Historical inaccuracies that most people believe

Chlodio · Jun 14, 2020

Lowell2 said:
Polynesians reached the Americas before Columbus --- probably not. This is an interesting theory, with arguments going back and forth on it. The best evidence for and against is in plants and animals. SO.... sweet potato predates Polynesians -- one of the big arguments for Polynesians being first has been the evidence of sweet potatoes, which occur in both Polynesia and the S. American areas. The latest evidence however, indicates the plant got to Polynesia all on it's own " Muñoz-Rodriguez and his colleagues say it's likely that the seeds floated across the Pacific and took root on the islands long before the first people arrived. " Chickens were another postulated evidence -- but nope. Study: The Chicken Didn't Cross The Pacific To South America "An analysis of DNA from chicken bones collected in the South Pacific appears to dispel a long-held theory that the ubiquitous bird first arrived in South America aboard an ancient Polynesian seafarer's ocean-going outrigger." Using ancient DNA to study the origins and dispersal of ancestral Polynesian chickens across the Pacific No early South American chicken samples have been detected with the diagnostic Polynesian mtDNA haplotypes, arguing against reports that chickens provide evidence of Polynesian contact with pre-European South America. Likely the chickens got to the Americas along with the conquistadors. Chickens are pretty easy to keep on shipboard.

Even animal genetics are banned on Historum.

Zip · Jun 14, 2020

delta1 said:
Thermopylae was anything but a Persian victory.

I think it was a Persian victory--they saw off the Greeks and went on their way.

Guevarist Mayan · Jun 14, 2020

delta1 said:
Thermopylae was anything but a Persian victory.

I mean, no one disputes this.

What it isn't was 300 Spartans and a few hundred other Greeks facing a gigantic army of hundreds of thousands of Persians. The Greeks numbered as high as 10,000, and only managed to stop the Persians for a while due to how they were in a narrow pass where Persian numbers actually worked against them.

What is inaccurate is to say that the Athenians and Spartans managed to save Greece from a Persian conquest. In reality, by the end of the Peloponnesian War, all or most of Greece was vassal territory of the Persians. They were in essence part of the Sardis satrapy. Alexander's conquest is more accurately a revolt (especially because Macedonia was actually conquered by Persia before Darius decided to press on the rest of the Greek peninsula), just like how the Manchu conquest has to be more accurately described as a revolt since Manchuria was officially a territory of the Ming.

delta1 · Jun 14, 2020

Guevarist Mayan said:
I mean, no one disputes this.

What it isn't was 300 Spartans and a few hundred other Greeks facing a gigantic army of hundreds of thousands of Persians. The Greeks numbered as high as 10,000, and only managed to stop the Persians for a while due to how they were in a narrow pass where Persian numbers actually worked against them.

What is inaccurate is to say that the Athenians and Spartans managed to save Greece from a Persian conquest. In reality, by the end of the Peloponnesian War, all or most of Greece was vassal territory of the Persians. They were in essence part of the Sardis satrapy. Alexander's conquest is more accurately a revolt (especially because Macedonia was actually conquered by Persia before Darius decided to press on the rest of the Greek peninsula), just like how the Manchu conquest has to be more accurately described as a revolt since Manchuria was officially a territory of the Ming.

Many people believe it was Pyrrhic victory or it saved Greece by stalling the Persians.

Guevarist Mayan · Jun 14, 2020

delta1 said:
Many people believe it was Pyrrhic victory or it saved Greece by stalling the Persians.

Yeah, this part is commonly believed. Neither is accurate. The Persians were only stopped for three days and even burned Athens. Nor did the Persians lose many men. The Greeks were decisively annihilated. The Persians were only forced to retreat thanks to their lost of their fleet at Salamis.

Lowell2 · Jun 14, 2020

Chlodio said:
Even animal genetics are banned on Historum.

You might want to revisit that policy. I can understand the issue of not discussing it regarding race. But much of modern archaeology and paleontology depends on it. And Historical issues like "was that body really Richard III"? It's pretty hard to discuss some of the information regarding determining if Polynesians did or did not reach the N. American continent (or the reverse, for that matter) if one is prohibited from using half the science or more that is involved int that determination. If that is the absolute policy and there are no exceptions allowed, send me a note on that as an administrator.

sparticulous · Jun 14, 2020

Chlodio said:
Even animal genetics are banned on Historum.

Okay good to know. It is a weird policy but there is a reason for why you guys do this

SilasMarner · Jun 15, 2020

Quite a few things have become accepted by many as truths because of Shakespeare's dramatisations. The power and longevity of his work has outlived the real history in the popular consciousness of many.

martin76 · Jun 15, 2020

sparticulous said:
Okay good to know. It is a weird policy but there is a reason for why you guys do this

The reason is very far... it has its roots in the Protestant Reformation. Although DNA is vital to understand human history

If you want to know the secrets of human ancestry and evolution, look no further than genetics, says Theodore Schurr, a Penn professor of anthropology.

“Genetics allows you to look at population dynamics, the history of genetic lineages, and relationships between individuals. With genetics, you can try to reconstruct the processes that gave rise to the human diversity we see today and determine where its roots lie,” he says. “Those kinds of questions interest me.”

You must not forget that this is an English language forum and therefore full of the enormous racist complexes existing in Anglo-Saxon societies ... and that origin, ultimately, is in the Protestant Reformation ... that is the reason why In Spanish, Portuguese, French forums, DNA is not a taboo subject ... because its societies and its history do not have those guilt complexes that Protestant societies do ... especially the United States, even more so than Great Britain. .

So, I hope you understand now the reasons because DNA (so vital tool in history) is banned. It is a Taboo issue.

Regards

Search

Search

Historical inaccuracies that most people believe

Chlodio

Zip

Guevarist Mayan

delta1

Guevarist Mayan

Lowell2

sparticulous

SilasMarner

martin76

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions