|
RELATED LINKS:
Historical Lies, Myths & Untruths (U. S) History World History & Trivia
PAGE CONTENTS: Other Historical Myths
More Stuff
Karl Marx/Communism
Debunking Modern Myths About the Middle Ages Nero Fiddled While Rome Burned 8 Myths About Ancient
History Historical Myth: The 300 Who Held Thermopylae
Other Historical Myths
Most of us learned in school that the Magna Charter was signed in 1215by King John. But it
was not – the monarch could not write his name.He granted the Magna Charter by placing his seal on it.
More Stuff
Joan of Arc
Joan of Arc was not convicted of heresy. Joan denied all of the heresy charges and she was never convicted of that crime despite
the many traps the prosecution laid for her. During the trial, a prosecutor made a off-hand question and asked if it was true
that she dressed like a man during battles. Seeing no harm in telling the truth, she replied yes and this was enough to seal
her doom. This transvestism violated Deuteronomy 22:5 and was enough for the court to convict her of violating God’s
Law and since that particular law carries a death penalty, she was burned at the stake. Great care was made to give the appearance of a trial in accordance with canon law, but many aspects, including the
official record, were fraudulent. Pope Callixtus III reopened the trail and she was exonerated
and Bishop Pierre Cauchon castigated for using a religion court to settle a secular dispute. Prince Charles Prince Charles will
not be Charles III when he assumes England’s throne. It
has been officially denied (imagine talking about what name you’ll have when your mum dies), but it is believed by many
sources based on reports from Charles’ friends that he will take George VII as his regnal
name when he assumes the throne. There are many theories as to why with the two most popular being: Charles is an unlucky
name for English monarchs (Charles I was deposed and Charles II very nearly so) and that George
is to honor his grandfather George VI.
Copyright ©2010, Listverse.
All rights reserved.
Karl Marx/Communism
Karl
Marx is the father of communism for which the Soviet Union is most famous – but in fact,
he never stepped foot in Russia. That leads us to another fascinating factlet about communism:
Communism is the third step of a three step plan –
the first step is revolution (to remove the monarchy or government), the second step is the establishment of a ruling proletariat
which is called “socialism” (a government of the people). When the socialist government attains its main goal
– removal of all private property ownership, the government is meant to step down and the state becomes headless –
this is communism. Accordingly, there has never been a true communist state as all socialist states end up retaining their
government. Marx never said “Religion is the opiate of the masses”. What he did say was: “Religious suffering
is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh
of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of the soulless conditions. It is the opium of the
people.”
Copyright ©2010,
Listverse. All rights reserved.
Debunking Modern Myths About the Middle Ages by Melissa Snell
You've
probably seen the email that's circulating around the web, purporting to provide facts about the Middle Ages. In humorous
terms it connects the origins of some modern phrases and customs with life in sixteenth-century England. The most recent version
I've seen has the subject heading "The Bad Old Days."
Just in case you didn't already know, let
me make this perfectly clear: This is a hoax. It has virtually no basis in fact, and if any of its contents
happens to strike near the real origin of an actual custom or phrase, it would be an astonishing coincidence.
Weddings
and Hygeine (From the Hoax): Most people
got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting
to smell so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odour. Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when
getting married.
The Facts:
In the agricultural communities
of medieval England, the most popular months for weddings were January, November and October,1 when harvest was
past and the time for planting had not yet arrived. Late autumn and winter were also when animals were usually slaughtered
for food, so freshly butchered beef, pork, mutton and similar meats would be available for the wedding feast, which often
coincided with annual festivals. Summer weddings, which might also coincide with annual festivals, enjoyed some popularity,
as well.
As for "yearly baths," the idea that medieval people rarely bathed is a persistent but false one. Most
people washed themselves on a regular basis. Going without washing was considered a penance even in the early Middle Ages.
Soap, possibly invented by the Gauls sometime before Christ, was in widespread use throughout Europe by the end of the ninth
century, and made its first appearance in cake form in the twelfth century. Public bathhouses were not uncommon, although
their ostensible purpose was often secondary to their clandestine use by prosititutes.
In short,
there were numerous opportunities for medieval people to cleanse their bodies. Thus, the prospect of going a full month without
washing, and then appearing at her wedding with a bouquet of flowers to hide her stench, is not something a medieval bride
was likely to consider any more than a modern bride would.
Baths (From the
Hoax): Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot
water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and
finally the children-last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it - hence
the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."
The Facts: Most peasant folk could not afford a bathtub and used a barrel with the top removed.1 The time and energy
required to draw enough water from the well to fill a barrel was prohibitive enough to make a full-body bath a rare occasion.
However, it wasn't necessary to immerse oneself completely to get clean. Think of what you can do with some cloths, soap,
and a bucket of water.
There is no evidence to confirm that peasant families bathed serially in the same
bathwater, but they may have occasionally done so to save the extra labor. Contrary to popular belief, medieval people were
not entirely oblivious to matters of hygiene, and are unlikely to have blithely plunged themselves into filthy water "to
get clean."
For the most part, children were treated with the special care with which they have been treated since the beginning
of time. Rather than being submerged in a barrel full of water (filthy or otherwise), an infant would be bathed in a smaller
vessel like a basin. There is no reason to believe that the relatively small amount of water needed would not be freshly drawn
from the well or mildly heated over the fire in a kettle. There are no known instances of a child being "thrown out"
when his bathwater was disposed of.
The expression "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water" is
German in origin and can be traced to the fifteenth century satire NarrenbeschwЖrung by Thomas Murner.
Thatched Roofs (From the Hoax): Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get
warm, so all the dogs, cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof. When it rained it became slippery and
sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof-hence the saying "It's raining cats and dogs."
The Facts: Most peasant cottages and many town
buildings had thatched roofs -- which, rather than being simply "thick straw-piled high," were constructed of carefully,
tightly woven straw, brom, heather, reeds or rushes.1 When properly devised, thatch was (and still is) very good
at keeping out the elements, including rain, snow and hail.
Unfortunately, thatch could be an attractive abode
for such uninvited guests as small rodents, insects and birds, it was subject to rot relatively quickly in wet weather, and
in dry weather it posed a fire hazard.
On the other hand, it was cheap and easy to construct, so cottages could, and did,
get a new thatch roof when the old one ceased to provide adequate shelter. Most peasant housing was fairly impermanent in
any case, and cottages were usually completely rebuilt every generation or so. While it is quite possible that a cat would jump up on the roof to hunt vermin, he would not "live" there,
nor would dogs or other small animals. This is simply one of the sillier claims of the hoax. Alas, the origin of the phrase "raining cats
and dogs" is currently unknown. Its first known use in print was in the seventeenth century, but it may go back a few
hundred years before that.
Floors (From the Hoax): The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt, hence the saying
"dirt poor." The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh
(straw) on the floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they kept adding more thresh until when you opened
the door it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entranceway-hence, a "thresh hold."
The Facts: Most peasant cottages did indeed
have dirt floors. Some peasants lived in homes that sheltered animals as well as themselves. When livestock
was enclosed in a peasant home, it was usually partitioned off in a separate room, sometimes at right angles to the family's
living space. Yet animals could still occasionally find their way into the house proper. For this reason, an earthen floor was
a practical choice.
However, there
is no evidence that the term "dirt poor" was used in any context before the 20th century. One theory suggests that
its origins lie in the "Dust Bowl" of 1930s Oklahoma, where drought and poverty combined to create some
of the most horrific living conditions in American history; but direct evidence is lacking.
In castles,
the ground floor might be beaten earth, stone or plaster, but upper stories almost invariably had wooden floors, and the same
pattern likely held true in town dwellings. Straw was not needed to keep people from slipping on wet slate, but it was used
as a floor covering on all surfaces to provide a modicum of warmth and cushioning. Reeds or rushes were sometimes supplemented
with aromatic herbs like lavender, and the entire floor would usually be swept clean and strewn with fresh straw and herbs
on a regular basis. Old straw was not simply left down when fresh straw was added.
If such were indeed the case, it might be logical
to think of the little raised strip in a doorway as an item intended to "hold" in "thresh," except for
one significant detail. There's no such thing as "thresh."
The word "thresh" is a verb which, according
to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, means "to separate seed" or "to strike repeatedly." It is not,
and never has been, a noun used to designate floor rushes. The word "threshold," like "thresh," is Old
English in origin and dates to before the twelfth century. Both OE words appear to relate to the movement of one's feet;
thresh (OE threscan) meaning to stamp or trample and threshold (OE therscwold) being a place to step.
Tomatoes (From the Hoax): Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the
food, causing lead poisoning and death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes
were considered poisonous.
The Facts: Pewter
was used for plates, drinking vessels and other tableware in the Middle Ages, but not exclusively. Wealthier folk used silver
or gold for special occasions, and wooden plates evolved in the later Middle Ages. It was quite true that the lead content
(about 30% at most1) of pewter plates would leach out upon contact with acidic foods. However, lead poisoning is
not a quick process, but is a slow accumulation of toxins over time,2 and its effects would not have been associated
with any one particular food.
Furthermore, the tomato -- which originated in South America and was evidently
cultivated in Mexico long before the arrival of Europeans -- did not make an appearance in any European cuisine until it came
to Spain in the early 16th century.
The Spanish and Italian peoples adopted it wholeheartedly into many recipies, and
there are no known instances of any claims in either region that the fruit was poisonous.
However, in northern Europe, tomato plants remained purely decorative, and they
were rarely seen in Britain at all in the sixteenth century. There was indeed a belief that the plant was poisonous, due in
part to its resemblance to belladonna and deadly nightshade. As a member of the nightshade family, the tomato plant's
roots and leaves contain the neurotoxin solanine, and thus are indeed poisonous. This may explain the northern
Europeans' reluctance to use its fruit, as well as the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the English to experiment with
it.
Porridge (From the Hoax): In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire. Every day they lit
the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner,
leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes the stew had food in it that
had been there for quite a while -hence the rhyme, "Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine
days old."
The Facts: In peasant cottages there was
no kitchen in which to cook. The poorest families had only one room where they cooked, ate, worked and slept. It is also possible
that most of these extremely poor families owned only one kettle.
Poor town-dwellers usually didn't even have
that, and obtained most of their meals ready-made from shops and street vendors in the Medieval version of "fast-food."
Those who lived on the edge of starvation had
to make use of every edible item they could find, and just about everything could go into the pot (often a footed kettle that
rested in the fire rather than over it) for the evening meal. This included beans, grains, vegetables and
sometimes meat -- often bacon. Using a little meat in this manner would make it go farther as sustenance.
The resulting
stew was called "pottage," and it was the basic element of the peasant diet. And yes, sometimes the remains of one
day's cooking would be used in the next day's fare. (This is true in some modern "peasant stew" recipes.)
But it was not common for food to remain there for nine days -- or for more than two or three days, for that matter. People
living on the edge of starvation were not likely to leave food on their plates or in the pot.
Contaminating
the carefully-gathered ingredients of a night's supper with rotting nine-day-old remains, thus risking illness, is even
more unlikely.
What is likely is that leftovers from the evening meal were incorporated into a breakfast that would sustain the
hard-working peasant family for much of the day.
The word "porridge" did not come into use until the 17th century.
Pork (From the Hoax): Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up
their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man "could bring home the bacon." They would cut off a little
to share with guests and would all sit around and "chew the fat."
The Facts: Meat was indeed scarce for the poorest peasants, but the one type of meat they were most likely to have was meat
they could preserve for an extended period. This was done by smoking, curing or salting. In medieval Europe, the most popular
meat for smoking was pork. Smoked and cured ham or bacon would be edible far longer than any other type of
meat, and thus was a thrifty choice for a peasant on the edge of starvation.
Bacon was therefore no status symbol. Freshly-slaughtered
meat was more of a special treat among peasants.
Bacon (and just
about every other foodstuff that was stored indoors) was indeed hung from the rafters, but not for display. It was done simply
to keep it off the floor, away from rats and other vermin.
The food situation was much different in
the homes of well-to-do townfolk and castle-dwellers. The amount of food prepared on a daily basis in a castle kitchen was
staggering, and included such items as ale, wine, bread, orchard fruits, wild fruits, wild nuts, onions, peas, beans, garden
vegetables, fresh fish, dried fish, shellfish, beef, mutton, goose, wild game and -- yes! -- pork. This doesn't include
the delicacies served on special occasions or to very great lords, such as lamb, veal, suckling pig, hedgehog or swan, or
imported items like almonds, dates, oranges, raisins, figs, and pomegranates.
For these prosperous people and their households,
"chewing the fat" was not a common pastime. Nor was it a phrase used in the sixteenth century. Informal sources
indicate that both "bringing home the bacon" and "chewing the fat" originated in 19th-century North America,
but currently I have no confirmation.
Bread (From the Hoax): Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf,
the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or "upper crust."
The Facts: This singularly ridiculous assertion appears to refer to households such as castles or manor houses where workers,
families and guests must all be provided for, as opposed to single-family peasant dwellings or poor townfolk households. I
wonder, but cannot discover, how large a loaf would have to be to feed dozens or even hundreds of people. And how much time
would the serving staff waste cutting it up "according to status"?
The fact is that in castles and manor houses, bread
was baked in manageable loaves and the individual loaves were distributed among the tables.
Generally, two
kinds of bread were baked in the castle ovens: white bread used with meals, and coarser bread used for trenchers. Workers
ate in a separate area of the dining hall from the lord and his family, and they may have received coarser bread than the
finer variety provided to the nobles, or they too may have had white bread with their meals.
Peasants, who didn't have ovens in their homes, didn't always have bread
with meals, but they could bring the loaves they had prepared to the village's communal oven. There the baker would
bake it for a fee, part of which would go to the lord. Peasant bread was usually coarse and brown. In towns, baking was an
industry with guildmembers, shops, and varieties of breads at various prices. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the
phrase "upper crust" dates to the year 1836. In conclusion, and that's the truth... (and whoever said that history was boring)
Life in the 1500s is far more complex and fascinating, and far less ridiculous, than the hoax suggests. The
world was a very different place back then, but people -- foolish and sensible, filthy and clean, cruel and kind -- were in
some ways quite like we are today. | ©2007 About, Inc., A part of The
New York Times Company. All rights reserved. |
Nero Fiddled While Rome Burned We all know the story of mad Emperor Nero starting the Great Fire of Rome
in 64 AD, then fiddling while the city burned. However, this would have been impossible. For one thing, the violin wouldn't
be invented for another 1,600 years. OK, some versions of the story suggest that he played a lute or a lyre - but then, scholars
place the emperor in his villa at Antium, 30 miles away, when the fire began. Though he was innocent of this disaster, however,
there is much evidence to show that he was ruthless and depraved.
8 Myths About Ancient History by N. S. Gill It's a little harder to prove that myths
about ancient history are false than it is to disprove myths about more modern eras, but the prevailing opinion is that the
following ideas are wrong. The following ideas about ancient history might more properly be called "urban legends"
to signify that they are mostly modern ideas about ancient history. In addition to the following, there are also plenty of
myths, especially about origins, that were woven into the stories the ancients told as history. 1) Caesar
Was Born by Caesarean Section The idea that
Julius Caesar was born by Caesarean Section is old, but since Caesar's mother, Aurelia, was involved in his upbringing,
and the surgical techniques of the 1st (or 2nd) century B.C. should have left her dead, it is unlikely that the story about
Caesar's birth by C-section is true. 2) Judaism Borrowed Monotheism From Akhenaten Akhenatenwas an Egyptian pharaoh who put aside the traditional Egyptian pantheon
of gods in favor of his own sun god, Aten. He did not deny the existence of other gods, as a monotheist would have, but held
his god above the others, as a henotheist. The date of Akhenaten may make it impossible
for the Hebrews to have borrowed from him, since their monotheism could have preceded Akhenaten's birth or followed the
return of traditional Egyptian religion. 3) Jesus Was Born on December 25th We don't even know for sure what year Jesus was born, but references in the Gospels suggest
Jesus was born in the spring. The god Mithras was born of a virgin on the winter solstice and was known as the light of the
world. It is likely that aspects of the worship of Mithras were adopted by early Christians. 4) Latin is the
Most Logical Language and Superior to Others This
is a hard one for me since I tend to buy into this myth, but Latin is not any more logical than any other language. However,
our grammar rules were based on the grammar of Latin. Since English is, but should not be put into a Latinate mold, English
comes out looking awkward. The specialized vocabularies we use in areas like law, medicine, and logic, tend to be Latin-based,
too, which makes Latin seem superior. 5) Caesar Said "Beware the leader who bangs
the drums of war to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword." The quote is anachronistic in detail and spirit. There were no drums and all swords
were double-edged. The idea that citizenry needed to be persuaded of the value of war is not from the first century B.C. 6)
Atlantis Atlantis was used as a parable by Plato
and possibly mentioned by Solon of Athens. Whether there might possibly have been a real lost continent of Atlantis or not
remains open to debate, mostly among non-academics. 7) Thumbs Up! - End of a Fight Between Gladiators It is believed that when the person in charge of a gladiatorial event wanted one
of the gladiators to be finished off, he turned his thumb down and that when he wanted the gladiator to live, he pointed his
thumb up. The editor's gesture signifying that a gladiator should be killed is not exactly thumbs down, but thumbs turned.
This motion is thought to represent the movement of a sword. 8) Amazons The Amazons were probably not the one-breasted man-haters we think of when we hear the word. They are more likely
to have been fully-breasted Scythian horse-riding warriors, judging from artwork, although Strabo does write that their right breasts were seared off in infancy. ©2006
About, Inc., A part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.
Historical Myth: The 300 Who Held
Thermopylae by
Robert Wilde
The Myth:
The narrow pass of Thermopylae was held for three days
against a vast Persian army by just 300 Spartans, 299 of which perished. The Truth:
Although
there were 300 Spartans present at the defence of Thermopylae, there were at least 4000 allies involved on the first two days
and 1500 men involved in the fatal last stand. Still a tiny figure compared to the forces against them, but more than the
legend which forgets some contributors. The Background:
Having raised a vast army operating
on the limits of supply and command √ perhaps 100,000 strong √ the Persian King Xerxes invaded Greece in 480 BCE
intent on adding the city states to an Empire which already spanned three continents. The Greeks responded by putting aside
traditionally enmity, allying and identifying a place to check the Persian advance: the land pass of Thermopylae, already
fortified, was just forty miles away from a narrow sea strait between Euboea and the mainland. Here smaller
Greek forces could block the armies and fleet of the Persians at the same time and hopefully protect Greece itself. The Spartans,
a brutal people with arguably the most militaristic culture in history (Spartans could only reach manhood once they'd
killed a slave) agreed to defend Thermopylae. However, this agreement was given in the first half of 480 and, as the Persians
advanced proceeded inorexibly but leisurely, months passed. By the time Xerxes had reached Mount Olympus it was August. This was
a bad time for the Spartans, for they were to hold both their Olympics and Carneia. To miss either was to offend the Gods,
something the Spartans cared passionately about. A compromise was needed between sending a full army and keeping their divine
favour: an advance guard of 300 Spartans, led by King Leonidas would go. Instead of taking the Hippeis, his 300 strong bodyguard
of the best young men, Leonidas departed with 300 veterans.
The (4)300:
There was a little more
to the compromise. The Spartan 300 weren't supposed to be holding the pass by themselves; instead their absent army would
be replaced by troops from other states. 700 came from Thespiae, 400 from Thebes. The Spartans themselves brought 300 Helots,
basically slaves, to assist. At least 4300 men occupied the pass of Thermopylae to fight. Thermopylae:
The Persian army did indeed arrive at Thermopylae and, after their offer of free passage to the Greek defenders was refused,
they attacked on the fifth day. For forty-eight hours the defenders of Thermopylae held out, defeating not just the poorly
trained levies sent to dull them, but the Immortals, the Persian elite. Unfortunately for the Greeks, Thermopylae held a secret:
a small pass by which the main defences could be outflanked. On the sixth night, the second of the battle, the Immortals followed
this path, brushed aside the small guard and prepared to catch the Greeks in a pincer. The 1500:
King Leonidas, undisputed head of the Greek defenders, was made aware of this pincer by a runner. Unwilling to sacrifice
the entire army, but determined to keep the Spartan promise to defend Thermopylae, or perhaps just act as a rearguard, he
ordered everyone bar his Spartans and their Helots to retreat. Many did, but the Thebans and Thespians stayed (the former
possibly because Leonidas insisted they stay as hostages). When battle commenced the next day there were 1500 Greeks left,
including 298 Spartans (two having been sent on missions). Caught between the main Persian army and 10,000 men to their rear,
all were involved in fighting and wiped out. Only Thebans who surrendered remained. Legends:
It is entirely possible the above account contains other myths. Historians have suggested the full force of Greeks may have
been as high as 8000 to begin with or that the 1500 only stayed put on the third day after being trapped by the Immortals.
The Spartans may have only sent 300, not because of the Olympics or Carneia, but because they didn't wish to defend so
far north, although it does seem unusual they would have sent a King, if so. ©2007 About, Inc.,
A part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.
|
