Problems with History...  

LoyaltyandHonor 35M/31F
3114 posts
4/30/2006 4:20 pm

Last Read:
7/14/2008 8:34 am

Problems with History...

Problems with Analyzing History

Analyzing historical information can be very difficult for a number of reasons. One of the most common factors is that our current times are significantly different than it was say 1,000 years ago.

Richard the Lionheart massacred between 2,000 and 3,000 Muslim prisoners after the siege of Acre and many modern people see this as a disturbing action. What is more disturbing is what the Europeans did several years before when they took over the city of Jerusalem and , murdered, and looted the entire city and its inhabitants (which was a lot more than just 2 to 3 thousand people). Sadly, more people fixate on the actions of Richard than they do of their overall crusading problems. The Europeans , murdered and looted numerous cities and people over one-hundred years of history. It is sad that they fixate on one man during all that chaos then it is to try and stop that chaos from happening again.

Aside from corrupt opinions and bad analyzing, historical documents and even some paintings or engravings have been altered over the centuries. One of the best examples is by looking at the Bayeux Tapestry created by Bishop Odo over nine centuries ago.

This Tapestry is a large comic book style description of the battle of Hastings in which King Harold ended up being killed. During the last nine centuries, the Tapestry has been stolen, damaged, hidden, and restored on numerous occasions.

In 1729, a French artist, Antoine Benoit did a full-scale tracing of the Tapestry. In 1819, an English artist, Charles Stothard went and prepared some facsimile prints of the Tapestry. In 1872, the Victoria and Albert Museum in London took a photograph of the Tapestry.

By comparing these three copies of the Tapestry, there were almost 379 differences that were found. Some of them were minor, fish changing to seals, swords and stirrups appear and reappear, a griffin changed to an Angel, and a Mare turned into a Stallion. Of these differences, the largest issue was that the scene of King Harold being killed changed as well.

In 1729, King Harold was hit by a spear in the head. In 1819, the shaft of the spear grew feathers and appeared to be an arrow sticking out of the king’s head. In 1872, the arrow changed direction from being stuck into the king straight on and turned to be angled downward as if it struck the king directly in his right eye.

Today, the Tapestry still remains but it is impossible to tell how the king died. Another source says that the king was dismembered on the battlefield by having his leg cut off. Yet another source says he may have been slowly killed and then had his testicles and penis forcefully removed from his body by a squad of assassin knights.

All we know for sure is that the battle took place. We will never know for sure what happened. There are several other situations like this taking place to other statues and such throughout history. Due to this, almost 60% of history is the semi-creation of the analyzers imagination.


LoyaltyandHonor 35M/31F
1241 posts
5/2/2006 7:55 am

I rounded down from several authors who stated they think 70 to % of history may be wrong. I think it is safe to say that 30% is easily wrong, 60% is tiny compared to what they think.


LoyaltyandHonor 35M/31F
1241 posts
5/1/2006 7:19 am

Our long history is debatable, not our recent history.

The things you mention are well documented. Historical events that took place 1,000 or more years ago though are not all documented. Not all cultures started recording history till late in their times.

Roman Britian kept historical journals but once the Romans left, there was a several hundred year time period where virtually nothing was recorded.

Many of the records taken about large battles and events during the 500 to 900 period in England was written by a person about 50 to 200 years after the actual event took place. No one knows if these people translated an already written document or if they had to fabricate the events totally.


woofff 41F

4/30/2006 6:17 pm

Dear you

I am inclined to disagree with you.But indulge me a few moments while I digress from subjective sparring (word play: history is a subject, hence) and say I am not entirely certain what I am reacting to. Please allow me the benefit of doubt that I am sound on history inasmuch as it is a passion,LoveandHonor... your last statement is the antithesis to my own approach to history .
Due to this, almost 60% of history is the semi-creation of the analyzers imagination.

An event occurs that is massive in tragedy and mindless. The stark simplicity that it takes place under belies the damage or the cost that the injured have incurred.Grief takes a while to possess the populace.9/11 was very historic no? It is not that far gone from memory. Lossess are still being assessed in some cases, I hear. So history I think is not a static feature ..... I believe that the history I have rown up observing are as real as is the grief or relief that it afforded those who lived thru' an event, that for me, is history....
The Holocaust happened. I personally would not allow even an iota of doubt to suggest that it did not happen and most likely, you would agree with me... again I would use this sentiment to reiterate my belief. But this is simply an illustration however.Your convictions are above reproach to me; I respect them as I do my own.

This was fun. Intense, but I had fun. Thank you.Pls come visit me sometime.

Smiled,
Woofff


Become a member to create a blog