What is your controversial historical opinion?

Status
Closed
Jul 2018
59
United States
#1
This doesn't necessarily mean hot-button issues that will get everyone angry (although you're free to post those as well!), but I'm more interested in opinions you hold about history that fall outside of conventional or the "agreed-upon" historical narrative.
 

Frank81

Ad Honorem
Feb 2010
4,889
Canary Islands-Spain
#2
Some years ago, many of them were more controversial:

-Judaism developed into a monotheistic religion just by the 5th century

-Alexander was directly involved in the killing of Philip

-Alexander had a weak support from Macedonian troops, thus his need of divine legitimacy and his strengthening of Persian elements

-Alexander was killed by his men

-Rome was basically a parasitic state to the Ancient World

-Christianism weakened, more than strengthened, the Roman Empire. The best part of Rome is that of total moral corruption from the modern point of view

-Sassanid Persia enjoyed the upper hand over Rome through most of its history

-Mongols just covered with excuses their fails at the western world, from Egypt to Europe, a (pro-Mongol) line of argumentation that most of historians failed to critizice

-Cuirassers (cavalry) were developed in France first (1570s), and expanded to the rest of Europe decades before the common line of thiking (east to west, 1630s)

-There were no decisive technical edge of the English over the Spanish in 1588, but the strategical goal was impossible

-Gustavus Adolphus did absolutely nothing revolutionary in warfare development

-Countermarch and fire by line was perfectioned, not developed, by Mauritius

-England was invaded by the Netherlands in 1688

-Before WWII, the main enemy of the Western Democracies was considered to be the USSR, and not Nazi Germany. Introduce this in the equation, and you'll understand what happened in the 30's

-The USSR couldn't resist without the intervention of the US in the war

-In December 1941, isolationist feeling was so strong in the US, that Japan could attack European territories in Asia without American retaliation (what if)

-Radical Islamism is just part of an ideological and recurrent cycle of Islamic religiosity, more than a modern exception, or a reaction to something

-Ultimately, Islamist factions has been puppets of the Western world against its real geoestrategic enemies (USSR, Russia)
 
Jan 2015
2,761
MD, USA
#3
The whole Late Bronze Age "Sea Peoples Migration" leading to the whole "collapse" at that time is a complete 19th century fabrication.


Key in this is that the "Dark Ages" between Bronze Age and Iron Age do not really exist, but are the result of a fundamentally flawed chronology.


Both of these should actually be pretty easy to fix, happily! And neither are my ideas, I just happen to agree with them.


Matthew
 
Jul 2017
2,191
Australia
#4
Some quick ones:

-Alexander outnumbered the Persians at the Granicus and Issus. At Gaugamela his force was probably equal in size to Darius'

-Caesar outnumbered his opponents in the battles of the Gallic Wars

-Sertorius was the overdog in the Sertorian War

-Pompey was just as good a general as Caesar

-Cn. Pompeius Strabo, not Sulla, was the most important general of the Social War

-Labienus rivalled Caesar as a tactician

Off the top of my head.
 
Sep 2017
536
United States
#5
-Byzantine are Romans

-Augustus Caesar one of the best rulers of all-time

-Late Roman Army was just as good/better than Principate Romany Army in many ways

-British and American Empires more successors to Rome than Italy

-New World societies had the same capacity for evil and cruelness as colonial powers
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
2,591
Las Vegas, NV USA
#7
Robert E Lee lost the Battle of Gettysburg on purpose and Mead let him get away on purpose . Lincoln knew all about it and thought it was funny ("a real knee-slapper" he said).
 
Last edited:
Sep 2015
300
ireland
#8
I`ve written a thesis which proposes that King Arthur wasn`t a British king and didn`t live in the 5th or 6th centuries. Many will think that there`s nothing controversial in that. However I also propose that an individual who appears in epigraphy and in other sources as an important player in a Roman campaign is the genesis of the legends (not Lucius Artorius Castus). I can associate a number of known battles from a specific campaign with the battle list in Historia Brittonum.

Arthur as we think we know him today evolved from an account of his exploits by a careless monk back in the ninth century. In my opinion the individual responsible, usually called Nennius , did not fully understand who the legendary figure really was. Arthur the Saxon fighter was a construct. Every later account of him branched out from this single source. So that`s me.....just another Arthur nut.
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,323
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#9
The Sclaveni were just one of several related tribes that got separated and became the Slovenes, Slovaks, Slavonians, Kajkavians and Ilmenskoe Slovene.

Native Americans weren't the first people in America.

The Sphynx is older than efyptologists say.
 
Aug 2012
1,453
#10
The Reformation under Henry VIII was comparable to the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Both highly destructive movements, motivated by a contempt for history and tradition. Though divided by vast centuries, Henry would have looked at Mao's actions and immediately understood what he was doing and the rationale behind it.
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions