# Annoying Historical Myths **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 28, 2004, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959 "2004-03-28T20:04:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/221 "2004-04-04T20:46:22Z")
> [@LaurAnge](#): > > The ancient history student weighs in. > > Caligula actually made his horse a **senator** , not a consul. Whether this is true or not I can’t say, nor can anyone else, really, but it is in the ancient sources. He didn’t make his horse anything, The rumour was that he _planned_ to make it a _consul._ “To prevent Incitatus, his favourite horse, from growing restive he always picketed the neighbour-hood with troops on the day before the races, ordering them to enforce absolute silence. Incitatus owned a marble stable, an ivory stall, and a jewelled collar; also a house, furniture, and slaves - to provide suitable entertainment for guests whom Caligula invited in its name. It is said that he even planned to award Incitatus a consulship.” Suetonius: Caligula 55 ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/222 "2004-04-04T20:58:20Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > After which the camera will pan away to the kickoff for the second half. Oh, that is CHOICE! ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2004, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/223 "2004-04-04T22:18:41Z")
> [@Wumpus](#): > > Re: The War of 1812. No matter whether you define “Canadian” as a nationality or a culture, you still can’t get Canadians burning down the White House–the troops that did it were [veteran British troops fresh from the Napoleonic Wars in Europe.](http://www.rootsweb.com/~tnweakle/1812_battles.htm) No Canadians involved. Well, I think those of us arguing the case for a “Canada” were pretty much ignoring the whole White House thing. I know after my first post I dropped it. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![633squadron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/ee59a6/32.png) [@633squadron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/633squadron)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/224 "2004-04-05T01:24:15Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > I live in Virginia, and have a father who has traced our lineage back to Robert E. Lee. Therefore, he considers himself a Civil War buff. He trouts this line out to me all the time. I’ve never bothered to research it, but it’s never sounded right to me. Could someone debunk this for me? Alas, I don’t think there’s a way to debunk it. Some parts of history we _can_ debunk (such as “Good luck, Mr. Gorsky, wherever you are”). That’s because we’ve got really good records and we’re trying to debunk a precise fact. But “The Civil War was not about slavery”! Impossible. The verdict of the majority of US historians is that the Civil War was about slavery. Probably 99% of people in the old “North” and “West” would believe that now. A majority in the “New South” believe it, but not as many as in the North. Neither the US nor the Confederate states ever claimed that it was about slavery. A Southerner of the time would have said it was about “state’s rights” and the implicit idea that the Constitution allowed states to leave the Union as well as enter it. A Northerner would have said that it was about “rebellion” and “upholding the Constitution.” To be fair, some Southerners were outspoken in their support of slavery and their firm belief that African-Americans were subhumans. Some Northerners were outspokenly against slavery and supported a war to end it. The majority hedged. My late father was a historian who had studied that period. I studied it myself, both in college and on my own. My father and I talked about it a lot. We concluded that _we_ believe that the Civil War was about slavery. Other issues were involved, but slavery would have precipitated a war even without them, and without slavery, war might have been avoided. All else is argument. Good historians will offer opinions and nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![633squadron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/ee59a6/32.png) [@633squadron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/633squadron)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/225 "2004-04-05T01:35:05Z")
Myth: A statue of George Washington stands at the top of the Nelson Column in Trafalgar Square. Truth: As we all know, this is _not_ a statue of George Washington, it is a statue of Catherine the Great. In drag. On a horse. :rolleyes: “What is this guy talking about?” you ask? My story is (and I swear I am not making this up) while I was on one of those wonderful sightseeing buses in London several years ago, we happened to pull into Trafalgar Square. As I gazed around, I heard a woman say, with a distinctively American accent “Who _is_ that up there? Is that a statue of George Washington?” I think she was confused by the hat and coat. I had to explain that, in a square named after a famous naval battle, on top of a column named after the hero of that battle, it was unlikely that the statue would be of an _American_, particularly _that_ American. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/226 "2004-04-05T14:33:01Z")
> [@633squadron](#): > > Neither the US nor the Confederate states ever claimed that it was about slavery. disagree. Check out [A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union,](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm) from which: > [@](#): > > In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. > > Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. > > … > > There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. And then there’s [A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union,](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm) from which: > [@](#): > > Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people…She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. > > … > > We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. And of course we have [the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union,](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm), from which: > [@](#): > > We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. Finally, there’s [Georgia’s declaration of secession,](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm) from which: [/quote] The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. … The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers. [/quote] Seems to me that there is ample evidence from the secessionists themselves that the Civil War was about slavery. The annoying historical myth is the one being promulgated by the Sons of Confederate Veterans and others that the Civil War was rather about taxation and “state’s rights.” ---
**Author:** ![Exgineer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a88e4f/32.png) [@Exgineer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exgineer)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/227 "2004-04-05T14:58:05Z")
> [@633squadron](#): > > My story is (and I swear I am not making this up) while I was on one of those wonderful sightseeing buses in London several years ago, we happened to pull into Trafalgar Square. As I gazed around, I heard a woman say, with a distinctively American accent “Who _is_ that up there? Is that a statue of George Washington?” I think she was confused by the hat and coat. Well, okay, but I don’t think a boneheaded question from one particular idiot constitutes a widespread myth. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/228 "2004-04-05T16:44:12Z")
> [@](#): > > No one in the South voted for Republicans between Reconstruction and the 1960’s. The Reps always had strongholds in the South, such as East Tennessee and western Virginia and North Carolina. In Tennessee, the Reps thrice won the Governorship in the 1910’s and 1920’s. While this is true, the Ruplublican strongholds were far outgunned, politically. > [@](#): > > “Jim Crow” started the moment Reconstruction ended. Not quite true. THe “Jim Crow” laws were, for the most part, not passed until the 1890’s. Though the distinction, historically, is fairly minimal. > [@](#): > > If one were to beleive the myths, then a dozen ninjas or Samuri would massacre an army of armored knights. Here’s a related myth: Ninja could fight. Quite frankly, a Ninja trying to fight a Samurai (especially one of those modern fools who think they’ve got secret Ninja fighting techniques) would get his ass handed to him on a stick. A very pointed, sharp, curved metal stick, in fact. Ninja carried weapons and knew how to use them decently, but they studied every possible methgod of avoiding combat, because Samurai guards trained their whole lived just to kill people and were better armed and more heavily armored. And their was no secret ninja fighting style, not at least as a credible martial school. “Ninja magic” actually did exist, thougyh. They had many tricks for making it seem as though they had mystic powers. [quote] One bit of lore I’ve heard repeated many times is "When native Americans > [@](#): > > killed a buffalo, they used every part of the creature and didn’t let any of it go to waste." Is this true? If it is, then who did it and in what sense did they “use” it? Its partly true, albeit not literally so. but its also true mostly because they had no choice. The Plains ain’t exactly overflowing with bountiful resources. > [@](#): > > The myth you’re implying, GorillaMan, is that the Native Americans had a high environmental consciousness that led them to carefully restrain their environmental impact. There’s no evidence of that, and plenty of evidence against it. Their apparent environmental friendliness was simply that their low population density, relative to the agrarian society that white settlers brought, didn’t have all that much of an impact after the easily extincted animals were gone. In South America several tribes practiced burn agriculture, which destroyed huge swaths of rainforest. And no, they didn’t shed any tears over it. And it may not have been ustainable, either - their was a definite shrinkage. In fact, the forest came back with the arrival of the White Man in SA, because too many poeple died from disease to keep burning so much land. > [@](#): > > I’m sure 100 years from now many people will believe Bill Gates invented the computer. ) To be fair, he invented an economic niche that defines the PC era to this day. > [@](#): > > During Shakespeare’s day, it was common for British women to marry in their early teens, hence Juliet. (Again a nice story, but in fact the average age of marriage for women at the time was about … 26! Though it is true that aristocrats were more likely to marry young than commoners.) Are you sure abotu this? I thought that the poor, especially agricultural folk, tended to marry quite early. Urban workers, of course, married later. > [@](#): > > The Inquisition killed millions of people. (Nope, probably more like 50,000, which is peanuts compared to 20th century legalized rampages.) Come to think of it, I’ve also heard that they only were able to confirm very few executions, with other deaths being attributed to the Inquisition unfarily. Certainly, it was far, far outmatched by the conveniently-forgotten British version. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/229 "2004-04-05T18:21:13Z")
It is still amazing to read about this disaster! The French high command were on drugs or something…they had AMPLE warning that the VietMinh were dragging heavy guns through the jungle, and had encircled Dien Ben Phu months before the battle. I am just an armchair general…but even I would never have been so foolish as to drop my troops into a valley, encircled by high hills! Also, there was NO escape plan! From the Bernard fall book (“HELL IN A VERY SMALL PLACE”)-once Colonel Piroth (the French artillery commander) realized that the base was surrounded by VitMinh with heavy artillery, he committed suicide! :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/230 "2004-04-05T18:39:24Z")
> [@633squadron](#): > > Myth: A statue of George Washington stands at the top of the Nelson Column in Trafalgar Square. > Truth: As we all know, this is _not_ a statue of George Washington, it is a statue of Catherine the Great. In drag. On a horse. :rolleyes: > . Yeah, but was she making it with the horse? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/231 "2004-04-05T18:58:09Z")
Well, now I know what to get **Guinastasia** for Christmas. With the myth being as old as it is there must be countless woodcuts, statuettes, and matreshka dolls based on it. ---
**Author:** ![Caricci](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/85f322/32.png) [@Caricci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caricci)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/232 "2004-04-05T19:35:51Z")
I thought of one the other night when my husband was watching that Merlin mini-series on the Sci-Fi channel: King Arthur was a King of England in medieval times. This one really annoys me. I think there are peope who think medieval = dark ages or _something_, I don’t know. What I do know is that the names Kings of England are very well-documented (this really feels like an understatement) during that period and Arthur isn’t one of them! There are theories that this guy or that guy from the first millenium might be Arthur, but a medieval King? Nope. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/233 "2004-04-05T19:57:33Z")
I remember mom taking me to a lecture on Arthur at a library way back in elementary school. The speaker described the way most people pictured Arthur, in a suit of finely crafted plate mail. He then explained that this was about as accurate as picturing Arthur in chaps, a ten gallon hat, and wielding six shooters. AFAIK (I’m sure Guinastasia will correct any errors I make) If Arthur was based on a real king, the man would have lived between 500 and 1000 AD. The original tales did not include Lancelot (IIRC he was taken from a French source and stuck in) or the grail. Morganna was originally two women rather than one. And there were plenty of other changes. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/234 "2004-04-05T20:29:36Z")
Well, if Arthur was a _dux bellorum_ in the sixth century (as originally reported by Nennius around 800), then he clearly _was_ an early medieval figure (if we date the Middle Ages to the fall of Rome and deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476). I am unaware of any clearly recorded English kings prior to the Saxon Egbert of 802-809, so there is room for Arthur back before the year 600. (Although, strictly speaking, Nennius never claimed that he was king. Arthur did not get elevated to “king” until Geoffrey of Monmouth had him conquer all of western and northern Europe in his 1136 work. In fact, I doubt that anything not wholly fictional and anachronistic has been written about Arthur from Geoffrey onward.) Certainly, giving Arthur and his knights plate armor and jousts and the orders of chivalry are seriously anachronistic–but even anachronism has a long pedigree: Malory, writing around 1470, places the appearance of the Siege Perilous in 487, then has Arthur lament the use of cannons against his people as he goes to fight Mordred. ---
**Author:** ![lno](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a8b319/32.png) [@lno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lno)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/235 "2004-04-05T20:41:56Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > but even anachronism has a long pedigree: Malory, writing around 1470, places the appearance of the Siege Perilous in 487, then has Arthur lament the use of cannons against his people as he goes to fight Mordred. You see, uh, Malory was actually, er, making a scathing indictment of the state of church law and its misapplication against, um, well, he was really referring to Innocent III’s interdict against England in 1208 … you see, he’s lamenting the use of _canons_ against his people. A common mistake, really. ---
**Author:** ![Wumpus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8c91f0/32.png) [@Wumpus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wumpus)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/236 "2004-04-05T20:42:19Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > Are you sure abotu this? I thought that the poor, especially agricultural folk, tended to marry quite early. Urban workers, of course, married later. Yeppers. [Here](http://web.uvic.ca/shakespeare/Library/SLTnoframes/society/marriage.html) [are](http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2001/2276.html) [some](http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~wesmith/214materials.html) [cites.](http://www.portsdown.demon.co.uk/dem.htm) (Well, I got it a little wrong … it seems the age is actually closer to 25 than 26 🙂 ) ---
**Author:** ![Governor\_Quinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d26b3c/32.png) [@Governor\_Quinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Governor_Quinn)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/237 "2004-04-05T23:46:38Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > While this is true, the Republican strongholds were far outgunned, politically. True. I wasn’t saying that they were anywhere near parity with the Dems ( they weren’t, not even in Tennessee) but that, yes, Virginia, there were Southern Reps (albeit not particularly powerful ones) between Reconstruction and the 1950’s. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/238 "2004-04-06T21:43:41Z")
Every time I see hat POW/MIA black flag, I wonder: are there really thousands of vietnam war prisoners, in jungle camps in vietnam?The youngest of these guys have to be pushing 50 by now…why is the vietnam government still keeping them locked up? :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/239 "2004-04-06T22:08:30Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Every time I see hat POW/MIA black flag, I wonder: are there really thousands of vietnam war prisoners, in jungle camps in vietnam?The youngest of these guys have to be pushing 50 by now…why is the vietnam government still keeping them locked up? :mad: You’re right, **ralph124c**. That is a sterling example of an annoying historical myth. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959/240 "2004-04-06T23:03:11Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > Are you sure abotu this? I thought that the poor, especially agricultural folk, tended to marry quite early. Urban workers, of course, married later. I can’t give any sources, since it’s quite old, and actually, I don’t even remember exactly what period was covered (the fourteenth or fifteenth century, I believe). But I read a study based on churches records, showing that indeed first marriages, on average, happened quite late. I can’t remember what were these averages, either. But it seems to me it was in the mid-20’s for men, a couple years less for women. So it’s consistent with the 26 yo advanced by the poster you’re responding too. You’re going to tell me that my memory is so blurry that I shouldn’t have bothered posting, but this information striked me since, like you, I believed that people marrried significantly earlier at this time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoying-historical-myths/236959.md?page=13)