How much of our history is incorrect?

[Roylion]

But its just an example of where stuff has probably been destroyed, one which a lot of people dont challenge.

Anne Boleyn's contemporary portraitures? "Probably"? How probably? On what basis can we say probably? Does this evidence stand up to scrutiny? Is there any evidence that such portraiture existed in the first place to be destroyed?

That's my point to you.

All well and good but if you really feel strongly that thye are wrong, seek them out and challenge them, theres lots of them.

I'm not necessarily suggesting they are wrong. I want to know why they think they are right. On what basis do they make such a claim? How reliable is the evidence to back such a claim?

So whats ypur point in relation to the OP ?

I think I answered that in the second post of the thread.

 

[Pessimistic]

I'm not sure that 'history' is necessarily 'misleading' and 'incorrect'. What do you define as 'incorrect' and on what basis?

We have plenty of accounts from both sides in all kinds of historical events: World War I, World War II, the French Revolution, the English Civil War and so on. Historians draw from multiple sources and take their biases into account - no historian of any worth reads a winner's account of an event as a source and just accepts it at face value.

History, certainly these days, is often written by trained experts who analyse and critically examine their source material, taking things like the biases of the 'winners' into account and compare their versions to other sourced data to determine a more rounded and objective view.

I pretty much agree with this Roylion, but you have to take into account artefacts and documents from the past could be unearthed in the future, or new scientific teqhniques shed new light on existing artifacts.

We need to be aware of obvious gaps in historical documentation, and keep an open mind that things were lost either accidentally or delibrately

In the case of anne boleyn, when you talk to or read authorities on the subject, its just a given.

They say things like " we believe a lot of evidence may have been destroyed, but....." They really dont expect to be challenged on that, so just state it.

 

[Roylion]

The absence of portraiture, whats your take?
Katharine howard was beheaded but plenty of authenticated portrats survive, as do most of the tudors, even the ones who made enemies on the other side

Very good.

Now we're getting somewhere. Hans Holbein did indeed paint Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves and Catherine Howard (Anne Boleyn's first cousin) which have survived and there are also several other paintings of Jane Seymour that survive. He may have painted Anne Boleyn or at least drawn her, but there is little evidence to suggest that he actually did so. In 1542 John Cheke attributed a drawing in Windsor (maybe by Holbein) as being that of Anne Boleyn, although some modern scholars have argued against this.

And is there an absence of portraiture?

 

[Roylion]

I pretty much agree with this Roylion, but you have to take into account artefacts and documents from the past could be unearthed in the future, or new scientific teqhniques shed new light on existing artifacts.

I'll keep that in mind. I have considered these issues before. Such as when I was undertaking my Masters and also tutoring undergraduate history students.

We need to be aware of obvious gaps in historical documentation, and keep an open mind that things were lost either accidentally or delibrately

Yes. But that's far from saying that things were in fact actually lost.

In the case of anne boleyn, when you talk to or read authorities on the subject, its just a given.

Which authorities? On what basis do you make this claim?

They say things like " we believe a lot of evidence may have been destroyed, but....." They really dont expect to be challenged on that, so just state it.

Other historians would and should challenge them on that.

 

[Pessimistic]

On the last point, you are probably aware of who they are. It really is a giv in the tudor study world. If its so wrong, it needs to be challenged.

You do mention that scholars of our time are better at interpreting. All sides of the evidence. Whos to say this 'revisionism' process is complete?

 

[Roylion]

On the last point, you are probably aware of who they are. It really is a giv in the tudor study world.

So who are they?

You do mention that scholars of our time are better at interpreting. All sides of the evidence. Whos to say this 'revisionism' process is complete?

It's not complete. And probably never will be.

 

[GreyCrow]

I stopped at page 3. Just to defend Roylion. From what I read Roylion consistently pointed out that History is told from many perspectives. Other posters have attacked him by pointing out those exact different perspectives yet never understood their own blindness. e.g Roylion says some versions of Waterloo were written by English writers paid to glorify the English. Others came along and said '' what about the French versions'' RoyLion never said those versions were false , just another perspective. He agreed those versions had their own significance.

I think most take issue because we are given a version most certainly slanted towards the English. But at least you all have the critical thinking to challenge these.

As to the OP . NO history is not incorrect. It is presented poorly or not at all or skewed towards the ''winners'' but never incorrect. History is.

 

[Pessimistic]

Just because we don't understand something as collective, does not mean it doesn't exist or existed.

Has history taken organizational norms and structures just so it can 'outlaw' things which don't fit a neat narrative?

Some are suggesting possibilities, others are saying unless you can prove that, its not 'existing' for want of a better word

History is almost always a secondary source (or worse)

 

[Bomberboyokay]

I was reading a little about Chinese history of the last 100-ish years and there seems to be a lot of 'estimations' of events in place of proper documention compared to the history of a Western country. I'm guessing that's because of the long civil war and both sides continuing the propaganda long after.

 

[evo]

We know that the text books of history are always written by the 'winners'. How much of our history is actually misleading and incorrect due to this?

The question is unanswerable. How will you know when it is correct?

There's a reason that history is taught out of the humanities department - it's a social science.
We have to content ourselves with balance of probabilities and subjective interpretations.

 

[3KZ is Football]

E.H.Carr, What is History?

"The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one which it is very hard to eradicate."

Let's be real here, the "historian" is socially constructed and this fact influences all "history" because it colours the approach, focus, emphasis, interpretation and assumptions made about the past. This is why we have Western Liberal Histories, Revisionist Histories, Marxist Histories, Feminist Histories, Colonial Histories, Post-Colonial Histories, Scar Histories, Queer Histories etc etc etc.

As someone who did Pure History Honours in the 80's and a MA in History at Melbourne Uni, I have read heaps of History and I have always been of the view that those who write history are arguing about the past, not recording it in frozen form for posterity. Some historians are more honest in this regard than others. I liked Humphrey McQueen's "Gallipoli to Petrov - Arguing with Australian History," because he was upfront about this. So if history is about argument then, while accepting a diversity of views and allowing for different "cultural baggage" we can also be comfortable rejecting "junk" which is based on crap argument and which is best left to people in tinfoil hats, some of whom are dangerous themselves, others of whom provide a justification or support to nut jobs who are dangerous. The most notable of this group are those who deny the Holocaust because they can't get past and wish to actively promote their Anti-Semitic world view. Their ramblings are rubbish because there is an overwhelming body of clear evidence that contradicts their "argument" and renders them redundant as Historians.

 

[telsor]

A lot of history is a matter of perspective, but it's not always because of opposing views, but finding the real causes of events.

I read a book a while back, that opened my eyes a lot. It was about the post Roman era, and what happened in different areas, and while a fair bit was about wars, invasions and leaders, the driving force for a lot of it was simple economics.

To paraphrase and summarise massively. Concentration of wealth, lawlessness and corruption led to trade breaking down significantly in the later Roman empire, which led to the fall, after which trade collapsed completely in the West, destroying what was left of the economy and communication, leading to the dark ages, which ended in large part as the rule of law (and thus trade) was reestablished.

In the east, the Byzantine empire held up, trade continued (even if reduced), and they avoided the worst of the dark ages.

But that's not as 'sexy' as stories about wars and battles, so people focus a lot more on them.

 

[Pessimistic]

A lot of history is a matter of perspective, but it's not always because of opposing views, but finding the real causes of events.

I read a book a while back, that opened my eyes a lot. It was about the post Roman era, and what happened in different areas, and while a fair bit was about wars, invasions and leaders, the driving force for a lot of it was simple economics.

To paraphrase and summarise massively. Concentration of wealth, lawlessness and corruption led to trade breaking down significantly in the later Roman empire, which led to the fall, after which trade collapsed completely in the West, destroying what was left of the economy and communication, leading to the dark ages, which ended in large part as the rule of law (and thus trade) was reestablished.

In the east, the Byzantine empire held up, trade continued (even if reduced), and they avoided the worst of the dark ages.

But that's not as 'sexy' as stories about wars and battles, so people focus a lot more on them.

And Demographics, particularly these days.

eg After a good old fashioned plague or horrendous war, those still alive found their services, even menial labour, had gone up in value

 

[GreyCrow]

How dark were the Dark Ages? Is it a lack of written record or a lack of dominant rule? It seems ( to me) the so called Dark Ages started after the collapse of the Roman Empire

 

[telsor]

How dark were the Dark Ages? Is it a lack of written record or a lack of dominant rule? It seems ( to me) the so called Dark Ages started after the collapse of the Roman Empire

In terms of the economic and cultural situation, it was very dark. When you don't generally communicate/trade beyond couple of days away, then you don't tend to get much beyond the basics of survival. Lack of written record is a by product of this, indeed, the book I read based most of it's findings on archeological records (as one example, it seems during the Roman empire, there were massive clay works at Cologne, and clay fragments from there are found throughout the empire...Advance a few centuries, and there is no trade...The factory closed down because if you can't trade your pots for grain, then you need to tend to the survival needs first, so the labour moves to growing the grain yourself, and there weren't the pot/amphorae fragments around...lose those and it means a lot of other trade has broken down too (the amphorae being used to transport other goods).

It's onset coincided with the collapse of the Roman empire...It was getting darker as the Empire fell.

 

[telsor]

And Demographics, particularly these days.

eg After a good old fashioned plague or horrendous war, those still alive found their services, even menial labour, had gone up in value

Recent example being WW2 and feminism....Women were needed in the factories, and when the war ended, it was tough to deny they were 'useful' in the broader workforce. The movement was already going of course, but it gave to a significant boost.

 

[Pessimistic]

And, just to be balanced, history credits the catholic church with preserving many important records through the dark ages

not just rome, outposts like ireland too

 

[Glacier]

If anyone wants to question history and historical figures as we have learnt and accepted them, all you have to do is start with the story of Jesus as it is fed to our kids in schools

 

[fitbill]

Noone will never know that. How many of the things THEY tell us about the past are TRUE or they are fixed (for their own purposes).

 

[SBYM]

The premise of the OP - that there is a 'correct' version of history, some infallible historical truth - was done away with by serious historians decades ago.

 

[SBYM]

And the idea of the Dark Ages emerged in the 14th century when men like Petrarch began looking back to antiquity, to the Romans and Greeks, for new ways to think about society, politics, history, moral philosophy etc etc...He said in his epic poem Africa;

'After the darkness has been dispelled, our grandsons will be able to walk back into the pure radiance of the past.'

The notion was further developed in the 15th by historians like Bruni and Biondo, who set up a tripartite notion of history; ancient, medieval, modern. If you're interested in this read Eric Cochrane's, Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance.

 

[GreyCrow]

And the idea of the Dark Ages emerged in the 14th century when men like Petrarch began looking back to antiquity, to the Romans and Greeks, for new ways to think about society, politics, history, moral philosophy etc etc...He said in his epic poem Africa;

'After the darkness has been dispelled, our grandsons will be able to walk back into the pure radiance of the past.'

The notion was further developed in the 15th by historians like Bruni and Biondo, who set up a tripartite notion of history; ancient, medieval, modern. If you're interested in this read Eric Cochrane's, Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance.

The idea of the Dark Ages not being so dark was first presented to me on Time Team. Some may call it fluff but it did what it set out to do. Engage people. I don't mind telsor using economic failure as some kind of barrier but there was still cultural advances through this time.

From here , which includes Petrarch and his thoughts onto how the Church took over from the Roman Empire as the dominant cultural organization.

Great advances were made in science and math—in the Islamic world.
Among the more popular myths about the “Dark Ages” is the idea that the medieval Christian church suppressed natural scientists, prohibiting procedures such as autopsies and dissections and basically halting all scientific progress. Historical evidence doesn’t support this idea: Progress may have been slower in Western Europe during the Early Middle Ages, but it was steady, and it laid the foundations for future advances in the later medieval period.

At the same time, the Islamic world leaped ahead in mathematics and the sciences, building on a foundation of Greek and other ancient texts translated into Arabic. The Latin translation of “The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing,” by the ninth-century Persian astronomer and mathematician al-Khwarizmi (c. 780-c. 850), would introduce Europe to algebra, including the first systematic solution of linear and quadratic equations; the Latinized version of al-Khwarizmi’s name gave us the word “algorithm.”

One of the other reasons I raised this was I knew of the Islamic advances made in Maths and Science and how the Burning of the Library of Constantinople further consigned the Islamic knowledge to the pit. This was done in 1453 after receiving extensive damage in the 4th Crusade 1204.

I don't think there were Dark Ages at all but an Age of Religious Censorship and control.

 

[medusala]

The question is unanswerable. How will you know when it is correct?

Evo goes Von Mises on us.

 

[ChampRevesby]

One of the other reasons I raised this was I knew of the Islamic advances made in Maths and Science and how the Burning of the Library of Constantinople further consigned the Islamic knowledge to the pit. This was done in 1453 after receiving extensive damage in the 4th Crusade 1204.

I don't think there were Dark Ages at all but an Age of Religious Censorship and control.

During the Middle Ages, there was frequently an exchange of works between Byzantine Empire (Orthodox christians) and Islamic science. The exodus of these people from Constantinople contributed to the revival of Greek and Roman studies, which led to the development of the Renaissance in humanism and science in Europe. Byzantine emigrants also brought to Western Europe the better preserved and accumulated knowledge of their own Greek civilization

So it really does depend on what religious group we are referring to. Im sure Western Europe would have looked every different if their ideological compatriots didnt sack Constantinople which led to its eventual downfall (they were actually there to protect the Empire not destroy it). Pope John Paul II apologized to the Orthodox Church for its part in the genocide in 2004, 800 years after its sacking.

 

[JackFlash]

History: Was Cleopatra beautiful? Apparently not as super hot as we are led to believe. Was Caligula mad? No doubt he had some issues, but you would too if your entire family was exiled and killed before your 21st birthday!
Whether through Hollywood conjurings, wrong teachings, or simply bad word-of-mouth, we've gained some pretty faulty knowledge when it comes to history. It is very doubtful that Genghis Khan looked or sounded like John Wayne?
One of Hollywood's most loved fantasies is the movie "Braveheart", people love it, but not for any historical accuracy.
The name "Braveheart" was not given to William Wallace, it was given to the King Robert the Bruce, the one Hollywood has betraying Wallace in the film, even though he didn't!
Robert the Bruce did not betray Wallace at the Battle of Falkirk – Robert wasn't even there.
Robert the Bruce did bide his time while Wallace was in hiding, until he proclaimed himself King of Scotland in 1306, the year after Wallace was captured by the English and executed.
First of all, Wallace wasn't an unwashed commoner in blue face make up wearing a kilt, the kilt wouldn't even exist until 400 years after Wallace's death, and in medieval times, plaid wool skirts would have been about as useful on the battlefield as Nerf swords. Wallace was also extremely tall for the time (a ruckman sized 6 foot 7 inches) not Gibson's Peter Dinklage sized wide eyed ruffian. More reliable sources than Hollywood paint a vastly different picture than Mad Mel and the real Wallace was more like that of an impetuous, hotheaded, Knight.

History gets more contorted with every telling of the story...You could rattle off a stack of historical figures and describe what they really looked like and what they really did, none of it resembles what was taught in schools or in the mind of a Hollywood scriptwriter. The combined forces of Hollywood, gossip, and biased sources have come together to portray out and out falsehoods or bend the truth to embellish the myth.