# Historical myths DEBUNKED! **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 19, 2025, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251 "2025-08-19T02:56:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2026, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/461 "2026-01-11T21:42:53Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > It wasn’t the earliest pushback against a king’s power, monarchy in the middle ages was in no way absolute amd never could be, the kingdom was not regarded as the monarch’s domain… I believe you are completely mistaken here. The whole point of the English feudal system was that the monarch owned everything (i.e. land) in his domain, and his [tenants-in-chief](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenant-in-chief) held their lands under feudal land tenure from the monarch. > [@Wikipedia](#): > > Under the English feudal system, the king (asserting his [allodial right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_right)) was considered the sole absolute “owner” of land. All nobles, knights, and other tenants, known as [vassals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassal), merely “held” land from the king, who occupied the highest tier of the “feudal pyramid.” > **[Feudalism in England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism_in_England)** > > Feudalism as practised in the Kingdom of England during the medieval period was a system of political, military, and socio-economic organisation based on land tenure. Designed to consolidate power and direct the wealth of the land to the king while providing military service to his causes, feudal society was structured around hierarchical relationships involving land ownership and obligations. These landholdings were known as fiefs, fiefdoms, or fees. > The word feudalism was not a medieval term b... > [@Stanislaus](#): > > …the idea that there were limits on the monarch’s power was not radical but occurred in earlier centuries and across Europe. That may be so, but any limitation on the monarch’s power was typically _de facto_ as opposed to _de jure_. The Magna Carta was one of the earliest instances of legally limiting the power of the king in writing, and that is why it is notable. The idea of limiting the king’s power by written charter was so radical that King John subsequently requested that the Pope annul it (which he did). And yes, there is certainly later myth-making associated with it as to its significance, but I don’t disagree that it set a notable precedent. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2026, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/462 "2026-01-16T09:49:40Z")
> [@robby](#): > > I believe you are completely mistaken here A little bit, yeah. I thought you were talking about the monarch’s personal domain, i.e. the crown lands he hadn’t granted away, my fault. Yes, land ownership ultimately vested in the king but in the process of granting it away to tenants in chief the king also surrendered a lot of associated rights. This was a practical matter, medieval kings didn’t have the effective power to rule over even somewhere the size of England with delegating authority to the barons, but because feudalism was essentially contractual it was also a legal matter as well. The question of whether the king was constrained by law or could act as he pleased had been thought of and codified before Magna Carta. Unfortunately my sources from the last time this subject came up here have suffered linkrot but this is a good thread on the myth/reality of Magna Carta. Key points for me are: Similar limitations to regal power were being codified in Spain and Hungary contemporaeously a little earlier. English legal documents from 100 years prior make reference to the accepted limitations onthe king’s power, including in areas such as right to judgement which crop up in Magna Carta. Legal scholars in the previous century were writing about the well understood limits on regal power. The point of Magna Carta was that it was firming up existing limitations which John had tried to ignore, not that it was introducing new concepts. > [@robby](#): > > The idea of limiting the king’s power by written charter was so radical that King John subsequently requested that the Pope annul it (which he did) On this specifically, King’s habitually issued charters at the beginning of their reign, which included acknowledgement of the limitations of their power [The Magna Carta. - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-magna-carta/816335/18) Actually, I found the two Lord Sumption - Supreme Court Justice and medieval historian - that lay out this case best and cites an earlier regal charter. [Lord Sumption gives the Opening Address at the Franco-British Council Conference](https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/speech_150611_acf9b65152.pdf) [Lord Sumption at the Friends of the British Library AGM](https://supremecourttest.azurewebsites.net/docs/speech-150309.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2026, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/463 "2026-01-16T09:57:17Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > IMO … A cute just so story that makes the side of democracy & what would millennia later be called Westernism, heroic and wonderful. Yes, this is a foundational myth of Western propaganda, indeed the concept of “the West” very much stems from Greek wars against Persia. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2026, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/464 "2026-01-16T13:01:27Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > , this is a foundational myth of Western propaganda, indeed the concept of “the West” very much stems from Greek wars against Persia But that doesn’t make it factually untrue. I am failing to see any aspect of the battle of Thermopalea that qualifies as a myth. Obviously it wasn’t a victory, but it’s not remembered as a victory, even the most jingoistic retellings of the story don’t claim that ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2026, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/465 "2026-01-16T14:58:53Z")
It’s remembered as a heroic stand where the 300 super-soldiers of the legendary military state Sparta held off superior numbers through superior military and warrior virtues, until they were undone by treachery - nevertheless, their brave showing brought the Greeks valuable time and cost the Persians dearly. In fact they lost the pass through poor reconnaissance and planning within a couple of days of fighting, thus screwing up Greek strategy which had expected them to hold for at least a week, to the cost of the devastation of important Greek cities including Athens, fracturing the alliance to breaking point. This was not Sparta’s finest hour, it was a fuck up. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2026, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/466 "2026-01-16T15:11:59Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > This was not Sparta’s finest hour, it was a fuck up. That’s your interpretation of the historical event. Obviously the interpretation of all historical events changes over the centuries. That doesn’t make it a historical myth. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2026, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/467 "2026-01-16T15:37:54Z")
A historical myth doesn’t have to be made up from whole cloth. Very often, they accrete around an actual event whcih becomes the basis for a nation or culture constructing or re-affirming its identity. The Norman Yoke, the Glorious Revolution, “Very well then, alone” - these are all very much based on things that really happened but which have been interpreted so as to become foundational stories about Great Britain and its national character. The myth I’m addressing isn’t : The battle of Thermopylae happened" it’s: > Sparta wasnt some uniquely martial polity producing an unstoppable warrior citizenry. Its actual record in wars is pretty patchy, Thermopylae in particular was a catastrophic defeat. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2026, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/468 "2026-01-16T15:47:59Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > A historical myth doesn’t have to be made up from whole cloth. Very often, they accrete around an actual event whcih becomes the basis for a nation or culture constructing or re-affirming its identity But those kind of “myths” can’t be debunked. They are just about the interpretation of facts. Loads of factual historical events form the basis of extremely dubious national myths, e.g. the Blitz, the American Civil war, Waterloo, Trafalgar, the War of Independence, founding of the American colonies, etc. etc. But that doesn’t make the actual factual events themselves myths that can be debunked. That’s doubly so for ancient events like the Battle of Thermopalea where the actual historical sources are extremely limited. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2026, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/469 "2026-01-16T15:51:05Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > But that doesn’t make the actual factual events themselves myths that can be debunked. Yes, but I’m not saying the events are myths that can be debunked. I’m saying the things you have just described as “extremely dubious national myths” can be debunked on the basis of the facts. I mean, on what basis are you describing these as extremely dubious if not on the basis of the facts? ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2026, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/470 "2026-01-16T15:56:59Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > But that doesn’t make the actual factual events themselves myths that can be debunked. Hmmm…I suppose it becomes a matter of semantics. I’m a big skeptic on the subject of the significance of the Battle Tours/Poitiers in 732. That’s a subject on which many prominent historians will disagree with me and some will agree. But regardless of who’s right, my contention is that the notion that Charles Martel’s victory saved Europe from Muslim domination is likely a too often very confidently repeated myth. Now the battle actually happened - we know pretty much how it went, who won and who lost, and at least some of the hows and whys. Not much to argue except minutiae on that. It’s the historical impact that is (I would contend) a myth. So, the battle of Tours is no myth, in a Parson Weems sense of inventing George Washington chopping down a cherry tree. But it’s standing as a pivotal event in European history arguably is. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2026, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/471 "2026-01-16T16:00:01Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > on what basis are you describing these as extremely dubious if not on the basis of the facts? E.g. the Blitz. The facts of the blitz are recorded in incredibly precise detail, down to the last bomb dropped and injury inflicted. The dubious national myth is that this shows British character as a uniquely stoic, resilient people. I’d call that pretty damn dubious, but there is not really any set of facts that could debunk it. It’s just a way of interpreting the historical events. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2026, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/472 "2026-01-16T16:05:30Z")
Gotcha. I agree that this is a dubious national myth (i.e. that the British were _uniquely_ resilient about being bombed) but I think it could be debunked with reference to the facts about the effect of Allied bombing on Germany, or current Russian attacks on Ukraine. I agree that’s not as straightforward as debunking GW and the cherry tree. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2026, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/473 "2026-01-16T16:43:59Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > I think it could be debunked with reference to the facts about the effect of Allied bombing on Germany, In fact, a quick google [suggests](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/historical-notes-propaganda-and-the-london-blitz-1171497.html) this work has been done: > In retrospect, the resilience of Londoners in 1940-41 was not unbelievable, and it was certainly not unique. The citizens of Berlin, Hamburg, Tokyo, and even Nagasaki showed similar endurance in the face of much greater devastation later in the war. Londoners were simply the first to demonstrate the error of the pre-war belief that only soldiers (and only men) could accustom themselves to danger and death, and that women, children, old people, shop assistants and bank clerks were generally incapable of sustained courage. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2026, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/474 "2026-01-16T20:20:11Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > E.g. the Blitz. The facts of the blitz are recorded in incredibly precise detail, down to the last bomb dropped and injury inflicted. The dubious national myth is that this shows British character as a uniquely stoic, resilient people. I’d call that pretty damn dubious, but there is not really any set of facts that could debunk it. Thefts rose sharply. And a good number of British casualties and property damage was caused by their own ack-ack shells falling, etc. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2026, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/475 "2026-01-16T21:00:58Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > In retrospect, the resilience of Londoners in 1940-41 was not unbelievable, and it was certainly not unique. Personally that’s another bugbear of mine when it comes to revisionist history, particularly when it’s reported in the mainstream press. This is a classic strawman you often encounter in this kind of situation. No one, in particular no serious historian, ever claimed the resilience of Londoners during the blitz was “unbelievable and unique”. Anyone vaguely acquainted with the events of WW2 knows the German and Japanese suffered far worse bombing. But still you get this kind of headline implying this patently obvious fact, that no one has ever denied, is some kind of iconoclastic bombshell that turns the study of WW2 upside down. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2026, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/476 "2026-01-16T21:22:22Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > The dubious national myth is that this shows British character as a uniquely stoic, resilient people > [@griffin1977](#): > > No one, in particular no serious historian, ever claimed the resilience of Londoners during the blitz was “unbelievable and unique” I admit I’m confused. The idea of a dubious national myth that the resilience of Londoners was unique was introduced by you. If no one’s ever claimed that, where did the dubious national myth come from? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2026, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/477 "2026-01-16T23:27:44Z")
> [@Stanislaus](#): > > If no one’s ever claimed that, where did the dubious national myth come from? It has been claimed and it has elements of the truth, but it is over-rated. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2026, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/478 "2026-01-18T09:19:13Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > But still you get this kind of headline implying this patently obvious fact, that no one has ever denied, is some kind of iconoclastic bombshell that turns the study of WW2 upside down. I don’t believe this kind of thing actually affects the study of WW2 by historians at all. It could affect how the average person sees the war, but like any other field, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect in-depth knowledge of all historical events by average individuals. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2026, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251/479 "2026-03-06T01:29:26Z")
One more thing, maybe not Historical, really but claimed to be. **Rule of Thumb.** Nothing whatsoever to do with wife beating. It is the fact that the first joint of many mens thumbs is about an inch. The myth dates from around 1970! Blackstone in 1765 points out that wife beating is indeed illegal, and why. British penalties could be severe- but no doubt many men got away with it anyway. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/historical-myths-debunked/1022251.md?page=23)