PODs in our understanding of History

Yeah. Thomas may not be much more objective than the average bear, but there's a difference between being partial (and feeling justifiably proud of one's accomplishments) and...well, honestly Hood seems to have gone psycho in late 1864. Around Atlanta was bad enough...but I digress.

Unfortunately Hood lacked very many good options, and the one he took had some degree of chances to work. A victory against Schofield would have improved the odds for later on, but as it turned out his plan was a direct copy of Lee's on the third day at Gettysburg and worked even less effectively in the West.

More unfortunately Hood followed Lee's pattern of headlong charges against superior numbers and firepower against better tacticians as opposed to bumbling idiots like Pope or McClellan.

Interesting. Somehow Koba is harder to take seriously as the Evil Communist Leader of Evil. Probably sounds better in Russian, but still...

It's not like very many people took Hitler seriously until he started doing exactly what he said he was going to do.

Georgian, actually: he took the name from a heroic lawbreaker in a late-19th century Georgian novel.

Of course, in Russian pretty much everybody is known to close friends by a more-or-less adorable diminutive, no matter how many people they send to Siberia.

And it'd be more likely as the title of his memoirs given he was involved in revolutionary politics all the way back into 1905 and spent a lot of that time robbing banks to fill the Bolshies' coffers.
 
Unfortunately Hood lacked very many good options, and the one he took had some degree of chances to work. A victory against Schofield would have improved the odds for later on, but as it turned out his plan was a direct copy of Lee's on the third day at Gettysburg and worked even less effectively in the West.

More unfortunately Hood followed Lee's pattern of headlong charges against superior numbers and firepower against better tacticians as opposed to bumbling idiots like Pope or McClellan.

Yeah. I can (and have) argued that Lee wasn't that bad, but Hood seems to have been all that aspect when not attempting to do Overly Complicated instead. And failing miserably because neither he or the AoT were up to it. The ANV was barely capable of those kind of moves, and the AoT had never run a tenth as smoothly.

It's not like very many people took Hitler seriously until he started doing exactly what he said he was going to do.

Agreed. But the name is still something to chortle at. (and my bad on it being Russian - thank you IBC for correcting me). Hitler, no. Though its still not a name we'd associate with Evil if he hadn't done such a good job of it.

And it'd be more likely as the title of his memoirs given he was involved in revolutionary politics all the way back into 1905 and spent a lot of that time robbing banks to fill the Bolshies' coffers.

Don't ask me why, but Bonnie and Clyde came to mind.
 
Back on the original topic, the poor archeological practices of the 19th and early 20th centuries and the widespread looting of archeological sites today did a lot to damage our understanding of history.
 
Back on the original topic, the poor archeological practices of the 19th and early 20th centuries and the widespread looting of archeological sites today did a lot to damage our understanding of history.

Oh God, Schleichmann would be a perfect fit here. Hated by archaeologists the world over- he must have destroyed 10 pieces of vital stratigraphic evidence for every item of treasure he found.
 
I'm just thinking of it, but if Pompei wasn't be destroyed by the Vesuvius, our knowledge about roman cities would be greatly changed?
 
Yeah. I can (and have) argued that Lee wasn't that bad, but Hood seems to have been all that aspect when not attempting to do Overly Complicated instead. And failing miserably because neither he or the AoT were up to it. The ANV was barely capable of those kind of moves, and the AoT had never run a tenth as smoothly.

Hence why Thomas's take on the Battles of Nashville and Franklin would have been a good antidote to the Confederate wankery over who really lost the battles. It certainly would make postwar debating more interesting.
 
I'm just thinking of it, but if Pompei wasn't be destroyed by the Vesuvius, our knowledge about roman cities would be greatly changed?

We'd probably know less about some things, certainly-about painting styles, graffiti, and quite a few things about everyday life. How much we'd know about urban planning per se I'm not sure, but we'd probably learn about at least some of that through the various excavations at modern cities.
And for the comment on Schielmann, just add 'everyone working in the 19th century, except for maybe Jefferson who at least made some kind of attempt to study the organization of his mound instead of hacking it up thoroughly"
ETA: Also Fox Pitt-Rivers and Petrie, since they started work in the 19th century.
 
We'd probably know less about some things, certainly-about painting styles, graffiti, and quite a few things about everyday life. How much we'd know about urban planning per se I'm not sure, but we'd probably learn about at least some of that through the various excavations at modern cities.
And for the comment on Schielmann, just add 'everyone working in the 19th century, except for maybe Jefferson who at least made some kind of attempt to study the organization of his mound instead of hacking it up thoroughly"
ETA: Also Fox Pitt-Rivers and Petrie, since they started work in the 19th century.

Not that early 20th cenury was very different, at least up to the twenties and in most cases fairly later.
 
Top