Topic: Most annoying historical myths?

[Beorning]

Who were the Hakkapelitas?

[Oniya]

Finnish light cav.  The name comes from their battle cry, which roughly translates as 'Cut them down!'

Sounds pretty bad-ass to me!

[Beorning]

Interesting! And it does sound bad-ass.

Speaking of cavalry, I can't help but present our own heavy cavalry, the hussars. Here are some historical reenactors:



(against Swedish musketeers? Or is that someone else?)

And here are some movie excerpts:



(with a lot of info in the subtitles, if you turn them on)

[consortium11]

On a tangentially related point that doesn't really count as a myth (as it's something that people tend to ignore rather than get wrong), Sweden really needs more credit for its strength as a military power. It suffers from that period being relatively brief and in a frequently underplayed part of history (post-medieval, per-Napolionic) but that shouldn't detract from how strong they were.

Likewise Gustavus Adolphus should get more respect as one of the great military leaders. His true genius may have been administrative/organisational rather than strictly to do with battle-field strategy but he should still be up there.

[TheBlackRider]

Actually, from what I'd told they were primarily lancers, with archery for secondary weapons.

That's my understanding as well. Originally they fought with the naginata but eventually switched to the yari as massed formations became more common.

[TheGlyphstone]

On a tangentially related point that doesn't really count as a myth (as it's something that people tend to ignore rather than get wrong), Sweden really needs more credit for its strength as a military power. It suffers from that period being relatively brief and in a frequently underplayed part of history (post-medieval, per-Napolionic) but that shouldn't detract from how strong they were.

Likewise Gustavus Adolphus should get more respect as one of the great military leaders. His true genius may have been administrative/organisational rather than strictly to do with battle-field strategy but he should still be up there.

Heh. Gustav Adolph is one of the few military leaders from that time period that I actually know of and recognize, though admittedly I'd never heard of him before I picked up reading the Ring of Fire series of nooks.

[gaggedLouise]

Don't know about Sweden but here in Finland its basically: "The Swedes fought a lot in the south and bunch of Finns were dragged down there as soldiers and most of them died and Hakkapelitas were awesome."

And left our code of law behind even after we had gone so you guys didn't have to suffer the full weight of the tyranny of the Tsar!

*laughs knowingly and wags her finger at the brother nation*


(Finland formed part of Sweden from the middle ages up to 1809 when it was lost to Russia)

[ofDelusions]

Finnish light cav.  The name comes from their battle cry, which roughly translates as 'Cut them down!'

Sounds pretty bad-ass to me!

The actual battle cry is "Hakkaa päälle!" The word hakata means to beat or to hit something repeatedly nd the word päälle means on top or onto.

So it roughly translates to "Beat on them" or just "Hit them." Nothing as sophisticated as "Cut them down!" ;P

And left our code of law behind even after we had gone so you guys didn't have to suffer the full weight of the tyranny of the Tsar!

*laughs knowingly and wags her finger at the brother nation*


(Finland formed part of Sweden from the middle ages up to 1809 when it was lost to Russia)

Well, you left your codes of law because the kind Tsar of Russia and Grand Prince of Finland Alexander the first let us keep them.
Anyway, wether being part of Sweden was a good or bad thing to Finland? Both most likely, it did sort of join us into Europe, but Finns were occasionally taxed more heavily than the Swedish and the ruling caste and goverment officials speaking different language did occasionally cause problem.

Also, one of the reason the great Famine of Finland in 1695-1697 killed so many people (1/3rd of all the people in Finland died. The Great Famine of Ireland killed 1/8th. The Famine is known in Finnish as Suuret Kuolonvuodet, the years of great death) was because the Swedish goverment was rather slow in coming to aid.

Funnily enough, if Stalin hadn't said no, Finland and Sweden would have been united again 1940.

[Oniya]

The actual battle cry is "Hakkaa päälle!" The word hakata means to beat or to hit something repeatedly nd the word päälle means on top or onto.

So it roughly translates to "Beat on them" or just "Hit them." Nothing as sophisticated as "Cut them down!" ;P

I dunno - it's more 'straight-to-the-point' than the usual 'For honor and glory!' stuff.  'Why are we going into battle?  To layeth the smacketh down!'

[ofDelusions]

Now that I think of it "Smack them!" might be a rather correct translation that keeps the intent and the ton well 

[Beorning]

And left our code of law behind even after we had gone so you guys didn't have to suffer the full weight of the tyranny of the Tsar!

*laughs knowingly and wags her finger at the brother nation*

Well, you left your codes of law because the kind Tsar of Russia and Grand Prince of Finland Alexander the first let us keep them.

Anyway, wether being part of Sweden was a good or bad thing to Finland? Both most likely, it did sort of join us into Europe, but Finns were occasionally taxed more heavily than the Swedish and the ruling caste and goverment officials speaking different language did occasionally cause problem.

Also, one of the reason the great Famine of Finland in 1695-1697 killed so many people (1/3rd of all the people in Finland died. The Great Famine of Ireland killed 1/8th. The Famine is known in Finnish as Suuret Kuolonvuodet, the years of great death) was because the Swedish goverment was rather slow in coming to aid.

Ha! That's what I like in history: comparing notes. Funny how people in different countries have different views on the same happenings...

[Lux12]

There is one kind or only two kinds of Buddhism. Once again, this is probably not all that common in the places where Buddhism has a large following or among adherents, but for the uninitiated there is a common idea that there is one kind of Buddhism and while it is true that there are significant doctrinal similarities between sects, they often times have some jarring differences. Much like Christianity with the Catholic, Orthodox, Anabaptist, Calvinist, and esoteric sects, there are a similar number of different Buddhist sects from the Tibetan, Shingon, and zen to local and Theravada. Even those who know of the two primary overarching divisions of Theravada and Mahayana some times fail to notice the difference between the subdivisions of these two and completely overlook Vajrayana as an overarching division. The staggering variety of Buddhist thought is frequently overlooked in places where it is not widely practiced.

[Beorning]

Eh. I'd say that people knowing that there *are* two kinds of Buddhism is a big step forward 

You shouldn't underestimate people lack of knowledge about religions. Years ago, in a conversation with my Mom, I had trouble convincing her that there really is a religion called Hinduism. A few years later, my parents were watching Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham and my father commented that people in the movie are "pagans". *headdesks*

[Oniya]

If I'm correct that modern adherents to Hinduism still believe in multiple deities, then calling them 'Pagans' (in the polytheistic sense at least) isn't far off.  Using the term in the sense of 'those ignorant of any real religion' would be incorrect and insulting across the board.

[Beorning]

I don't know. "Pagan" is such a generic term... and, for me, it does sound a bit disrespectful when applied to a big religion like Hinduism.

[Lux12]

Oh there's another one. There's this idea that there's basically one kind of Hinduism among those who do not follow it. I guarantee if you were to go to Bali and then go to northern India and the Tamil lands, one would notice some definite differences. Not to mention that there are different sects within each of these.

[TheBlackRider]

If I'm correct that modern adherents to Hinduism still believe in multiple deities, then calling them 'Pagans' (in the polytheistic sense at least) isn't far off.

Hinduism gets a little complicated on the polytheism vs. monotheism question. Some branches believe that there is one god, and others believe that there are many deities, but that these deities are all manifestations of Vishnu. Sort of like how the Christian God has three aspects. And all of that's just scratching the surface of the many concepts of a monotheistic god in Hinduism.

[Oniya]

Good to know.  Thanks!

[Valthazar]

Hinduism gets a little complicated on the polytheism vs. monotheism question. Some branches believe that there is one god, and others believe that there are many deities, but that these deities are all manifestations of Vishnu. Sort of like how the Christian God has three aspects. And all of that's just scratching the surface of the many concepts of a monotheistic god in Hinduism.

Some of the more philosophical branches of Hinduism deviate entirely from polytheism and monotheism.  For example, many Hindus pilgrimage to a site known as Sabarimala in South India - and at the top of the temple is an inscription in Sanskrit which translates to, "I am you and you are me."  In simple terms, this represents the belief among some Hindus that the concept of god is best defined as the divine life energy that fuels the existence and energy of all living beings.  This relates to the concept of meditation as a process of self-discovery, which is analogous to being closer to god's omnipresent energy.

[gaggedLouise]

Now that I think of it "Smack them!" might be a rather correct translation that keeps the intent and the ton well 

"Smack them upside their heads!" 

[Lux12]

Horned helmets on vikings. Not sure if anyone else has brought this up, but sadly they did not have horned helmets. Their helmets were actually overall quite plain and unadorned.

[gaggedLouise]

Horned helmets on vikings. Not sure if anyone else has brought this up, but sadly they did not have horned helmets. Their helmets were actually overall quite plain and unadorned.

They did use large, hollowed-out (and sometimes cheramic) horns for drinking beer and mead though. 

[Oniya]

I can't find the Mel Brooks scene of a Viking funeral, or I would post it here.   

[Lux12]

High heels were always "women's" shoes. In fact they were at first men's footwear. Though for the life of me, having worn healed shoes before, I don't know why you would want to wear them. They're evil torture devices.

[Oniya]

The reasons I've heard range from 'They make me taller' to 'They make my legs look good'.  I usually refrain from mentioning the foot problems induced by compression of the toes and shortening of the Achilles tendon.