it seems that things get rewritten to suit modern views or current political purposes.
If you think about the middle ages, much of what we originally thought we knew was based on writings from the renaissance who were actively trying to discredit it. The idea that they feared science or bathing are probably greatly overblown given use and development of weaponry (crossbows, and eventually firearms, and bigger and better ships to go looting with).

Recently I was watching a production on the history of wales (pre-roman) and there is now evidence to suggest that trade (and horny men) were the original reasons for exploration and that humans traded across eurasia even before the pyramids were built. Most warfare was local and tribal (until the romans for western europe or whatever powers squabbled in persia/middle east) but trade seems to have been far more global. Also a lot of trade was done via sea/rivers (although losing sight of the shoreline probably = detah).

Then I thought about what we know about native american culture pre-european. It was pretty much a similar situation in a way. They traded/were aware of most of north/south america in general and very similar to the above.

Relating to white men and diseases, was reading about the mongols basically spread the bubonic plague to europe :P Modern science has allowed us to figure out much more accurately what the plague would have been.

I dunno. I think what prompted my musings was comparing over time peoples views on ww1 and why it was fought.

Although for older events we relie on written sources which may/may not be entirely accurate and even though no one alive has any vested interest in who was right/wrong, there are still conflicting views.

Reminds me of an ancient battle between egypt and mesopotamia (I think) where we actually uncovered records of the battle from both sides and compared them.

History = written word
Pre-history = no written word

winners write history.

believe in jesus christ our lord. water into wine. seas part. the bible is the true history book. amen!

I remember seeing some survey results a little while ago that showed opinion in France on who contributed the most to victory in WWII: it went from a huge majority saying it was the Soviets right after the war to a similar majority saying the US in the present day.

What we see now colours our perception of events a lot, even for something as recent as WWII. I'd be entirely unsurprised to find that, for written records especially, much of what we "know" is wrong as not only do we have to deal with our own biases when examining records but also the bias of the author of the historical documents used as sources.

I for one think this is a fascinating topic. In the modern world you can see active attempts to re-write history recent enough for most of us to remember what happened. That is kind of frightening.

I really thought the recent (like last ten years) studies about pre-Columbus American society was amazing. Having major cities and trade routes, getting wiped out by plague right before he landed, etc. Cuz let's face it, if the Vikings couldn't make it here against the entrenched population, what chance did the freaking Spaniards have? Everything makes much more sense when you can learn more about how it really happened.

I think that there is a strong human tendency to change more recent events to put the narrator in a more favorable light, and that over time something closer to the truth becomes accepted - at least in modern times, as we are able to use our technology to piece together more of "how things were."

In addition to history being written by the winners, don't forget that the future is decided by those who show up.

Agreed. Sometimes history is written with those trying to promote change by discrediting the past. We see this now more than we have in a while although we have many prior examples of this. For example: I am lucky enough to have read my grandfather's books on WW1 (written pre WW2). You get a very different picture of that war, the causes, and outcomes than you do from stuff written later on.

Regarding the native americans: I read somewhere that in spite of the natives stone age/bronze age level technology (initially) it took the European settlers over 200 years to even achieve some kind of power parity with them in North america and this is in spite of disease and technology. And yeah, the vikings got their asses handed to them. Very few could boast being able to that at the time.

Actually another fun read is to read the national geographic discussing Vietnam right when the US was getting seriously involved there followed by the article written upon the fall of Hanoi.

The only real truth humans can experience are the things they see, hear and experience them self. Any writing should be taken with a grain of salt.

The craziest aspect of known history to myself is the advancement of technology.... when I was a child cell phones were few and almost non existing.... today everyone and their brother has one... its crazy to me that the generations before us had to go such long periods of time to make such advancements.... and every week now we have a bigger, better mobile device...

History.... I think it is also safe to say that modern history could be more accurate than ancient history. Best example I can make is probably looking at the Greeks. At one point our modern Greek history (Mythology) was likely a practiced religion.... but now viewed as a myth... then looking at more modern history, like WW2, it be foolish for people to claim the Holocaust was nothing more than a myth. Scary part is in time who is to say it won't be.....

On the Holocaust thing, I have a hard time believing that the "it's a myth" people will ever win out. I am 34, so I ought to have a lot of life left, and have met and spoken with many survivors. Kind of hard to say "that didn't happen" to someone who was there, and there are lots of people my age who have met others.

I agree. It surely wouldn't happen in our life time or even our children's life time. I was just trying to make the point, it has happened in the past and could happen in the future. I guess I should have compared religions with religions rather than religion and an event. Though me not being a religious man I felt it be opening a can of worms trying to do that.

But then again, who knows what can and could happen. The one thing history does show us is that everything is always changing.  

That's a fact!

Am I correct in thinking there is a resurgence of Zoroastrianism at present? That was supposed to be a long dead religion.

Let me google that.

Ok, quick perusal of several links (internet expert status achieved!) tells me that I am right, there are more Zoroastrians now than there have been for a long time. I know personally of folk who have adopted Odinism, so there's that. Wouldn't it be kind of cool for Olympianism to be a thing again?

There is a Greek Orthodox Church here in my town, but I am sure it has nothing to do with it :p

That's another thing to consider about history.. its usually dealing hand in hand with religion. To me religion is just a means of control. A story of what you can and can't do and why.

History just continues to show how humanity keeps failing... if we all had our utopia we wouldn't need history. We would all live as one for one... but greed and control consumes us all.... that's all history really is, the story of someone having something, someone else coming to take it and what's left after its all done... :(

It would be sweet to know our full history, untampered , without questioning.... but then I guess we would be god....

You mean stuff written at the time is different than stuff written with the benefit of hindsight?!?!
NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!

Certain amount of what I think is confusion about Vikings in the thread. But native North Americans are certainly an excellent example of perceptions changing. When I was a boy kids all went to a cinema club on a Saturday morning and there would be one feature length film, a serial and some short cartoons. Half the time the film was a cowboy adventure. The cowboy invaders were portrayed as heroes, the indians were the villains. When the show was over we all tumbled out and cowboy and indian games broke out. Everyone wanted to be a cowboy, the indians were the younger brothers.

Anyway time passed (as mysteriously it does) and eventually films like Little Big Man and Soldier Blue started to appear. Cowboys and indians appears to have died out in children's play but if it revives I suspect those now wishing to be indians might match or exceed those now wishing to be cowboys.

It is my (almost entirely uninformed) understanding that there is remarkably little evidence as to native North American culture. They kept no written records and left remarkably little to be discovered through archaeology. There is the oral tradition but that is hardly authoritative. But still, some sort of picture emerges from what is known of peoples with a sophisticated set of religious beliefs, a very civilised and formalised approach to war, remarkable tolerance of quirky individuals and, of course, a sustainable life style well integrated with the natural environment.

A far cry from the savages I used to see portrayed on screen all those years ago.

Regarding the myth thing, I am not so sure. Even 2000 years later we still have/believe as fact a lot of roman history from the point where written accounts survive. A portion of written greek history us forever lost to us due to the destruction of the library at alexandria. Since the invention of the printing press the survival rate of any kind of written source increased dramatically. Something like the loss of knowledge regarding the cathars is far less likely to happen know. We may continue to debate and dispute accounts.. but it is much harder to wipe them from existence than it once was.
Zoraoastrianism was never wiped out completely btw. A small group of persians fled to india and that community exists to this day.

I wouldn't say that humans keep falling as much as we are locked into cycles just like everything else on this planet and those forces are part of our programming. Nature>humand

History creates a mythology, and mythology is a very powerful force that underlies our values. If we believe something is good and have stories that show that it gives definition to our basic beliefs. History is written all the time and it is all about stories.

I don't think history can be stripped of the biases that the writer includes in his stories or reports. So the history we hear is biased, and usually full of what we want to hear.

So there are a few thoughts from me

I agree with you about that.

I remember that I used to hang out on Apolyton (a Civilisation site) at the time of the Iraq invasion and one of the regulars there told us he was a soldier and was part of the invading force. His job was to try to win the hearts and minds of the civilion population and one of the ways employed in seeking to do that was to provide books to the Iraqi schools disrupted by the fighting.

Sadly this turned out to be a dispiriting task as often enough, when he re-visited a school whiich he had provided with books, he found them thrown away. The problem was that the teachers and schoolchildren were used to books previously circulating in Iraq and provided by Sadaam Hussein's Ba'athist party. The books provided by the USA were somewhat different - told a different story - and the teachers and pupils just thought (correctly I suppose) that the books were propoganda. Which they resented. People like their own stories.

http://www.newscientist.com/...n268-american-plague.html

This research is older than I realized. You can find similar stuff about trade routes from the Great Lakes (apparently a booming economic are before whitey) down to the Mayan areas of Mexico.



True to a degree, but we have found through archaeological work things that contradict some accounts, paint a different picture, which I think allows us to gain a broader understanding of history. Think of the change in popular perception of Carthage over the last 20 years as an example.

I know that carthago delenda est but not much more.

When I was in high school Carthage was still mostly depicted as backward compared to the Romans. We were still teaching that they made human sacrifices to moloch, that they had a very oppressive ruling class and basically no personal freedom and that life for the average Carthaginian was pretty terrible. Suffice to say we now have lots of evidence that none of that is very accurate.

The Chinese Communists have been quite successful in teaching their stories while also teaching the entire population a common language, the simplified Mandarin that is used throughout China.

I took Chinese for a year at University of Ottawa. It was the approved Chinese for Beginners published by the government, and had stories tailored for the Canadian system, like the story of Norman Bethune.

Combine these two for the truth:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals#Legacy
The Vandals were probably not any more destructive than other invaders of ancient times, but writers who idealized Rome often blamed them for its destruction

All they did was conquer one annoying neighbour and afterwards grant Catholics religious freedom and what do they get in return? A reputation for ruthless destruction/spoiling of anything beautiful

The pen is mightier than the sword

Just ask mainland Chinese about tiensmin square:)

penis mightier?