Are there any notable exceptions to 'the victors write the history books'?

Great Debates
1

“The victors write the history books” is a well-known observation, and it seems to be borne out by our (Western) views of history: We consider e.g. the Persian invasion of Greece, the Arab and Mongol invasions of Europe, the French ancien régime, the colonialization of America, Africa and most of Asia by European powers, the Ottoman empire, Franco’s coup, Nazism, Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe all in an unfavourable light, and they were all ultimately defeated/reversed, even if they temporarily (in some cases: for centuries) had the upper hand.

Possible counterexamples that I can think of are the Chinese invasion of Tibet and the Armenian genocide, but these are arguably not history yet but unresolved political issues, as uncoerced historical discussion is not yet possible in China and Turkey, respectively.

So, are there cases where there is a consensus among historians and the historically interested international public that in the conflict between A and B, B was in the right, even if A won, and won for good? To qualify this consensus should include the political/enthnic descendants/successors of A, if any.

2

Anyone recall reading “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”? Oh, that’s right I have a whole thread on it. Now, a lot of thing in the book appear to be the result of a hoax, but I see no reason to doubt the books claims the catholic church got a lot of land and money from the stewards of the Merovingian kings. That land didn’t actually belong to the stewards. It was written down in a book which was published, although, even if some of the facts in the book turned out to be true, many would still cling to the church.

Now, I am posting this in order to get the first post, then I will actually google it, in order for me to get the first post.

3

The “war” between the American Indians and the Eurpean settlers.

There are other wars, less thought of, where most historians don’t seem to think either side was “the right one”. The 7 Years War, the Hundred Years war, the War of the Roses, The Franco-prussian war, and such like. Even WWI- now some 90 years later- is getting a lot of 'both sides were stupid, arrogant & greedy".

4

Hm… that’s a toughie. I would venture to say that the further back you go, the more likely you are to find successful wars/invations/whatever condemned by historians. There’s less emotional connection and need to defend atrocities to protect pride.

However, this may violate your criteria, as none of those powers are around anymore- they may have lasted for a hundred years and been defeated by someone entirely other than the ones they immorally treated, however. Does that mean they “won”?

Please correct me on anything I get wrong here…

For example, we don’t think too highly of the various Assyrian empires, which had an unfortunate habit of massacre, oppression, and trying to completely eliminate the vairous ethnic groups they conquered. We also don’t think too highly of the neo-Babylonians for that whole Jewish captivity thing. In that instance, the Jews wrote the history books, and Babylon wasn’t conquered until significantly later, by Persia. The Jews certainly didn’t regain the upper hand. Do these examples count?

There’s also the barbarian invasions of Rome (and, heck, the Mongol invasions of China). The barbarians (excuse the nomenclature, but doesn’t that right there tell you how little say in the writing of history they had?) unquestionably won, in the sense that the Western Roman empire as such was never a power again, and the barbarian kingdoms were in some cases powers for centuries. But the peculiar dynamics of assimilation in that case meant that history was written by men who considered themselves Romans and their new leaders barbarians. The sack of Rome in 410 is still pretty much considered a tragedy, though there isn’t so much a moral condemnation of the Goths as “in the wrong.” The dynamics of assimilation were, AFAIK, pretty similar in China where men who considered themselves Chinese were writing the history of their Mongol leaders. I think. Do those count?

I was going to mention Armenia, but I see you addressed that.

5

I’ll offer the Versailles Treaty as an example of “the losers writing the history books”. The historical consensus is that the treaty was a bad idea, both in forcing Germany to accept sole responsibility for a war for which all sides were to blame, and in imposing draconian reparations which damaged the economies of all countries concerned.

So in that case, Germany lost the war (World War I), lost the peace (Versailles), and lost the follow-up war (World War II), but still succeeded in having their view of events (the first two, not the third!) accepted as historically valid.

6

Ok, so I just read over a few sources, and it seems like the situation is exactly like what it sounds like. The stewards take over the kingdom. they give lots of land to the pope, who at this time was not considered nearly as legitimate as he is today, and the pope, using the legitamacy given to him by the stewards, the grants “right of divine rule” upon the stewards. All recorded in history books.

7

The priest Flavius Josephus was a general in the Judaean revolt against Rome. The war ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. In 79, Josephus published The Jewish War – history written by a loser. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

8

Until fairly recently, and by that I mean the last 50 years, most history books treated Reconstruction in a very pro-Confederate way. All Reconstruction governments were corrupt, Carpetbaggers only had vile motives for coming South, Scalawags were traitors, “Negroes” were totally in over their heads when granted suffrage, military occupation was just another form of tyranny, and the KKK was only trying to defend white people against the dangers of a newly-freed race of 4 million people bent on revenge, etc., etc., etc.

9

Read Loewen’s books, especially Lies Across America, in which he explicitly states that he believes that Southern Revisionists have written their own version of the history of the Civil War and Reconstruction in books and historical markers, a case of someone other than the victors writing history.

10

Hear hear. I remember a reading a history book in grade school (West Virginia, ca. 1967) which contained the paragraph heading, “Slavery: Good or evil?”

FTR, though, it was an old book, and I don’t remember any teachers (all of whom were white) espousing the view that slavery was anything but bad.

11

This being America, we’re not much required to be proud of all the wars we’ve fought and won - so maybe we can’t say that the losers have written the history books, but they’ve had a chance to get a word in, at least.

Anyone have anything good to say about the Spanish-American War?

12

I thought about that example myself, but I’m not sure it qualifies. The white South lost the Civil War but “won” the Reconstruction conflict, in the sense that biracial state governments were eventually ousted and Jim Crow imposed for the better part of a century. Only with the modern Civil Rights movement was this “victory” reversed.

So the historical consensus followed the reality on the ground–when Jim Crow was in force, the dominant historical school justified it, but after it passed, the dominant school reassessed the circumstances under which it was imposed.

13

Loewen is not a trustworthy source of information. I have pointed out in other threads examples of distorted facts and even falsified footnotes in Lies Across America. See here and here.

As for the OP, outside some sections of Texas, I’d say there’s a pretty solid consensus that the US war with Mexico was a land-grab.

14

The USA was- by far- the lesser of two Evils?
:frowning:

Let us put the OP backwards. How many wars have been fought where the winner is considered to be “the good guy”? Well, there’s WWII- and there can be no doubt that the Axis powers were by & large run by men of deepest evil. Viet-nam war? Both sides have been castigated for their motives and results. WWI? Most Historians now think this was a stupid pointless war, with both sides being about as bad.

There do not seem to be very many wars where it appears the the simple act of “winning” made one side into the Crusaders for Good.

15

History written by losers

Here’s some ancient ones off the top of my head:

Assyrian conquest of Israel - Biblical, Hebrew source

Babylonian conquest of Judah - Biblical, Hebrew source

Cyrus the Great defeated & killed by Scythians, c. 500 BC - Persian sources

Peloponnesian War, Sparta defeats Athens. c. 400 BC - History by Thucydides (Athenian)

Battle of Cunaxia, c. 400 BC - Xenophon (Greek mercenary on losing side)

Gauls sack Rome, 390 BC - Roman sources

Macedonian conquest of Greece - Greek sources

Parthians defeat Romans, Carrhae, 53 BC - Roman sources

Germans defeat Romans, 9 AD - Roman sources

Jewish Revolt, 69 AD - Jewish sources (Josephus)

Persians defeat Romans, 260 AD – Roman sources

Fall of Western Roman Empire, 378 AD - 476 AD - Roman sources

Legends of King Arthur, c. 500 AD, Celtic Britains vs. German Anglo-Saxons - Celtic sources

Charlemagne’s army defeated by Basques, c. 800 AD – French sources (Song of Roland)

Crusades - Western sources

100 Years War, France vs. England - English sources

16

Damn, I thought some of those I listed above would get a rise out of somebody!

17

Yeah, I was hoping the same thing when I posted about the Merovingians.
::Hands Can Handle the Truth a jug full of ale::
and says
“It’s good for what ails you.”