to become widely accepted. Learned teachers and scholars will sometimes have very fixed ideas and don't like being told something different - it lessens their 'expert' statsus (I came across that as a youingster and learned a painful lesson from it :D ). Sometimes there isn't the data to make an accurate description of the past.
Frankly it's not all that different from the sciences. Talk to the boffins and sooner or later the subject of "collegialism" crops up. Effectively is your research leads to you somewhere that does not tally with accepted models and interpretations, and you fail to convince your colleagues of the correctness of what you suggest (even if you just KNOW you've got it right), then as a researcher you tend to be deep in the cacky.

They almost always talk about their damn colleagues as the MAJOR hurdle against scientific progress. (The flip side is that if it wasn't their colleagues, who DO know the matter, it would be some other kind of constellation who DON'T know the stuff making the same kind of social effort. What would NOT happen would be that Science, Nature or Truth in som general sense would automatically prevail, if only the damn colleagues could be gotten out of the way.)
 
Last edited: