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-->