Pseudo-history, and related issues

[Narukami]

For a true propagandist one need but look at David Victor Hanson and his writings about the Greco-Persian wars, particularly the essays he wrote in support of the film 300. Hanson is considered a "serious" historian. :?

That is interesting, what did he say? To my own astonishment, I liked the film very much, and the reactions from Iran somehow showed that it hit a nerve there. They could have just laughed at it, a comic movie, but chose to take it seriously.

Here is a link to the original discussion at the top of which you will find a link to the Hanson article in question.

<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=11368&highlight=hanson">viewtopic.php?t=11368&highlight=hanson<!-- l

:wink:

Narukami

[john m roberts]

My term for the phenomenon: "The Persistence of Untruth."

These historical untruths are like vampires: no matter how many stakes you pound through their hearts, they keep rising from the grave. Like the one about how "chain mail" armor was a medieval invention that Crusaders first saw in the middle East. I still see that one. Also, historians often consider archaeological discovery mere antiquarianism and therefore unimportant, not relevant to trye history.

[Jona Lendering]

My term for the phenomenon: "The Persistence of Untruth."

Oh, that should have been the titel of the book... I'll keep that for the English translation, if there ever will be one, and if you can agree.

[Narukami]

"The Persistence of Untruth"

Good title.

:wink:

Narukami

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

In his book on Themopylae, he maintains that the Persian Wars were decisive for the birth of western civilization. If we assume, for argument's sake, that there is indeed a connection between Greek and our own civilization (e.g., some kind of cultural paradigm was created in Greece that is still in existence), we must also prove that this would not have come into being if the Persian Wars had resulted in a Persian victory. The arguments for this thesis were for the first time put forward in the nineteenth century (Persian victory = eastern obscurantism, mysticism instead of rationalism, no democracy, no science).

Well FWIW his Alexander the Great seems better. I didn't notice any logical fallacies leaping off the pages and slapping me in the face.

But I wonder how something like this could make it into print. I mean, don't historians have peer review like other academic disciplines?
Imagine, for example, if a quantum physicist in the 21st century published claims supported by flawed, outdated research that Niels Bohr refuted in the 1920s. Wouldn't this physicist be scorned into obscurity?
I'm not saying I have a problem with Paul Cartledge, in fact I enjoyed the book I just finished reading. But mistakes are mistakes, even the best of us make them from time to time, and it seems like his credibility (or that of his publisher) should suffer as a result.

Cartledge may indeed be a propagandist on this issue, but if so then in a minor key. For a true propagandist one need but look at David Victor Hanson and his writings about the Greco-Persian wars, particularly the essays he wrote in support of the film 300. Hanson is considered a "serious" historian.

Thanks for the link to that essay. Hanson is posing a false dichotomy; he seems to think that from the Greek perspective, slavery and political oppression were uniquely Persian institutions, and those saintly Greeks never would have considered foisting those same injustices on their fellow Greeks.
Lest we forget that one generation after Thermopylae, the Parthenon was built by slaves and financed with money forcibly extracted from subjects of Athens.
So much for that precious "Greek freedom" being rescued from tyranny.

[Jona Lendering]

But I wonder how something like this could make it into print. I mean, don't historians have peer review like other academic disciplines?

Peer review is the problem, in this case. Scholars usually judge themselves, and there are hardly any checks whether people think logically. Philosophy and logic are not common subjects when historians are educated; in Germany and the Netherlands, theory is part of the curriculum, but I am not sure that it is common in the Anglo-Saxon world.

A partial explanation is that ancient historians used to be educated as classicists (e.g., Cartledge), so they can explain everything about the exact meaning of an with an optative in a clause, and have not sufficient time for the theoretical foundations of their discipline.

[Eleatic Guest]

In his book on Themopylae, he maintains that the Persian Wars were decisive for the birth of western civilization. If we assume, for argument's sake, that there is indeed a connection between Greek and our own civilization (e.g., some kind of cultural paradigm was created in Greece that is still in existence), we must also prove that this would not have come into being if the Persian Wars had resulted in a Persian victory. The arguments for this thesis were for the first time put forward in the nineteenth century (Persian victory = eastern obscurantism, mysticism instead of rationalism, no democracy, no science).

He could have made a comparison with the Phoenicians which were the closest to the Greeks in many aspects, and whose cultural identity indeed somehow withered away under the Persian dominion to the point that they practically ceased to exist as a historical force in the Hellenistic period.

[Jona Lendering]

He could have made a comparison with the Phoenicians which were the closest to the Greeks in many aspects, and whose cultural identity indeed somehow withered away under the Persian dominion to the point that they practically ceased to exist as a historical force in the Hellenistic period.

We have not many sources and I am unaware of archaeological evidence for "persification". Where we do have sources (Babylonia, Egypt), we witness adaptation, but no withering away. You may be right, but I would love to see more evidence.

That being said, I think that you are certainly right that the "what if..."-question must be approached by comparison.

[Eleatic Guest]

Where we do have sources (Babylonia, Egypt), we witness adaptation, but no withering away. You may be right, but I would love to see more evidence.

Well, come to think of it, in my view at least the evidence for Babylonia is pretty straightforward. While the ancient Mesopotamian tradition appeared as late as the 6th century BC as vigorous as ever, cuneiform and Elamite had all died out by the 4th century BC. And what is more revealing, Mesopotamia ceased under the Persians to be that exporter of culture, technology and ideas it had been for millenia. If there were cultural impulses, there were coming at the time from the west, not the east which remained materially rich, but without any persuasive power.

I am not sure how much the Persians are to be blamed for that process. After all they were but a thin ruling class which itself borrowed most heavily from Ancient Near Eastern traditions. But the break in the region's history with Alexander is too obvious. When he came, he met an array of former glorious cultures already in the demise, otherwise Hellenism could not have been so successful.

I believe the ultimate (anthropological) reason was that with the loss of political independence and self-determination, the subject people also lost the will to shape their destiny and to continue their traditions.

[Theodosius the Great]

For English how about ...


Hazy History :wink:
Modern Historical Legends (or Myths)
Misinformation
Disinformation
Historical Untruths

Just throwing out ideas at you.

~Theo

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

For English how about ...
Hazy History :wink:
Modern Historical Legends (or Myths)
Misinformation
Disinformation
Historical Untruths
Just throwing out ideas at you.
~Theo

How about 'Historiographical Truthiness?'

"We are divided between those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart."

[Theodosius the Great]

How about 'Historiographical Truthiness?'

"Ahistorical Truths"
"Historical Fallacies"
"Popular Fallacies"

:wink:

~Theo

[Jona Lendering]

"Popular Fallacies"

Close to the working title, Common Errors.

[P. Clodius Secundus]

How about "History's Myth-Stories"?

[Eleatic Guest]

In the first category -insufficient knowledge of the plain facts- belongs this book and in the second category -insufficient knowledge of logic- belongs Paul Cartledge, who is capable of repeating logical errors that have been refuted more than a century ago.

Despite the many good proposals, I am still not sure how to group them together. The second category may be related to as positivists as far as they are of the 'let the facts speak' type, but the first one...I mean, if they don't even get the facts, they are just no good scholars, and quickly pointing out their mistakes may be the most effective strategy.