My weekend began with my “better half” wanting to watch the movie “300”…..she knew better than watch it with me……for if the movie is of a historical theme then I will make comments all through it and spoil it for most people…..she is a lovely woman but she is a glutton for punishment…..I really think she just likes those 6 pack abs on the Spartans……(smiles)…..
That same night I was watching the History Channel and their program “Ancient Assassins” was about the Spartans….and the people talking during the program also kept saying the 300 with very little mention of any others that took part in the battle……and most of them were historians…..sad.
Common belief is that the Spartans somehow defended the pass at Thermopylae with only 300 warriors….against 2 million Persians (common belief but I do not believe the number is accurate)a more accurate number would be around 100,000……actually there were many warriors from many of the Greek city states…..the total was about 7000 thousands soldiers.
Yes I know still a minute force against a raging giant……
Leonidas was not this hunky dude in reality he was almost 60 years of age at the time of the battle…..and contrary to popular belief the Spartans did not stand alone in the end.
The Spartans decided that they would stay and cover the retreat of the main force….a heroic delaying tactic but as I have said they were NOT alone…..the force that remained were 300 Spartans, 700 Thespians, 400 Thebans and some say that a few others remained to assist.
My problem is that the world wants to deify the Spartans for their bravery but others were just as so and yet historians want to make it all about the Spartans….
Now about here is where my “better half” had had enough of my correcting the historical account and decided to go mop the loving room. I knew she was frustrated but she knew in advance of what I would do…..I apologized to her and she said that she knew I was a sick person especially with inconsistencies in the historic content…..I asked her if she would like to watch “Ancient Aliens”….she smiled sweetly and replied….”BITE ME”!
My point as always is….if you want to tackle history then do it accurately…….every body that took part in the covering force should be equally held up as the epitome of heroic action….not just a select few…..
This is why our children have such a wrapped sense of history…..they seldom get the “true” story of any event……I cannot wait to see how they mangle the Benghazi sage…..ought to be epic…..as well as untrue……
Period!
Class dismissed
Nicely said. In many ways, this is why I appreciate the ANZAC tradition. We celebrate our greatest defeat at Gallipoli, honouring the Turks (defending their home) as much as honouring the lads who fell on that terrible day, and in the 9 horrible months that followed.
It was a monumental mash up by Churchill (I believe)…all I have read was it was a total screw up…..chuq
It was. The only success in the entire campaign was the withdrawal from the peninsular.
I remember some general said…”if there is no high ground fight another day”…..somebody should have taken that advice……chuq
There has never been a historical account put into writing that was “Accurate.” All such writings have always been enhanced for dramatic effect where feasible and all have reflected the individual biases of either the authors or the people responsible for ordering or supporting the writing in the first place.
If History were “Accurate” Custer would never have been portrayed as defending the safety and honor of the West against heathen savages but would have been more accurately described as a General who had been assigned to the rather unglorious task of doing Uncle Sam’s dirty work in the massacre of the indigenous peoples who .. were undoubtedly .. in the way of some plan and I am assuming the government had run out of smallpox-infested blankets to distribute among the tribes by that time.
If History were acurately written, Abraham Lincoln would not have been the poverty-stricken Kentucky rail-splitter who tilled the soil, earned his education by the light of a fireplace, and who was a poor poverty stricken moralist whose ambitions were afire with Biblical Wisdom, Knowledge and Mercy.
If History were accurately written Lincoln would have been portrayed as a highly-successful Lawyer whose main clientele were expanding Railroad companys and whose main claim to fame was securing land from homeowners by one means or another to allow the railroads right of way on which to build their rails. Lincoln was very wealthy by the time he became president and his main goal in causing the Civil War was not the freeing of slaves because there is plenty of text available now describing how he had ordered the building of ships with which he intended to ship all the freed slaves out of the country to somewhere in Africa.
If History were accurately written Amerigo Vespucci would have discovered America and not Christopher Columbus and Christopher Columbus never discovered “America” anyway — he discovered Hispaniola and never set foot in North America.
History has always been one kind of fairy tale or another.
Truth can be found….most like the lies and misinformation helps them with their narrow views….chuq
How can one recognize truth when it is found? Teach me how to recognize truth in History and I will never forsake finding and telling it.
First one must want to know the truth….without that you have crap like today’s mumbo jumbo…..look at multiple sources of an event….and lastly and this is important….want to find the truth….and then we can have the argument of truth…..I guess it is also just damn semantics….
How can I recognize for sure when something is truthful or not?
An open mind would help…..do you really want to know the truth or just a reinforcement of what you already think?
I guess I am going to have to learn the “SMELL” test — traditionally a tedious but somewhat reliable tool for separating fact from fiction which means that I probably have to conclude that CNN, and a few traditional old news magazines are probably my best journalistic friends — Inasmuch as everybody I talk to you agrees that “Truth” is always relative to “Self-Interest.”
A history book is “lies agreed upon”….yes there are lies in many situations….best you can do is check them all and draw your own conclusion….that is if it can be viewed objectively….chuq
I think I might have to go back to the old formula — What happened, where did it happen, when did it happen, how did it happen, who did it or who did it happen to, and sometimes “Why did it happen” ( The 5 Journalistic “Ws”) — but if I do that I end up publishing dry, dull and uninteresting stuff that anybody can find anywhere. Dry old-fashioned fact-based journalism is no fun because it doesn’t tend to stir the pot enough. I love controversy!
The world is more interesting than most thin even with dry “facts”…in today’s world it is all about sensationalism….you can make anything “interesting” if you inject just enough misinformation to confuse the facts…..chuq
John take a look at the news these days…..every incident has one conclusion….that is editorializing not reporting the facts…..controversy is good but not at the expense of the facts…..old fashion…probably but I am old and I appreciate just the facts….chuq
History is written by the winners….. It has always been so.
gigoid
Yep,,,but the Greeks only won this one event after than the Persians burned Athens to the ground….chuq
We’ve always been rather nasty creatures, eh?
gigoid
God yes!….c
Wish we good hire 300 Greeks to go give Iran a good thrashing.
There were so many more than 300……1600 Athenians plus all the others. Talk about fake news chuq