Popular misconceptions about pre-modern History

[alexmilman]

...is this a thing? Are there actually people who think France - the terror of Western Europe for centuries, the bad boy nobody wanted to cross, the power that once marched all over everything between the Meuse and the Vistula and only got stopped because basically everyone who wasn't France united to fight back - is somehow militarily incapable?

That's even dumber than the cheese-eating surrender monkeys meme.

Yes, strange as it may sound, opinions to this effect had been more than once expressed in SHM group even by the professional medievalists. It seems that many Anglophonic authors tend to present rather biased versions of the 100YW as consisting of 3 famous battles (with nothing worth mentioning in between except for the English victories) after which by the reasons unknown the English side lost all its possessions except Calais. Needless to say that Agincourt was presented strictly along the Shakespearean lines. It was always French stupidity and arrogance and their vastly superior numbers against "we few....". You can find a nice illustration in Keagan's "Face of the battle". Pointing to the non-British authors like Delbruck who presented a seriously different but logical picture was a waste of effort because "everybody" knew that the French were stupid, etc.

By extension, the same goes for even more popular "the French are lousy soldiers" with the only exceptions being two semi-foreigners (Joan of Arc and Nappy). Does this notion need any comments?

 

[Diego]

But the birthday of Mithras was...

I think that you are mixing up Sol Invictus with Mithras.

People that lived in urban areas had a higher quality of life than people that lived in the rural areas. [or] [Insert Rural, Pastoral, Tribal or Nomad Society Here] should have adopted the urban lifestyle of [insert urban people, usually, the Romans or Greeks] because it was inherently better than their old ways.
People that lived in cities often lived less and were more susceptible to disease and even famine. Before the 19th century, there were more deaths than births in the urban areas and the population of cities was kept because people from the rural areas migrated to the cities. The urban life being easier than other lifestyles is a phenomenon exclusive to the 20th century.

The Romans had access to sewers like ours.
The Cloaca Maxima wasn't like our sewers, houses weren't connected with it and streams of poop flowed by the street-sides.

 

[Analytical Engine]

I think that you are mixing up Sol Invictus with Mithras.

Take it up with QI:

http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?start=0&t=3564

 

[Diego]

Take it up with QI:

How splendid that this video is in the "Popular misconceptions about pre-modern History", it really suits the thread

 

[CaedmonCousland]

Yes, strange as it may sound, opinions to this effect had been more than once expressed in SHM group even by the professional medievalists. It seems that many Anglophonic authors tend to present rather biased versions of the 100YW as consisting of 3 famous battles (with nothing worth mentioning in between except for the English victories) after which by the reasons unknown the English side lost all its possessions except Calais. Needless to say that Agincourt was presented strictly along the Shakespearean lines. It was always French stupidity and arrogance and their vastly superior numbers against "we few....". You can find a nice illustration in Keagan's "Face of the battle". Pointing to the non-British authors like Delbruck who presented a seriously different but logical picture was a waste of effort because "everybody" knew that the French were stupid, etc.

By extension, the same goes for even more popular "the French are lousy soldiers" with the only exceptions being two semi-foreigners (Joan of Arc and Nappy). Does this notion need any comments?

Poor Bertrand du Guesclin, no respect.

It should also be noted that outside of the 'big three' battles, most of the warfare was confronted by French troops. More french troops were involved under the English banner at the Siege of Orleans (arguably the high point of 'English' fortunes in the war, alongside the signing of the Treaty of Troyes) than English ones. Too often the HYW is thought of as England vs France. It was just as much, if not more, a French civil war with the English king merely one of the claimants to the French throne.

Case in point: The Armagnac-Burgundian civil war. Basically laid the path open for Henry V to bring about Agincourt.

 

[alexmilman]

Poor Bertrand du Guesclin, no respect.

At least one British author went to extreme length to describe him as extraordinary untalented person. Who somehow managed to achieve a noticeable strategic success. Author did not see any contradiction.

It should also be noted that outside of the 'big three' battles, most of the warfare was confronted by French troops. More french troops were involved under the English banner at the Siege of Orleans (arguably the high point of 'English' fortunes in the war, alongside the signing of the Treaty of Troyes) than English ones. Too often the HYW is thought of as England vs France. It was just as much, if not more, a French civil war with the English king merely one of the claimants to the French throne.

Case in point: The Armagnac-Burgundian civil war. Basically laid the path open for Henry V to bring about Agincourt.

Indeed. One important thing to remember is that the English started the 100YW with the tactically winning formula: proper combination of the "firepower" (archers), their support (dismounted men-at-arms) and attacking branch (mounted men-at-arms). French, OTOH, had a typical feudal army, occasionally strengthened by the mercenary bands, and almost totally lacking the "firepower". Not because they were excessively stupid but because their society was noticeably different from English, lacking a big class of the personally free peasants.

The "classic" examples of the French "stupidity" actually were quite logical attempts to find a tactical solution of the problem with the existing material that was inadequate for the task. Such a solution was eventually found in the firearms. At Fromigny couple artillery pieces proved to be enough for forcing English to abandon their advantageous position and launch an attack that ended with their complete defeat (BTW, when the English did not have time to take a good defensive position they had been beaten as at Patay). And at Castillon the French guns carried a day. So, actually, the French had been experimenting and evolving with the English side got stuck with their initial system.

But, with all these tactical advantages, the English leaders never had any meaningful strategy that would allow to win the war. They were looting, looting and looting even more and that was pretty much it: most of their conquests had been lost either to a small war (like one conducted by du Guesclin) or to the simple administrative actions (like those of Charles VI: English administration was so inept that the whole areas had been switching to their legitimate overlord). Eventually, it became a war of the resources which England (even with the help of Burgundy) was gradually losing regardless the tactical successes. Siege of Orleans would, in theory, make some strategic sense by cutting into the Dauphin's economic base but the English side was already lacking the necessary resources (could not even organize an effective blockade of the city).

 

[TRH]

Was firepower really as important as all that? I don't think the French had any guns at Patay, and that battle showed just how fragile the English system was when everything didn't go according to plan.

 

[DominusNovus]

Maybe we should have a popular misconceptions of misconceptions thread.

 

[TRH]

Maybe we should have a popular misconceptions of misconceptions thread.

Woot, misconception-ception.

 

[Diego]

Woot, misconception-ception.

[insert "Inception Woooonnn" here]

 

[cmakk1012]

The Islamic Golden Age was ended by the Crusades and Mongols. Hm... yes we'll ignore that there were two (formerly three) polities claiming Caliphal authority, and that the Mu'tazila school of thought had been in decline since the mid 800s. Sounds like the gold was quite tarnished by that point. Actually on that note, how many genuinely prosperous societies have actually just collapsed out of nowhere because their "backwards" neighbours overpowered them?

TIL, at least on the Mongol end—the Sack of Baghdad, with the destruction of its House of Wisdom and all, I’d always heard described as a Pretty Big Deal.

As for your latter question, if you’re willing to describe progressiveness as a civilization’s level of urbanization then the “highly advanced” Aztecs were wiped out, by surprise, by their “backwards” subjects spearheaded by a few “backwards” people from across the sea

 

[Lenwe]

As for your latter question, if you’re willing to describe progressiveness as a civilization’s level of urbanization then the “highly advanced” Aztecs were wiped out, by surprise, by their “backwards” subjects spearheaded by a few “backwards” people from across the sea

A come on, The spanish we're also prety urbanized themselves With big cities and Burgos, not as big a Tenochtitlan, but cities none The less Valencia, Córdova, Sevilla, Barcelona I would Accept that they were a brutal, violent, Greedy and sadistic group, but not really backwards

 

[cmakk1012]

A come on, The spanish we're also prety urbanized themselves With big cities and Burgos, not as big a Tenochtitlan, but cities none The less Valencia, Córdova, Sevilla, Barcelona I would Accept that they were a brutal, violent, Greedy and sadistic group, but not really backwards

No, no, I wouldn’t really call them backwards either.

It’s just that from an Aztec perspective you could argue that they were prosperous and powerful right up until they were completely overthrown by (slightly) less advanced people.

 

[TRH]

I think that you are mixing up Sol Invictus with Mithras.

People that lived in urban areas had a higher quality of life than people that lived in the rural areas. [or] [Insert Rural, Pastoral, Tribal or Nomad Society Here] should have adopted the urban lifestyle of [insert urban people, usually, the Romans or Greeks] because it was inherently better than their old ways.
People that lived in cities often lived less and were more susceptible to disease and even famine. Before the 19th century, there were more deaths than births in the urban areas and the population of cities was kept because people from the rural areas migrated to the cities. The urban life being easier than other lifestyles is a phenomenon exclusive to the 20th century.

Well, this really shouldn't surprise people. Rich people had country estates for a reason back in the old days, and it wasn't just hunting/sentimentalism.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

TIL, at least on the Mongol end—the Sack of Baghdad, with the destruction of its House of Wisdom and all, I’d always heard described as a Pretty Big Deal.

A big deal certainly, but it's not like the Middle East was just peachy before that. And that's really what I was trying to get at, that there were many problems which predated and enabled the invasions.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

At least one British author went to extreme length to describe him as extraordinary untalented person. Who somehow managed to achieve a noticeable strategic success. Author did not see any contradiction...

I started reading this without having noted the author. Halfway through, I recognized the "voice" - familiar from hundreds of posts on soc.history.what-if.

 

[CountPeter]

@Skallagrim and @Escape Zeppelin

Maybe it's a cultural thing then?

So my own real introduction to philosophy was my philosophy/latin teacher back at college.
When I asked him about east asian philosophy, his response was (verbatim) "Oh it's really shit philosophy, but they are much better at practicing their philosophies than we are here in the west".
As I found this answer understandably most unhelpful, I asked the other teachers there, who largely shrugged and told me to ask the first teacher.

When I went to university, I had something of a similar experience. If I talked about Confucius, Mencius, Nagarjuna, Lao-Tzu etc, the conversation would very quickly stop being about the interesting ideas in their philosophy and instead devolve into the idea that I was some kind of hippy not interested in "real" philosophy (something quite weird as I am literally sitting next to a bookcase filled with western philosophy books, typing this on a phone with almost 200 audible/kindle western philosophy texts).

As a teacher (although it was of games development rather than philosophy), my students would often work over lunchtime and I would have informal discussions on philosophical topics that they asked about (largely because there was quite an interest in philosophy despite the philosophy department having been cut due to decreased funding from the government), with a suprising amount having read a bit of Marx, Plato and Neitzche (although admittedly in the latter case very few understood anything about Neitzsche).
One of my students once asked me about the Quorn's influence on philosophy. Asking this multiple times, I was very confused.
He meant the Quran.

Now I may have just been super unlucky here in the UK, but this has been a cross country thing in my experience.
Outside of Buddha, Confucius and Lao-Tzu (and largely only the knowledge that they were the founders of various religions/philosophies), I have found only the internet where people have any clue about philosophy beyond that of the west.

 

[Ibnyahya]

The Reformation was overwhelming a good thing for England, in fact it could be considered a cultural disaster since much was lost with the dissolution of the monasteries.

Also that the English Reformation was inevitable, in fact England was a very Catholic country (especially the monarchy) before the reformation and while some English people would convert to Protestantism they would have remained a minority.

 

[Mightyboosh5]

Okay maybe it is just that I hang around a lot of online history communities but I swear these 'misconceptions' are things people always say are misconceptions and yet I never see anyone actually make. Like I swear I have never seen anyone on this site or anywhere else say that the Byzantines were a degenerate rump of an empire as one guy said. I mean I don't doubt that there are people who have made these misconceptions but I don't know, I don't recall ever having seen anyone actually make any of these misconceptions. I have, however, seen a lot of people say that they're common misconceptions, I just never see them anywhere. Again, maybe it is just the communities I hang around with?

Just an example of this is the fairly popular association of the word "byzantine" with overly bureacratic complex systems that are hard to make progress within, E.G those tax regulations are byzantine.

So maybe this was a misconception more popular in previous times but the english language definitely is biased against the byzantines.

 

[Artaxerxes]

People wore nothing but dirty fur and dark leather