You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 06:20:28 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Most annoying historical myths?  (Read 17892 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline consortium11

Re: Most annoying historical myths?
« Reply #500 on: April 09, 2014, 11:15:13 AM »
Catalhoyuk was discovered in the late 1950's though and had a pretty huge amount of excavation done in the early 1960's. It lay dormant until the mid-90's following James Mellaart's expulssion from Turkey and investigations into it may have stepped up since 2012 but we can't exactly call it a new discover... it's been known about for over half a century (even if some of the theories about it have seemingly been proven false).

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Most annoying historical myths?
« Reply #501 on: April 09, 2014, 12:37:20 PM »
Catalhoyuk was just that according to extensive archaeological endeavors and it predates Mesopotamian city states by thousands of years.

Predates Jericho by minus 500 years (is postdates a word?  I feel like it is).  Further, it's within spitting distance of Mesopotamia. 

Offline Rhapsody

Re: Most annoying historical myths?
« Reply #502 on: April 09, 2014, 01:26:08 PM »
Mesopotamia, it should also be pointed out, wasn't a singular city, but an entire region that comprised individual city-states. Including Assur, Babylon, and Nineveh.

Offline Rogue

  • The Bratling ~ her Mx ~ they/them unless other pronouns/gender are specified please~
  • Champion
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Location: delens solem lunam facti sunt ei
  • ~Edenmon Master~ ~GenderFluid~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Most annoying historical myths?
« Reply #503 on: April 11, 2014, 05:27:29 PM »
Mesopotamia, it should also be pointed out, wasn't a singular city, but an entire region that comprised individual city-states. Including Assur, Babylon, and Nineveh.

Which is a much better way of stating my first point. Multiple major cities are a "Civilization". A city has civilization but isn't necessary a civilization. After all it was mentioned in my history book at the very least that there was civilization before mesopotamia but mesopotamia was the first major civilization.

We're arguing semantics but semantics matter.

Catalhoyuk was discovered in the late 1950's though and had a pretty huge amount of excavation done in the early 1960's. It lay dormant until the mid-90's following James Mellaart's expulssion from Turkey and investigations into it may have stepped up since 2012 but we can't exactly call it a new discover... it's been known about for over half a century (even if some of the theories about it have seemingly been proven false).

The wiki article says it wasn't certified until 2012. *shrugs* whether it's been discovered or not before then doesn't matter all that much in the matters of history books.

Offline Rhapsody

Re: Most annoying historical myths?
« Reply #504 on: April 11, 2014, 09:17:05 PM »
Which is a much better way of stating my first point. Multiple major cities are a "Civilization". A city has civilization but isn't necessary a civilization. After all it was mentioned in my history book at the very least that there was civilization before mesopotamia but mesopotamia was the first major civilization.

We're arguing semantics but semantics matter.


I'm not entirely sure if the bolded portion was directed at me, but if it is, I'd like to clarify that I agree with you. A widespread cluster of major settlements is a much stronger indicator of an actual civilization as we understand it today than a single city is.

Offline Rogue

  • The Bratling ~ her Mx ~ they/them unless other pronouns/gender are specified please~
  • Champion
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Location: delens solem lunam facti sunt ei
  • ~Edenmon Master~ ~GenderFluid~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Most annoying historical myths?
« Reply #505 on: April 11, 2014, 09:43:28 PM »
I'm not entirely sure if the bolded portion was directed at me, but if it is, I'd like to clarify that I agree with you. A widespread cluster of major settlements is a much stronger indicator of an actual civilization as we understand it today than a single city is.

Oh no dear. It was directed at Lux who'd posted it originally not you.


Offline RedTronic

Re: Most annoying historical myths?
« Reply #506 on: April 11, 2014, 11:50:39 PM »
The story of Gilgamesh and his rule of Uruk are an intriguing look into an extremely early culture in the area you guys are talking about.

And for an even earlier timeperiod, it is incredibly fascinating to read about and hear the reconstructed Proto-Indo European language.  My research on the subject was primarily tied to the Gilgamesh story (and how its central tenants were an evolution of earlier, lost stories), but the entire topic is utterly thrilling, if you're alright with almost certainly never knowing the full story.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2014, 01:13:27 AM by Oniya »

Online Lux12

  • Eccentric Occult Glam Agent of The Unknowable.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Gender: Male
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Most annoying historical myths?
« Reply #507 on: May 04, 2014, 03:00:50 PM »
Now to revive the thread with a new myth.

The Manchu are just other ethnic Chinese people. The truth is that they are part of a different ethnic category with a distinct culture and related religion. Granted many Manchu customs and elements have fused with the culture of the Han, but the truth is they are different.

Offline GermanCake

Re: Most annoying historical myths?
« Reply #508 on: June 04, 2014, 04:05:38 PM »
Now to revive the thread with a new myth.

The Manchu are just other ethnic Chinese people. The truth is that they are part of a different ethnic category with a distinct culture and related religion. Granted many Manchu customs and elements have fused with the culture of the Han, but the truth is they are different.

I was just studying the Mongol Invasions into China and I finally started to learn about the ethnic makeup of the region. It's...many to say the least. I was fascinated by how many nomadic horse archer tribes managed to establish their own legitimate dynasties. I'd love to learn more about China!     

Offline elvenslave

  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2012
  • Location: Somewhere, looking for my personal Mr. Darcy
  • Gender: Female
  • "God I miss going Off-World!" óJack O'Neill
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Most annoying historical myths?
« Reply #509 on: June 11, 2014, 06:43:09 PM »
Gladiator owes a good deal to Quo Vadis, which is also a highly entertaining film (and a weirdly kinky or 'gay' film...) as soon as it is not watched as history.
Which Quo Vadis film are you making a reference too? I had to read the book by Henryk Sienkiewicz in middle school, and as far as I remember there were lots of historical references. We also watched the 2001 Polish movie, and I don't remember being kinky or gay. And all the girls had a crush on the actor who played Vinicius^^

Offline TheBlackRider

Re: Most annoying historical myths?
« Reply #510 on: June 12, 2014, 01:16:52 PM »
Have we covered tarring and feathering? A lot of people seem to think that this was a process that would result in massive, possibly fatal burns, but that assumes the wrong kind of tar. When you tar and feather somebody, you don't use modern roofing tar (aka bitumen), you use pine tar. Pine tar has a much, much lower melting point than bitumen, and so wouldn't cause severe burns. The point of tarring and feathering somebody is to humiliate them, not to incapacitate or kill.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Most annoying historical myths?
« Reply #511 on: June 12, 2014, 01:18:46 PM »
Have we covered tarring and feathering? A lot of people seem to think that this was a process that would result in massive, possibly fatal burns, but that assumes the wrong kind of tar. When you tar and feather somebody, you don't use modern roofing tar (aka bitumen), you use pine tar. Pine tar has a much, much lower melting point than bitumen, and so wouldn't cause severe burns. The point of tarring and feathering somebody is to humiliate them, not to incapacitate or kill.

I knew that the point was for humiliation, but I hadn't thought too much about what kind of 'tar' would be used.  *adds to StoreHouse*

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Most annoying historical myths?
« Reply #512 on: June 18, 2014, 04:00:38 AM »
Which Quo Vadis film are you making a reference too? I had to read the book by Henryk Sienkiewicz in middle school, and as far as I remember there were lots of historical references. We also watched the 2001 Polish movie, and I don't remember being kinky or gay. And all the girls had a crush on the actor who played Vinicius^^

It's the early-fifities epic Hollywood version I was thinking of. Nero and his courtiers, in that one (as in real life?), seem to epitomize "bread and circuses" to keep the common people happy and avoid the forming of any solid opposition, while the moral superiority of the Christians in QV, and their willingness to face the risk of humiliation and death, is matched by Maximus in Gladiator. The military worthlessness of the two emperors, and the endings where they are exposed ("Now we are free") are similar too. I've read Sienkewicz's novel as well, it's quite good. very exciting and romantic.

Funniest recent historical misperception: I just read the Wikipedia article on Deep Throat (the Watergate source, not the blue movie...) and find that before Mark Felt of the FBI stepped up, both Kissinger, George Bush senior and - Richard Nixon himself had been suggested.  ;D So Nixon met Bernstein and Woodward in the garage? No, not quite, but the idea would have been that he deliberately engineered a runing stream of leaks to them in an attempt to stage-manage a scandal and show how badly he was persecuted by the media.   ::)

(Incidentally, Carl Bernstein's wife correctly decided some time after 1974 that DT had to be Mr.Felt, though her husband had refused to tell her or anyone around the family who the source was and Felt wasn't a person who had any presence in their private lives. Smart girl.)
« Last Edit: June 18, 2014, 04:41:58 AM by gaggedLouise »