Historical Myths Thread

[noons]

Since we've already discussed certain historical myths like Christianity causing the Dark Ages and the Pre-Columbian Flat Earth, I think it is a good idea to bring up some other historical myths that we have heard about or bother us in conversations.


So here's one to start it off: Polish Cavalry charging against German tanks.

One of the great myths of WWII, this story has become the epitome of an unfair fight. Never in the history of warfare had there been an episode of one side grossly outclassing the other on the battlefield. Except that it never happened.

By the First World War, it became obvious that Cavalry's traditional role of breaking through enemy lines was no longer possible, but they were still used as a more mobile infantry. By WWII, they had been armed with rifles and anti-armor weapons, and trained to dismount before combat. Most cavalry brigades also had a mechanized component as well.

The myth comes from one of the first engagements of the Polish campaign. On September 1st 1939, the Polish 4th army had been placed in the Pomeranian area to hold off the German invasion. At the village of Krojanty, the polish forces in the area consisted mainly of cavalry units. The Polish commander, Col. Kazimierz Mastelarz, saw an opportunity to strike at the Germans from the rear. He took that opportunity, and, exploiting the element of surprise, did not have his men dismount and charged right into a German infantry battalion. At first the tactic appeared successful, but then German armored cars with machine guns moved in, forcing the Poles to retreat.

There were less than 50 casualties on both sides, as it was in fact a small skirmish. Later in the day, however, German armored units came through the same junction, along with war correspondents from Germany and Italy. Photographs were taken of German panzers next to the bodies of fallen Polish cavalrymen and their horses. These were used for propaganda purposes, and the story spread throughout the Axis and Allied powers that the Poles were so primitive and stupid that they thought horsemen with lances could fight off tanks. This also fit well with Hitler's idea of Aryan superiority over Slavs.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Krojanty

www.polamjournal.com/Library/APHistory/Cavalry_Myth/cavalry_myth.html






So, anyone have any other myths they feel need debunking?

[perplexedseeker]

That's a shame. I always drew the opposite conclusion and thought that particular incident was one of the most extraordinary instances of bravery in that campaign.

How about that war between the US and Canada that was supposedly started by a pig walking across the border? Did that really happen?

[himself]

Dec 13, 2009 21:07:23 GMT perplexedseeker said:

How about that war between the US and Canada that was supposedly started by a pig walking across the border? Did that really happen?

Never heard of it. Only US war involving Canada was the War of 1812, and Canada did not yet exist as an independent country. The war was declared in the UK and the British troops were in Canada, so some of the fighting took place there.

There is a persistent myth that the US started the was "in order to" conquer Canada. This is based on a statement by (IIRC) Congressman Henry Clay, who declared that if it came to war with Britain, Canada would be taken quickly because the Canadians wanted to be free, too. This is a confusion of means with ends.

[unkleE]

Dec 13, 2009 20:21:43 GMT noons said:

So here's one to start it off: Polish Cavalry charging against German tanks.

Well that's destroyed a good story for me - I always believed that was true! (Don't blame me - many stupid things happen in war!)

[noons]

Well, the Soviets employed cavalry charges on certain occasions, as did partisan forces in Eastern Europe, but never deliberately against armored formations. Horses by then were mainly used for "Mounted Infantry" when the use of mechanized units was not logistically feasible.

[humphreyclarke]

Speaking of historical myths, here is a new interview with Richard Carrier.

tabee3i.com/page/interviews/en/Richard-Carrier/index.html

That said, I actually agree that Jesus' story was constructed from mythic archetypes of the time. That he conforms to one common archetype from birth to death, an archetype repeated a dozen times in other gods, is beyond dispute (though many still try to dispute it). My next book On the Historicity of Jesus Christ will not only prove which links are definitely there, and offer a good explanation why, but it will also demonstrate by what method you can ever be sure of this at all (rather than believing just any theory you can make fit the evidence). Mythicism's fatal defect is a lack of sound method. That's why there are dozens of contradictory Jesus myth theories, each passionately advocated as completely certain, which only goes to demonstrate how wrong those advocates must be. Like religionists, they just don't realize the proliferation of successful alternatives is precisely what makes their alternative almost certainly wrong. If there are ten equally defensible theories, the odds that yours is the right one is actually a dismal 1 in 10. Not good odds. But to be fair, the exact same problem has befallen historicity as well. There are dozens of contradictory theories of the historical Jesus, too, each just as passionately advocated as certain. Thus, mainstream Jesus studies is as methodologically bankrupt as Jesus myth studies. That needs to change. I suspect any sound reform will vindicate the myth side of the equation, but that remains to be seen. And even then, I suspect all Jesus myth advocates will be disappointed to discover their pet theory is actually not the correct one after all, nor even rationally defensible to begin with.

Here's a vid

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOGebAEOU2g

[noons]

Speaking of historical myths, here is a new interview with Richard Carrier.

That may be true, but this thread is for historical myths that have not been discussed very much on this board.

[merkavah12]

Ah, Richard: You always seem to find new and fascinating ways to make yourself look like a total ponce.

[noons]

How about that war between the US and Canada that was supposedly started by a pig walking across the border? Did that really happen?

The Pig War. That was a result of a dispute between the US and British Columbia over a maritime border. Someone shot a pig from the other side of the disputed border, which caused tensions to increase between local authorities from each side of the border. When news of the incident reached Washington and London, both sides immediately diffused the situation, and agreed on a border compromise. The pig was the only casualty.

Oddly enough, there is still a dispute between the US and Canada in the same area, but it doesn't really affect our relations because it is mostly local authorities that care about it, the disputed area is uninhabited, and it doesn't contain any valuable resources.

[himself]

<i>If there are ten equally defensible theories, the odds that yours is the right one is actually a dismal 1 in 10.</i>

Proving he does not understand statistics. If one theory about a playing card is that it is the Ace of Spades and another theory is that it is a Spade, the two theories are not an equally probable 1 in 2. The one is more probable than the other, and it is possible that both are wrong and that both are right.

[noons]

Here's another one: People were shorter in the old days.

This could be more of an American myth, as height largely depends on genetics, geography, and diet.

Basically, American schoolchildren often take field trips to historic buildings, and if they are on the east coast, homes from the Colonial Era. Eventually, someone would ask why the ceilings were lower, the doors were lower, and the beds were so small. The tour guides would often answer that people were a good deal shorter back then.

Of course the average height was a little bit shorter than it is now, but there are other reasons for the ceilings, doors, and beds. With lower ceilings and doors, it was easier to heat rooms. When the British colonists settled in America, they quickly realized that winters were longer and colder. They also slept propped up, so their beds did not need to be long enough to fit a horizontal body.

To really debunk the height myth, all one needs to do is look at some of the contemporary paintings that included George Washington. He is believed to have been between 6 feet one inch and 6 feet 2 inches. He is often the tallest person in the painting, but if people were really as short as they are sometimes made out to be, Washington would have been freakishly tall, several heads above everyone else, and likely would never have had the distinguished career for which he is remembered.

[perplexedseeker]

Alright then, here's another popular one:

How many people were "burnt by the Church" during the middle ages? I have often heard that this is not as large a number as people commonly believe, but it would help to have some decent sources.

In particular, what's the difference between the number of people executed for heresy by the church and the number of people who were set up as heretics and executed for purely secular political reasons?

[perplexedseeker]

Any takers for my question?

[wraggy]

It looks like there is some conflict over the "Conflict Thesis" at Wikipedia.

Note: An Article Proving the Thesis; Religious Apologists at Work near the bottom of the page.

I like this quote in the first paragraph.

"To even call this a "thesis" is ridiculous. The proof is irrefutable, and all one has to do is actually read the work of White to obtain an extremely thorough, 700-page map of the evidence. It is a common practice of religious apologists to try and undermine facts and evidence by labeling them with terms that imply equivocality, such as "hypothesis" or "thesis." Nonetheless, religion has proven itself a consistent foe of science, as we continue to see in modern-day debates over stem-cell research and the teaching of evolution. This notion is maintained in the "popular view" because there is no sustainable argument against it."


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conflict_thesis

[perplexedseeker]

This is appalling. I shall never trust wikipedia again!

Seriously, though, the lack of substantial argument and determination to push an ideological agenda on this topic is truly shocking. It's extraordinary how the keep going back to White again and again! Next time somebody tells me that religious people believe things in spite of the evidence I only need to point them to this article!