During the Middle Ages, they didn’t have modern water treatment so they drank nothing but alcohol.
Renaissance artists invented perspective.
Before Martin Luther King Jr, nobody questioned segregation. Ever.
I thought that one of the early Renaissance artists was the first to use the vanishing point to convey perspective.
What contemporary sources from the First Century are considered objective?
I think the issue is “relative” badness versus “badness”. And I’m uncertain how enjoying the company of prostitutes, especially given the context, should be grouped in the same sentence as murder.
I agree that Graves’ Claudius is a stretch from what he likely really was.
According to the year-long American History survey course I took away back when, the Pilgrims weren’t even from England!
OK, that’s an exaggeration. What we were taught (IIRC), was that the Pilgrims had left England for (I think) Holland, where they were free to worship as they chose. They stayed there for quite a few years, but when they noticed that their children were becoming too assimilated (and drifting away from the parents’ religion), they decided the only thing left to do was to go somewhere where there wasn’t anyone else’s religion around. I seem to remember that they went back to England to charter a boat to the New World, but I see this as more like a connecting flight at an airport. They may have traveled on from England, but they started from Holland.
Of course, once they got to the New World, they did their very best to make sure that the only religion you were free to have was theirs. Rhode Island was founded by people who disagreed with this policy, and the colongy became a refuge for people who were persecuted for their religious beliefs in other colonies.
I’m sure they tried. 
They only stayed in Holland for a few years. Holland was really just a layover, to use your metaphor. And they were still really Englishmen at heart.
[QUOTE=KJ]
Renaissance artists invented perspective.
[qUOTE]
This depends on what you mean by “perspective.” Roman artists (probably following Greek precedents) used aerial perspective, making more distant objects fuzzier and less intense in color hue; they also painted lines at angles the make them appear to recede away from the picture plane, and thus achieve a kind of linear perspective.
But for true, mathematical linear perspective–in which all of the orthogonals recede back to a vanishing point–you have to go to the Italian Renaissance, circa 1420s. The architect Brunelleschi is traditionally credited with developing linear perspective, while artists like Masaccio, Ghiberti, and Uccello applied the principles to painting and relief sculpture. Alberti refined it further.
The most annoying historical myth ever is probably about the Battle of Agincourt and the origin of the middle finger/“2-fingered salute” gesture(depending on which country you’re in).
Not only he wasn’t the shortest man alive, but he wasn’t even particulary short. I was puzzled when I found references to his supposed small size on the internet for the first time, even more when I discovered it was aparently a widespread belief (one would think that he had been that short, it would be quite well known in France. it’s not like you never heard/read about him);
So, I searched first his size, which was 1m68 (that would be 5’7" if I’m not wrong), which isn’t spectacularily short, even by today’s standards, and even quite average, I would suspect, by his time’s standards.
At first, I assumed that this belief about Napoleon being short in the anglo-saxon world was probably related to british propaganda or caricatures dating back to this epoch, as I couldn’t find another plausible reason for this tale.
But eventualy, I found somewhere another explanation, which seems quite logical : his size, expressed in french feets and inches (the metric system was a long shot from being in common use in france at the beginning of the 1800s) would have been mistaken for a size expressed in british feet/inches by many people, resulting in this tale about napoleon being very short. If my maths/sources are correct 1M68 would be 5’1" (pre-metric french system) which would indeed appear very short if mistaken for british units.
I apologize in advance if I my maths are uncorrect. it’s not like I’m used to convert 2 century old “pieds” in british feet on an everyday basis…
That’s quite interesting, clairobscur, and makes a lot of sense. You’ve taught me something today!
It doesn’t, but the original comment to which you took objection was
Goes to evidence of horniness, your honor.
Pilgrim is the term for Calvinists who went to Holland and from there to America. Puritans is the term for Calvinists who remained in England. There was considerable friction between the two in spite of the extreme similarity of their beliefs.
In addition, farmland was at a premium and out of reach financially for most of them. Also, Spain was planning a war to retake the Netherlands and the Netherlands were planning a war to stop them, and about the last think that any of the Puritans wanted was to live under a Catholic king.
[Q]They may have traveled on from England, but they started from Holland.[/Q]
Well, it depends on how you look at it. If you moved from NYC to Quebec, then 12 years later you moved from Quebec to Costa Rica, you’d probably speak French better than most New Yorkers but you’d still most likely self-identify as more New Yorker than Quebecois. The fact that the Mayflower Compact was written in English rather than Dutch, begins with the words We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland and concludes with the words IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland implies they most definitely regarded themselves as English.
For which who could blame them? If you braved a horrible ocean voyage, mortgaged all you had to the hilt for many years, endured incredible casualty rates from disease, exposure and malnutrition while establishing a colony, and then just when it becomes profitable and livable a large group of other people move in who don’t have to face the same perils, you’re probably not going to be that inclined towards multiculturalism either. They felt Plimoth Bay and surrounding environs were theirs, given by God and won fair and square, and while I couldn’t disagree more with their religious views I can’t fault at all their claim to the land (rights of Indians notwithstanding because hardly any Europeans took those particularly seriously).
Tacking on to Sampiro’s post (I don’t feel like quoting the whole thing, it’s only 2 posts back): There was really little problem with the Pilgrims taking and using the land on the Plimoth plantation. The original settlers were virtually all dead and gone as a result of European diseases to which they had no immunity, probably spread by earlier explorers, hunters and the like. Cleared ground and tilled soil was lying there waiting for them. One of the reasons that Squanto helped them out was that he was about the only one left of the local native inhabitants. Reference is Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel.
No, my only post in here wondered which contemporary (or as close as one can get) would be considered objective, and about the reference on prostitutes.
I do understand your point about prostitutes now. However, I’m talking relative badness. Having a whole stable of Roman whores and being Mack Daddy Claudius (complete with peacock feather) is better than raping your sisters then having them executed, for example…
That is, I agree he is portrayed inaccurately, but I still think he stands out as one of the better ones of the time.
And I still like Antoninus Pius best.
As perpetuated in this thread:
The Pilgrims were Puritans.
Not really. Of the 101 people who started off on the Mayflower or the 102 who landed at Plymouth, 35 were members of the English Separatist Church which was a group that had broken with the Puritans because the Puritans continued to hope to reform the Church of England while the Separatists felt that there was no hope for reform and left for Leyden, Holland around 1608.
The Mayflower Compact, often held up as the first charter of self-determination by Europeans in the Americas, was actually a power grab by the Separatists. On the other hand, as long as Bradford maintained control of the Plymouth colony, they never assimilated with the later Puritans of the Massachussetts Bay Colony and they did not engage in the treachery and plunder that the Puritans directed against the Indians who already lived in New England.
Wait a sec. I thought that the “Pilgrims” were not the only people on the boat. As I understood it, there were already “outsiders” who came with them, basically just wanting to make some money in the New World.
Whoops! Never mind-- tomndeb already adressed this.
My apologies.
Re: non Pilgrims at Plimoth- Of the 102 passengers on the Mayflower, there was about an even division of Calvinists and Anglicans. After the first winter (when half of the settlers [including 3/4 of the women] died) Anglicans actually gained a small majority. They got along surprisingly well, largely I suspect from desperation, though there was friction. However, the wave of immigration from English Puritans gave the Calvinists quite the majority in the next few years.
Anglicans were not driven out of the colony for the simple reason that they couldn’t be by law. Others weren’t as protected. I would imagine that both the Anglican and Separatists from the original voyage resented the latter arrivals by those of any faith, but I can’t back that.
I recall hearing that, in the last few years, the death certificate for Rasputin was found, and that it showed no evidence that he had been poisined or that he had been still alive when thrown into the Neve.
Some annoyences of mine:
The “line in the sand” at the Alamo. Didn’t happen.
Carefully aimed rifle fire won the Battle of New Orleans. It didn’t. Most of the men didn’t have rifles, the clouds of smoke caused by weapons of this era would have prevented accurate aim after a few rounds, and there is evidence that it was the artillery that caused most British casualties.
James Bowie was a master duelist and invented the Bowie knife. Both wrong. He was in only one quasi-duel in his life (the “Sandbar” medley), and it was his brother that was responsible for the first Bowie knife, which did not, in certain respects, resemble the modern Bowie knife.
Abe Lincoln’s homosexuality. No contemporary evidence, and the chief clamant of it nowadays (Larry Kramer) won’t let anyone see his evidence, which automatically makes it suspect.
“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.
The late 1800’s was a period of Republican dominance. Not at all. Between 1868 and 1892, Dems won the popular vote in 4 of the 7 Presidential elections, only suffered one blowout (1872), and controlled the House for most of the 1870’s, 1880’s, and 1890’s.
The image of “Davy Crockett”, in a coonskin cap and buckskins. The real David Crockett never called himself “Davy”, dressed, for the most part, like any other Congressman of his era, and is first recorded as wearing a coonskin cap after losing his 1835 re-election bid.
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.
I can’t rightfully say these nnoy me, but on the subject of final words.
For the longest, I heard that John Adams last words were something along the lines of “Jefferson still lives.” This makes a good story as we know that Jefferson had actually died earlier in the day, but then I read a biography that says after he said that, he lapsed into unconsciousness, then revived for a few seconfs, grabbed the arm of one of his granddaughters or nieces (or some female there t his bedside) and said “Help me, child, help me,” then expired.
So which is true?
And Ernesto Guevara-Lynch de la Serna (did I get that right?)? What were the last words of good ol’ Che? Did he say:
“Go ahead and shoot, and you will see how a man dies.”
or
“Shoot, but know that you are killing a man.”
or
“Shoot, you are only killing a man.”
or
“Self-proclaimed wannabe revolutionist kids thirty years from now will have that famous picture of me looking pensive in my nifty beret that doesn’t look a whole hell of a lot like me, especially now as I stand here nearly starved and bedraggled with my long scraggly thick curly hair and full beard, framed on their dorm walls, but not know a damned thing about who I really was (like the fact that I was trained as a doctor and really was Argentina-born, not Cuban, but didn’t actaually sing like Antonio Banderas), what my political beliefs really were all about, so just fucking shoot me now!”
Thanks in advance,
Sir Rhosis
Wouldn’t it depend on the size of the woman? I work with a teeny tiny woman who is probably 4’11’’ and can’t weight more than 80 pounds. I am certain she could squeeze tighter than 19 inches. She’s not that big to begin with.