Stupid history you were told in school

>people in the middle ages never drank water, only beer

there's truth in that, i read that certain armies would only drink beer because the wells could be poisoned by enemies.

>Medieval parents didn´t care for their children because of high mortality rate.

yes the lead was coverd in alge that prevented the lead from getting into the water

>I'm not even denying the Holocaust happened...

WHY ARE YOU NOT DENYING IT? YOU SHOULD.

I think the real redpill is it doesn't really matter whether it happened, it's not the fact rather than the reaction that aggravates me. Armenian genocide absolutely happened but I wasn't forced to watch sentimental sob stories about ten gorillion dead Armenian children in school

Oh no.

They usually drank beer though, albeit very weak.

My history teacher was a devout Lutheran, need I say more?

Pfff, fuck off goatfucker. I'd take Jews over Muslims any day.

Lech Wałęsa was a hero.

Jerzy Sebastian Lubomirski was a bad guy.

Napoleon was a good guy.

Aiding the Habsburgs at Vienna was a huge mistake.

In the late 1800's about 43% of children would die within their first five years of life, can you imagine how bad the mortality rate was during the middle ages? Can you imagine yourself giving a fuck about a child that has a 50/50 chance of dying? I wouldn't care about them until they became 14-15 years old, basically if they made it to adulthood.

thats true
beer or wine, not as strong as today though

high mortality is true but they cared about them though
read the wiki about maria theresa habsurb queen, that woman was a child factory

>Jerzy Sebastian Lubomirski
literally who

>Hoplites are so named because they were lightly armored and armed; that's why they beat the Persians.

>Fascism is inferior because Germans lost WWII

>Stalin killed 60m people
>civil war was not about slavery
>Frederick Barbarossa drowned in a puddle of horse urine
>Julius Caesar was a honorable, ethical man

lol my favorite

>what's wrong with fascist economy? fascist countries seemed to be doing great
>"they lost ww2"

It's true though, even my grandmother as a child drank mostly weak cider as water wasn't safe

By the way, apart from Francisco Franco's Spain all the other fascist economies (and the nazi one too) were utter shit, and were designed to fail from day1 if no war was going to be pursued.

Economics is one of the best fields that you can use in order to discredit the XX century fascist movements.

What's wrong with that? Purpose of Nazi economy was war, when they lost the war it quite obviously meant that the policies failed.

Nazi Germany wasn't doing great. There were constant shortages of various products and their debt rose considerably during the 1930s. It's more or less true that they eliminated unemployment, though.

>It's more or less true that they eliminated unemployment, though.

This is true if you count ONLY members of the Nazi party.

What sort of products did they run out of?

German economy under Hitler recovered because nazis ramped up defense spending with debt. If they hadn't started the war and robbed Czechs and Poles and everyone else's money they'd have gone bankrupt in the mid 40s.

fruits, vegetables

It can be extended to category of German males.

Btw does anyone know whatever Nazis made legislative against the unemployed, simmiliar to communist regimes?

>John Balliol was a puppet king

Based literally off blatant Bruce propaganda, no idea why kids are still taught this.

Fats. They even tried to extract fat from corpses.

You obviously have never had a child, or if you have, you are an actual sociopath. People still mourned their dead babies even if they knew there was a statistically high likelihood that the bay would die.

>be Jerzy Sebastian Lubomirski, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth commander
>country in crisis on several fronts
>the biggest threat is a huge Swedish invasion rolling in
>king flees the country, mass defections to enemy side
>be one of the only high level commanders to stay alive and loyal
>damn near single-handedly save the country, turn the war around and win it, be a huge hero

>after things calm down the king decides to give himself extra powers and weaken parliament
>the majority of nobles & parliament are against it and you're the leader of the parliamentary opposition
>so the king does the logical thing and tries to assassinate you
>when that fails he accuses you of plotting against him, strips you of all titles and sentences you to death without trial
>you refuse to get executed and a huge uprising erupts
>you try to negotiate but the king musters his forces and attacks you
>you deal the royal army an absolutely humiliating pair of crushing defeats
>you offer the defeated king the following terms: he officially restores your good name and abandons the royal power reform, and you officially apologize for the uprising and leave the country in exile
>the king has no other option but to agree

>350 years later popular history says you're a traitor for not letting yourself get executed on trumped-up charges because it buried the chances of the king strengthening his position

Wine, ale, mead, or beer? This is important.

it causes infertility among other things and they would build some aqueducts out of it

>vikings had horns on their helmets
>vikings were only brutal murderers
>vikings ate poisonous mushrooms to become berzerkers
>vikings backstabbed their friends regualary
>vikings never went to Vinland, only heard stories
>(maybe true, never found source) vikings named Iceland, Iceland because they didn´t want people to immigrate in to large numbers (name scaring them off) and named Greenland, Greenland because they wanted more settlers.

mfw either my own country don´t know about vikings or there is some propaganda going on.

>everyone who isn't blue eyed and blonde stand up. See? Hitler would've killed you
I feel like you're probably making this one up. Surely no teacher would be this stupid when Hitler himself clearly did not meet these specifications. Though, come to think of it, he DID kill himself, didn't he? Rly activates my almonds.

Another user here, went to public schools in Michigan, can confirm it's true.

It's not true, there's no evidence for it and tons of evidence against it

>Female Spartan did all the manual labour while the men went to war.

>we don't know why hitler hated jews, probably because he himself was jewish
>we wuz illyrians an shit
>100 years war was because france controlled the wool trade in normandie
>diocletian was croatian

t. my high school history teacher

That is not only most likely true but still the case in some places today, it was definitely still the case even in parts of the United States as recently as a few decades ago.

The reason is that alcohol sterilises, potable water was at a premium. In a similar case, on the American frontier the land was cleaner so safe water was more abundant but it was still mostly the adults of a large family who would be allowed to drink it, children would have beer because it was even cheaper (since you don't need potable water to make potable beer). Also during the first half of the 20th century soldiers would mix whisky with their water for the same reason.

What it boils down to (pun unintentional) is that turning water into beer is a more efficient way to make large amounts of it potable than boiling, let alone distilling, especially without the luxury of industry.

>vikings were only brutal murderers
To be fair the term "viking" is referring to the act of invading a foreign land as a sea pirate, and means "one who makes camps on rivers, fjords or harbours." The ethnic group vikings belonged to and the culture they went back to were not like that, but vikings themselves were thieves at the bare minimum.

To put it another way, the English might not have all been brutal murderers, thieves and rapists, but most pirates during the "golden age" of piracy were (and happened to be English). This is the same thing but replace "English" with "Norse" and "pirates" with "vikings."

>The Charles II poster turns out to be Croatian
Did not see that one coming, to be honest.

Florida here, supposedly one of the worst education systems in the US, but I was not told that. On the other hand we were told that Hitler loved Mexicans and Japanese so the Holocaust must have been politically or ideologically motivated rather than racially motivated. Most commonly the story we were told was that Jews were a scapegoat for the failing economy in Germany following WW1, though the fact that slavs were the main group massacred rather than jews was rarely mentioned at all.

>Everybody was happy with the Italian Unification.
>Ostrogoths destroyed Italy during the Fall of Ravenna.
>The Great Leap Forward was just a famine that happened during the rule of Mao.

>>The Great Leap Forward was just a famine that happened during the rule of Mao.

Well, it technically was: the famine was not planned, rather it was a result of general incompetence made by a underdevoleped nation that just got out of feudalism.

Mao was not a Saint (if there is a Hell he is probably burning in it) but the demonization you find in Western schools is pathetic: to attack his character you don't need to conjure lies like that. We do so only because our leaders were just as fucked up.

Jews were the main target of Hitler's genocidal policy. More Slavs died during the war because there were more Slavs overall in East Europe. But they were treated better than the Jews.

> (if there is a Hell he is probably burning in it)
edgy

>On the other hand we were told that Hitler loved Mexicans and Japanese so the Holocaust must have been politically or ideologically motivated rather than racially motivated

The dude literallt had scientists come up with a racial hierarchy, and used it when discussing racial policies. You don't get more racist than that.

We've both studied history: you don't get to be as powerful and influential as Mao without staining your soul with some of the worst crimes available to human experience.

>That is not only most likely true
It's not true, there's no archaeological or literary evidence for it

I know that, but, the thing is, whether it was all natural or also brought about by bad policies (killing sparrows for instance) is a pretty big difference.

One couldn't be helped ever, not without foreseeing, the other could have in theory.

>One couldn't be helped ever, not without foreseeing, the other could have in theory.

I agree with you, I was just trying to go against a certain narrative that sees Mao as some guy who just liked killing his own citizens. What happened is not justifiable, but I would not consider it as a crime either, considering that it was just a result of a certain, traditional brand of naivety.

>because no illiterate peasant wrote a book saying "hey, we mostly drink the thing we have mostly drunk for all of my life," it didn't happen
I mean I know I'm on a history board so I should expect this kind of boneheadedness, not to mention a history board on Veeky Forums, the origin of the "pics or it didn't happen" meme, but this isn't a matter that would actually be recorded. Anything for or against it is conjecture, but there's a much stronger case for it.

Let's kill this big myth of the medieval ages dead shall we? This trope of European medieval society shitting and pissing where they get their water comes from a post-Enlightenment historiographic view that this was the 'Dark Ages' filled with child-like peoples.
Medieval towns and villages had various ways of dealing with cast off and effluent which did not merge with the drinking water. For small villages and rural homes the toilet was a few steps away into the forest. In the larger towns you can still find homes that have medieval toilets (for example, the castle I am staying at is built up against a wall and on the other side of that wall is a run off trench; in the cellar is a stone toilet from 13th century with a wall outlet/runoff into the trench; it is now where the electrical comes in!)
Some had 'gutters' which pushed off effluent into the surrounding landscape. Where there was faster running river the town could dump straight into the waterways and it would not affect health, even slow moving waters would do, as it was rare to pull drinking water from the river - there aren't many medieval sources that talk about rivers for drinking, it was for washing and leisure.

But it's best to remember that villages and towns of the medieval period were not densely populated, and the resulting likelihood of contamination of even a closely located source water was low - it was more likely to happen from animal herds if at all, although animal herds weren't of the same size as today either.
The sources of potable water were generally wells, sometimes artesian, sometimes spring fed, and often in the center of the village as a common resource. These wells were more likely to run dry than to be infected with human feces. Large villages, cities and some castles would have cisterns to collect water, either through surviving aquaducts, from springs, or from rainwater. Again, the castle I am at has an underground medieval cistern, about 5 cubic meters large.
Beer/ale was not about water contamination issues - most ale was locally made and not subject to the rigors of testing before consumption; it could be a bad replacement for water. Beer/ale was a carbohydrate replacement, but often stronger in alcohol than our modern brews. Regardless, alcohol kills germs only at a certain percentage, and only of a certain exposure duration. Wine and beer don't do it, even at slightly higher formulations, but vodka or whiskey might. However, once mixed in with water, things like E. Coli still persist. Water and wine were mixed to cut the potency of wine, sometimes with wine being akin to a flavouring agent.
Urban Tigner Holmes' Daily Living in the Twelfth Century is good on details of eating, drinking, and hygiene, most taken from the journals of Alexander Neckham. It gives a deep flavour to daily life.
For those who want to get into medieval archaeology and the scientific findings, Food in Medieval England: Diet and Nutrition from Oxford (2006) will be of interest.

>Hoplites take their name from the "Hoplon", that is, their huge shields. Hoplon means their whole armature as well.
>Hoplite literally means "Man of the shield" or "Man with armour".
>they were lightly armored and armed; that's why they beat the Persians.
Who even comes up with shit like that?

>But they were treated better than the Jews.yeah they were killed with one bullet while the jews got 2

user you're making a fool out of yourself. Read Harris and Grigsby's book on misconceptions about the middle ages.

>People thought the earth was flat

>The Catholic Church prosecuted science as opposed to fostering it for centuries

Why is there literally no medieval source that describes it happening? Why do stories written in the middle ages like the Táin, the Canterbury Tales, etc. all describe characters simply drinking water?

If there's no evidence for something and hundreds of pages of evidence against it then maybe you shouldn't believe it.

hoplite
hop-lite
hop-light

spain's economy with franco was utter shit

>knight armor was so heavy that knights couldn't get up without help if they fell to the ground.

You got me there.

Samurai were honorable peacekeeper types who subscribed to and were bound by a rigid code of honor
>muh bushido folded 1.000.000 times
Bushido wasn't a thing in the Sengoku period, it's an 1800s revisionist invention, lumping together traditions of loyalty, myth and feelgood notions of gentlemanship and virtue, partially influenced by the west.
Samurai weren't above being slimy cunts.

The Catholic Church made people care about their children, stop shitting on the middle ages

>drink water
>die
best to stick to booze

>evolution isn't true
>civil war was about a struggle between those who wanted a strong federal government, and those who wanted states' rights
>the confederacy could've won the American civil war
>the collapse of the USSR proves that communism doesn't work
>Nazi germany wanted to conquer the world
>Christianity abolished slavery
>America's involvement in WWI was irrelevant
>both sides in WWI were equally bad
>the west was pathetically weak and poor until the industrial revolution and the plundering of the Americas gave them an unfair advantage over the Islamic and East Asian worlds, and now that the latter has caught up in technology the center of power is rightfully shifting east again
>life before the agricultural Revolution was brutal
>Sunnis and Shias got along better than Catholics and Protestants did before the 20th century

Odyssey was a cool guy he killed Trojan and didn't afraid of anything

>lead plumbing

holy fuck I've never heard this

didn't we use lead pipes until recently?

at least my HS just made the unit "the holocaust"

>didn't even learn about WW2 in High School

fucking moshe

>>life before the agricultural Revolution was brutal
I think that's true. Violence has been greatly decreasing the past couple hundred of years.

>People thought the earth was flat
This is true, you idiot.

m8 he's talking about agricultural revolution which was ~10,000 years ago

>it's not the fact rather than the reaction that aggravates me.

I think this is true, but there's a secondary aggravation in that expressing annoyance at the insane over significance it's been given in history immediately gets you labelled as a nazi maniac

People had a healthier life before the agricultural revolution: stronger bones and teeth, drastically less workload, more free time for feasting and having sex, less armed conflict.

It took thousands of years before the development of sedentary civilization starting giving real benefits. The mystery of the historical record is why humans would throw away a much more "enjoyable" nomadic lifestyle, if agriculture was such punishing work

Looking back now we know that agriculture lead to a surplus of food and labor, allowing for some humans to specialize and develop culture and civilization; but this wasn't an overnight revolution that they knew what was at the end of the road, and what rewards would eventually benefit future generations

Thinking back to my history classes, the teacher showed us an emaciated p.o.w. and said, this is an example of how poor living conditions were in camps, that or this man might just be a smoker.

>All people in the "those who work" social order were peasants who worked with agriculture.

This. I've seen graveyards where there were four and five child graves next to those of their parents. If "nobody cared" about those kids, they wouldn't have fucked around with the expensive marble headstones.

Now, there used to be a tradition of not formally naming children right away at birth, but that had more to do with baptisms and whatnot.

>the collapse of the USSR proves that communism doesn't work
It kinda does. inb4 >that wasn't real communism
That's the whole problem, you can't build real communism.

>Nazi germany wanted to conquer the world
They wanted to conquer Europe and then try to nuke America. I'd say that's enough of the whole world.

>the west was pathetically weak and poor until the industrial revolution
This part is true. It was still stronger than the middle east, as the wars with Turkey show, but there wasn't any decisive advantage.

I read "Industrial Revolution".

> less armed conflict.
If steppe nomads are anything to go by, then raids would be much more common, and those qualify as armed conflicts for me.

Not that guy but same thing happened in my school

Spain's economy is still shit. They need to invite more inbreds to run their country like the good old days.

Steppe nomads may've had armed skirmishes, but they never had a world war :^)

>It kinda does. inb4 >that wasn't real communism

Leninism differs from traditional Marxism in some pretty fundamental aspects, that is a fair statement.
A German communist party would not have had to deal with most of the problems that eventually ruined both the USSR and the CCP. No urgent need for modernization and industrialization, no urgent need for radical reallocation, a society that is already civilized. All of these things were not available to Lenin, and he was fully aware of it (to this day you can still read his philosophy journals and his analysis' on Hegel's and Marx' works)

>that's enough of the whole world.
Für dich

My teacher junior year of highschool was super into pop history
>Poles charged German tanks with horses
>"I am a jelly doughnut"

There were more but I stopped caring over time. Also, the school had a euro trip that he led, which was pretty dope except for the fact that he knew nothing about how to properly enjoy the place. He did things like insist that the most authentic pizza would come from a place like the Florence town square and stuff which is moronic in hindsight.

>but I wasn't forced to watch sentimental sob stories about ten gorillion dead Armenian children in school
The Armenian genocide was smaller in scale than the Holocaust, Armenians were less part of your population than Jews (if you're from the US or most of Europe) and Turkey is less associated with your cultural sphere than Germany is (if " " " " " " " " " ").

agreed
still edgy tho

My school surprisingly had decent history teachers. They just loved to break us into trams and pit us against each other, and tha led to strange debates and shit. We had weird discussions like "Class is broken up into teams. One is Napoleon supports, one has to argue that he's the Anti-Christ. You have half an hours to ready the debate" or "Class is broken up into teams. One half is North Vietnamese, one half is American. Debate why Vietnam should be Communist or Capitalist." or "Round table discussion, put your chairs together! We all pretend we're in Soviet Russia. What's more important, fixing Russia or spreading communism so we have allied countries that don't hate us?"

Interesting as fuck, but most of my classmates couldn't get into it.