Is History A Lie?

[Jesse_DD]

The post on Alexander the Great made me want to post on something I have often thought about. How much of history in antiquity is true. Alexander was a great writer and very egotistical. Those two hand in hand would make me think that there might have been some embellishment (although I think most if not all of his writings were destroyed in the fire in Alexandria – conjecture). The people that wrote on Alexander’s behalf would have certainly been influenced by what Alexander though history should be. Much of what was written about him was written decades and sometimes generations later. There are writings on how Alexander wore the King’s Headress (depicted as red in the movie) so that the enemy could distinguish him as the king. I highly doubt this is true. I think he would have met his demise much sooner. There are writings of how Alexander was the first of his army to scale an enemy’s wall where there were thousands of enemy soldiers waiting for him on the other side. That is where he received the arrow wound but I would think he would have been cut to pieces. It just makes me think how much of the “greats” that we admire so much is actually true. Now we do know that Alexander was a great strategist because there are detailed accounts of many of his wars (One would believe that these are not all made up.). He also conquered a great part of the world. This is true. But, I would think that some of the legend behind all these greats is hypocryphal.

How about Caesar? Here was another great writer and as far as I know most of what we know about his conquests in battle were written by him. He kept a very detailed account of his own history. Being as egotistical as he was why wouldn’t he embellish his own conquests?

Just something to think about…

[Winetalk.com]

too bad Stalin left no memoirs...
;-)))

[Almighty Colin]

Good subject.

Even the history being written about last year is a lie. So yeah, it's a real problem.

And which version of history is correct? Weems invented the Cherry Tree story about George Washington that many of us learned as children in a popular 1806 book. It was presented as fact. A true story. I bet there's a whole lot of people going around who believe in the story.

And an apple hitting Newton on the head? Funny little myth.

If you are taking a test and the question is "Who discovered America?", the answer will depend on the class. Columbus is the answer in one class, Leif Ericson in another, The Chinese in another, and the Native Americans in yet another.

But I think nearly all historians would acknowledge this and when "facts" are presented these things are considered. When a historian writes about events that Thucydides covered as if they are fact, there are many presumptions behind that which are not stated each and every time. It would be absurd to write "Thucydides wrote such and such and if he was telling the truth and if there weren't copying errors and if the whole thing isn't a work of fiction then this is what happened".

The quality and quantity of collaborating evidence behind any "historical event" should give us varying levels of belief about that event. I don't think we can do any better than that.

[Lee]

I think its inherant that most of the historical teachings of the 20th century have some kind of embelishment to them.

I mean afterall, just how exciting can it be to write about dead guys and their accomplishments?

Like everything else though, its all marketing to some extent. We are taught to be 'good' and not to be 'bad' and well, history is full of people of both behaviors, some of which accomplished a hell of a lot during their times.

[Lee]

Originally posted by Colin@Dec 3 2004, 06:25 AM
And which version of history is correct?
Now that is the 24 million dollar question.

Everyone perceives stuff in a different manner so it is plausible that certain aspects of historical teachings are wrong depending on who it was doing the writing.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Lee+Dec 3 2004, 09:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ Dec 3 2004, 09:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Dec 3 2004, 06:25 AM
And which version of history is correct?
Now that is the 24 million dollar question.

Everyone perceives stuff in a different manner so it is plausible that certain aspects of historical teachings are wrong depending on who it was doing the writing. [/b][/quote]
What's interesting to me is that many of us perceive that there is an official version of history or science or any other academic endeavor. The ugly truth is, of course, that there are disagreements within any field itself.

Is "natural selection" the "official" version of how species came to be? At what point does it become "official"? There are a very small minority of biologists who don't believe in evolution. If there is not 100% agreement is it a problem?

[Lee]

Originally posted by Colin@Dec 3 2004, 06:35 AM
If there is not 100% agreement is it a problem?
Not at all.

In order for something to be somewhat factual imho there also needs to be 'alternative' views of what happened.

Only by being given all the 'angles' can we make our own informed decisions on what is and isnt 'truth' whether that be what happened 1000 years ago or what happened yesterday.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Lee+Dec 3 2004, 09:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ Dec 3 2004, 09:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Dec 3 2004, 06:35 AM
If there is not 100% agreement is it a problem?
Not at all.

In order for something to be somewhat factual imho there also needs to be 'alternative' views of what happened.

Only by being given all the 'angles' can we make our own informed decisions on what is and isnt 'truth' whether that be what happened 1000 years ago or what happened yesterday. [/b][/quote]
So where's the tipping point at which point something should be considered "official"?

Is australopithecus a direct human ancestor?

[Lee]

Originally posted by Colin+Dec 3 2004, 06:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Dec 3 2004, 06:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Lee@Dec 3 2004, 09:46 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Dec 3 2004, 06:35 AM
If there is not 100% agreement is it a problem?
Not at all.

In order for something to be somewhat factual imho there also needs to be 'alternative' views of what happened.

Only by being given all the 'angles' can we make our own informed decisions on what is and isnt 'truth' whether that be what happened 1000 years ago or what happened yesterday.
So where's the tipping point at which point something should be considered "official"?

Is australopithecus a direct human ancestor? [/b][/quote]
I dont think there is one.

We all have our own unique standards by what we define something as just 'being' there is no across the board 'rule' to use when it comes to this sort of thing imho.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Lee+Dec 3 2004, 09:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ Dec 3 2004, 09:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Colin@Dec 3 2004, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by Lee@Dec 3 2004, 09:46 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Dec 3 2004, 06:35 AM
If there is not 100% agreement is it a problem?
Not at all.

In order for something to be somewhat factual imho there also needs to be 'alternative' views of what happened.

Only by being given all the 'angles' can we make our own informed decisions on what is and isnt 'truth' whether that be what happened 1000 years ago or what happened yesterday.
So where's the tipping point at which point something should be considered "official"?

Is australopithecus a direct human ancestor?
I dont think there is one.

We all have our own unique standards by what we define something as just 'being' there is no across the board 'rule' to use when it comes to this sort of thing imho. [/b][/quote]
I'm going to write a computer program that decides for me. I'm tired of having my own beliefs. Hell, my beliefs aren't mine anyway. It's all just some stuff I heard somewhere.

[Lee]

Originally posted by Colin+Dec 3 2004, 06:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Dec 3 2004, 06:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Lee@Dec 3 2004, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Colin@Dec 3 2004, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by Lee@Dec 3 2004, 09:46 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Dec 3 2004, 06:35 AM
If there is not 100% agreement is it a problem?
Not at all.

In order for something to be somewhat factual imho there also needs to be 'alternative' views of what happened.

Only by being given all the 'angles' can we make our own informed decisions on what is and isnt 'truth' whether that be what happened 1000 years ago or what happened yesterday.
So where's the tipping point at which point something should be considered "official"?

Is australopithecus a direct human ancestor?
I dont think there is one.

We all have our own unique standards by what we define something as just 'being' there is no across the board 'rule' to use when it comes to this sort of thing imho.
I'm going to write a computer program that decides for me. I'm tired of having my own beliefs. Hell, my beliefs aren't mine anyway. It's all just some stuff I heard somewhere. [/b][/quote]
Haha you could probably Ebay that script for a mint ;)

i still use my lucky 8Ball sometimes though ;)

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Colin@Dec 3 2004, 09:25 AM
Good subject.

Even the history being written about last year is a lie. So yeah, it's a real problem.

And which version of history is correct? Weems invented the Cherry Tree story about George Washington that many of us learned as children in a popular 1806 book. It was presented as fact. A true story. I bet there's a whole lot of people going around who believe in the story.

And an apple hitting Newton on the head? Funny little myth.

If you are taking a test and the question is "Who discovered America?", the answer will depend on the class. Columbus is the answer in one class, Leif Ericson in another, The Chinese in another, and the Native Americans in yet another.

But I think nearly all historians would acknowledge this and when "facts" are presented these things are considered. When a historian writes about events that Thucydides covered as if they are fact, there are many presumptions behind that which are not stated each and every time. It would be absurd to write "Thucydides wrote such and such and if he was telling the truth and if there weren't copying errors and if the whole thing isn't a work of fiction then this is what happened".

The quality and quantity of collaborating evidence behind any "historical event" should give us varying levels of belief about that event. I don't think we can do any better than that.
I am surprised you left the MOST obvious choice:

Amerigo Vespucci, the man after whom America is named America!!!!

How come, Colin?
;-)))

[Jesse_DD]

Colin doesn't like Italians!!! He told me so...

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Dec 3 2004, 10:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Dec 3 2004, 10:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Dec 3 2004, 09:25 AM

If you are taking a test and the question is "Who discovered America?", the answer will depend on the class. Columbus is the answer in one class, Leif Ericson in another, The Chinese in another, and the Native Americans in yet another.

I am surprised you left the MOST obvious choice:

Amerigo Vespucci, the man after whom America is named America!!!!

How come, Colin?
;-))) [/b][/quote]
I skipped that class for a threesome. We all make our own discoveries.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Jesse_DD@Dec 3 2004, 10:09 AM
Colin doesn't like Italians!!! He told me so...
Colin D'Elia <- Note last name.

[Jesse_DD]

I like how you put the apostophe and capital E on there just trying to make it look a little more italian. I have done my research... your real name is Deliaski.

[Lee]

Originally posted by Jesse_DD@Dec 3 2004, 07:16 AM
I like how you put the apostophe and capital E on there just trying to make it look a little more italian. I have done my research... your real name is Deliaski.
OMG!

Another one of Serges love childs exposed.. it doesnt get any better than this ;)

[JoesHO]

that is also why there is such disputes in faith... and the bible as well... ( or other religious teachings )

it is really quite confusing... and fact id if we are wrong in an assumption on history minimal harm will befall us..

however if we are wrong on our faith based beliefs, one could argue it means death and destruction to them.....

[Lee]

Originally posted by JoesHO1@Dec 3 2004, 07:35 AM
however if we are wrong on our faith based beliefs, one could argue it means death and destruction to them.....
But is that a good or a bad thing ultimately?

Personally i dont hold any 'religious' views i think its all bs, i do however think there is a 'possibility' that there is a 'higher power' than any man or women.

[Mike AI]

This is a very good thread. Even modern history, things that happened the past month are subject to the same issues. It is a matter of perspective.

However, there are more versions of history then ever. With the internet, cable and other mass media - history changes before our very eyes.

[nlphoto]

Originally posted by Colin@Dec 3 2004, 07:57 AM
[QUOTE=Colin,Dec 3 2004, 06:49 AM]
I'm going to write a computer program that decides for me. I'm tired of having my own beliefs. Hell, my beliefs aren't mine anyway. It's all just some stuff I heard somewhere.


:pearl:

[gigi]

Originally posted by Lee@Dec 3 2004, 06:26 AM
I mean afterall, just how exciting can it be to write about dead guys and their accomplishments?
I may be one of the only people here to say this, but....history fascinates me and I could read (and write) for hours about different historical figures.....that's just me. ;)

[gigi]

Originally posted by Colin@Dec 3 2004, 06:57 AM
Hell, my beliefs aren't mine anyway. It's all just some stuff I heard somewhere.
:pearl:

[gigi]

I'm surprised no one has brought up one of the most popular cliches on the subject of written history.

History is written by the winners.

[Lee]

Originally posted by gigi+Dec 3 2004, 06:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gigi @ Dec 3 2004, 06:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Dec 3 2004, 06:26 AM
I mean afterall, just how exciting can it be to write about dead guys and their accomplishments?
I may be one of the only people here to say this, but....history fascinates me and I could read (and write) for hours about different historical figures.....that's just me. ;) [/b][/quote]
Oh Gigi dont get me wrong it facinates me to but, when it comes to writing about something, how hard would it be not to embelish something or, at least, spice it up a little?

[gigi]

Originally posted by Lee+Dec 3 2004, 06:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ Dec 3 2004, 06:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by gigi@Dec 3 2004, 06:19 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Dec 3 2004, 06:26 AM
I mean afterall, just how exciting can it be to write about dead guys and their accomplishments?
I may be one of the only people here to say this, but....history fascinates me and I could read (and write) for hours about different historical figures.....that's just me. ;)
Oh Gigi dont get me wrong it facinates me to but, when it comes to writing about something, how hard would it be not to embelish something or, at least, spice it up a little? [/b][/quote]
Oh, for sure....especially if you are 'rooting for the team'.

And BTW Lee, I finally took care of that lil' biz you've been bugging me about. ;)

[Lee]

Originally posted by gigi+Dec 3 2004, 06:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gigi @ Dec 3 2004, 06:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Lee@Dec 3 2004, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by gigi@Dec 3 2004, 06:19 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Dec 3 2004, 06:26 AM
I mean afterall, just how exciting can it be to write about dead guys and their accomplishments?
I may be one of the only people here to say this, but....history fascinates me and I could read (and write) for hours about different historical figures.....that's just me. ;)
Oh Gigi dont get me wrong it facinates me to but, when it comes to writing about something, how hard would it be not to embelish something or, at least, spice it up a little?
Oh, for sure....especially if you are 'rooting for the team'.

And BTW Lee, I finally took care of that lil' biz you've been bugging me about. ;) [/b][/quote]
Awesome stuff thanks hon :)

Ill tell Gonzo he should expect his 12 ft dildo in the mail then ;)

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by gigi+Dec 3 2004, 09:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gigi @ Dec 3 2004, 09:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Dec 3 2004, 06:26 AM
I mean afterall, just how exciting can it be to write about dead guys and their accomplishments?
I may be one of the only people here to say this, but....history fascinates me and I could read (and write) for hours about different historical figures.....that's just me. ;) [/b][/quote]
You have much company here on Oprano.

History of the Smiley ;-)
http://www.opranoplus.com/askcolin/archives_022.shtml

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by gigi@Dec 3 2004, 09:26 PM
I'm surprised no one has brought up one of the most popular cliches on the subject of written history.

History is written by the winners.
A few thoughts on that.

1. Winners usually have a greater desire to write history

2. Losers fall under the influence and sometimes absolute control of the winners

3. Winners usually have greater means to write history (greater economy, population, technology and so on)

4. Winners are more influential spreading their ideas of governance, their culture and even their language

5. Future generations believe the winners more. (competence)

6. Future generations tend to identify with the winners more.

[Almighty Colin]

When I was in Puerto Rico, I noticed a large statue of Christopher Columbus. I saw no such statue commemorating the native Taino king though DNA evidence shows that about half of today's Puerto Ricans are of American Indian descent.

[Vick]

Originally posted by Colin@Dec 3 2004, 09:57 AM
I'm going to write a computer program that decides for me. I'm tired of having my own beliefs. Hell, my beliefs aren't mine anyway. It's all just some stuff I heard somewhere.
I don't believe that B)




Sorry I had to do that

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Vick+Dec 4 2004, 05:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ Dec 4 2004, 05:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Colin@Dec 3 2004, 09:57 AM
I'm going to write a computer program that decides for me. I'm tired of having my own beliefs. Hell, my beliefs aren't mine anyway. It's all just some stuff I heard somewhere.
I don't believe that B)




Sorry I had to do that [/b][/quote]
You had no choice. ;-)

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Colin+Dec 4 2004, 04:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Dec 4 2004, 04:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-gigi@Dec 3 2004, 09:26 PM
I'm surprised no one has brought up one of the most popular cliches on the subject of written history.

History is written by the winners.
A few thoughts on that.

1. Winners usually have a greater desire to write history

2. Losers fall under the influence and sometimes absolute control of the winners

3. Winners usually have greater means to write history (greater economy, population, technology and so on)

4. Winners are more influential spreading their ideas of governance, their culture and even their language

5. Future generations believe the winners more. (competence)

6. Future generations tend to identify with the winners more. [/b][/quote]
I'm not so sure about this ... does that make the American Civil War, for example, the exception to the rule?

[gigi]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Dec 4 2004, 09:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Dec 4 2004, 09:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Colin@Dec 4 2004, 04:33 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-gigi@Dec 3 2004, 09:26 PM
I'm surprised no one has brought up one of the most popular cliches on the subject of written history.

History is written by the winners.
A few thoughts on that.

1. Winners usually have a greater desire to write history

2. Losers fall under the influence and sometimes absolute control of the winners

3. Winners usually have greater means to write history (greater economy, population, technology and so on)

4. Winners are more influential spreading their ideas of governance, their culture and even their language

5. Future generations believe the winners more. (competence)

6. Future generations tend to identify with the winners more.
I'm not so sure about this ... does that make the American Civil War, for example, the exception to the rule? [/b][/quote]
I'm sure there are many 'exceptions' for many different reasons....I'd say the exception to the civil war is that is it not all that 'old' as far as history goes....we are only talking in the 10's of generations [?] as oppose to hundreds. Information/history certainly changes as the stories are told down the line. I'm just guessing here....I honestly don't know much about the American civil war...we never studied it here in Canada, and North American wars are not one of my big historical interests.....I'm an 'ancient civilizations' armchair historian. ;)

[gigi]

Originally posted by Colin+Dec 4 2004, 01:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Dec 4 2004, 01:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by gigi@Dec 3 2004, 09:19 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Lee@Dec 3 2004, 06:26 AM
I mean afterall, just how exciting can it be to write about dead guys and their accomplishments?
I may be one of the only people here to say this, but....history fascinates me and I could read (and write) for hours about different historical figures.....that's just me. ;)
You have much company here on Oprano.

History of the Smiley ;-)
http://www.opranoplus.com/askcolin/archives_022.shtml [/b][/quote]
:biglaugh:

Only you, Colin....only you. :)

[Rolo]

Reflective History is easy to manipulate, because it is written after the time the history has passed, and therefore the historian can analyze and interpret the events he covers. So ofcourse most ancient history have been manipulated alot, while more recent history is less manipulated.

Just think 2000 years ago, if you could write, and had the right connections, then you had the power to create gods in holy books. Today those same talents might get you your own internet page amongst millions.

Our future history will probably only get better with the spread of education and technology. A president presents a message to his/her country or the world, and within mins/hours/days there are thousands (or even millions) of different opinion who presents their view on the message and situation. If Alexander The Great had been alive today then he would probably not been seen as something special - I´m sure there would be millions of "RawAlex" around the world doing character killing on his person every day ;-)))

At some point in the future we will probably have historians complaining that there are too many sources of information to NOT cut out important parts - I guess we are already there today - the amount of information created in 2004 must have been crazy compared with ex. the information we have from the "alexander the great" period of time.

I like the idea that most history is manipulated in someway, because it tells alot about humans, ex. our need to bring order into chaos - trying to shape the world around us in our image.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Dec 4 2004, 12:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Dec 4 2004, 12:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Colin@Dec 4 2004, 04:33 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-gigi@Dec 3 2004, 09:26 PM
I'm surprised no one has brought up one of the most popular cliches on the subject of written history.

History is written by the winners.
A few thoughts on that.

1. Winners usually have a greater desire to write history

2. Losers fall under the influence and sometimes absolute control of the winners

3. Winners usually have greater means to write history (greater economy, population, technology and so on)

4. Winners are more influential spreading their ideas of governance, their culture and even their language

5. Future generations believe the winners more. (competence)

6. Future generations tend to identify with the winners more.
I'm not so sure about this ... does that make the American Civil War, for example, the exception to the rule? [/b][/quote]
PD.

I'm not sure what you mean about the American Civil War but just to start with we both know history isn't even always written by the winners.

[Nickatilynx]

It seems to me history is related to fashion.

It depends which Version of history is in fashion.

[gigi]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Dec 5 2004, 10:37 AM
It seems to me history is related to fashion.

It depends which Version of history is in fashion.
:pearl:

[Almighty Colin]

I just finished reading 1421 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006054094X/qid=1102332704/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-5499771-7344052?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

The book is a complete mess. Velikovsky styled "scholarship".