You know the type. They think they're historians since they like CK2, Total War, went to some slum high school and read the abstract on a wikipedia article and think they can contradict fucking Adams or Gibbons.
One of the worst I've encountered was someone convinced Shieldmaidens existed.
I think the ultimate realization is how fee links we actually have in history. Think about how few sources exist in Europe during the 700s. So to me the ultimate misconception people have is that we know history.
1. Lindybeige
2. Lindybeige
3. Lindybeige
4. Lindybeige
5. Lindybeige
>they can contradict fucking Adams or Gibbons.
Edward Gibbon is just wrong to start with. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire may of being a revolutionary book in 1788 in terms of ideas and quality. But over time almost every part of has been proving wrong.
So you mean most of Veeky Forums?
>Think about how few sources exist in Europe during the 700s.
That's why it is known as the Christian Dark Ages.
No one gives a fuck, cunt.
Being an archaeologist basically makes you a magnet for people like that. A lot of the time someone finds out what I do, I get confronted with /x/-tier bullshit that people think they're educating me with. Even when it's not that bad, people always seem to think they know more about what I do than me, which is annoying.
>Man you were digging out there? That must suck. You won't find anything, people made houses out of wood and that rots.
>Yeah, but even if the structure is gone you can see clear evidences of things like foundations, post holes, and floors. Houses are usually pretty easy to find if you know what to look for.
>No, man, wood rots. You won't be able to find anything there. Unless something is made out of stone, it just disappears. It's sad, but that's just the way it is. Can you imagine all the things that have been lost because they weren't made out of stone?
Also this.
I'm finishing up a PhD in Migration Period Saxons. It still baffles me when people try and correct me on how much weapons were used. *Literally writing my fucking thesis on weapons in Saxon burials*.
One myth that is basically ingrained now among history "buffs" is that swords were non-existent in the period. That's total bullshit. They're the least common handheld weapon, that's undeniable, but so far my studies show they're present in >5% of burials which is important, even pauper's burials where it was a glorified iron stick.
swrds weren'tv really used in the past, people only used lances
I hope to fucking hell you're being ironic there. Not only were they not lances, I just said swords were the least used, but still common.
>tfw all of the carbonized wood in Heraculaneum
Swords were used only for ceremonial purposes afaik
Aaaand you're literally on the fucking spectrum aren't you.
Please explain sword marks (and yes, archaeologists can tell what weapon made the marks) on the bones of dead Saxon and British soldiers then. I'll wait.
Please also explain contemporary art showing people fighting with swords (Sutton-Hoo Helmet, Vergilius Romanus, Corruther Stone)
Not to mention that there are some places where wood is actually preserved. Sure its not the most common but its not non-existent. There are sites in northern England that I personally know where they have wooden writing tablets. You can still see the letters that were written from the antonine period, its super nifty but people assume because its wood it just disappears.
John Green
Please explain what place a sword holds in a ceremony? Its a weapon for killing.
At Sutton-Hoo enough wood survived to identify what the ship was made of despite it being basically a print at that point.
The problem is that people don't understand the rotting process of wood, they think that it just rots away without realizing that if its in anaerobic conditions it remains relatively intact, obviously it's not robust, but it's there.
In regards to preservation in general people also don't seem to realize just how much stuff there is from previous eras, the problem is where it is. You can't go digging up city blocks all over Europe. The financial burdens of excavations are also massively limiting which is a huge pity.
Gibson is cunt thou
Basically all youtuber "historians".
>"TOP 10 FACTS ABOUT VIKINGS"
>Im a LARPer, so that makes me an academic authority on historical weapons.
>I'll give you a wikipedia-tier explanation of this complex ancient event WITH GRAPHIX.
Watching them for entertainment is fine but then you scroll down to the comments and see that people are actually taking those guys seriously.
As if it's impossible for a women to be a warrior
Yeah, but he kinda makes up for it in his naïve-like enthusiasm.
the people on history channel who exclusively cover big foot, aliens, and Nazis.
Saxons didn't really use the swords though, they were brittle and unwieldy, and the saxons used mostly spears from horseback, sonce hey invented the stirrups.
I honestly try not to talk to people about my academic specialty or my hobby. It's just not worth the headache. It's pretty unfortunate since I find it very interesting, but both of them are pretty polarizing.
I know this one guy from high school and he is more or less what you might imagine as a /pol/ historian even though he never browses Veeky Forums.
>Of Prussian German descent
>Says Prussia was the greatest thing
>Literally never went a day without talking about Prussia
>Only discredits France and its history whenever it's brought up
>Does the same with other countries like Poland
>Constantly talks about how awesome the crusades were and how bad Muslims are
>Literally has a Deus Vult t-shirt
>Also of Irish descent
>Always talks about how evil Britain was
>Says that immigrants suck because they only move because they don't want to fix their country except for the Irish of course
>Incredibly ignorant of Rome
>Says that America's legal system has more in common and is more based off Hammurabis code because the Romans didn't have executions/death sentences
>Has like 3 Ronald Reagan t-shirts
>Says the US invasion of Iraq is why bush is a good president
As long as that man breathes I know the sun shall never set upon our glorious Empire.
>because the Romans didn't have executions/death sentences
...telll me about it...
what are they? Come on, you can tell us!
I was about to type a response to OP but you basically stole it.
Don't forget Merlin and his lot. Magic was a very important tool on the battle field in ancient times.
Who the duck is this idiot. He's managed to completely miss interpret so much holy shit. And it's not even limited to a single political 'vector'. He's being a moron all over the place if half this stuff is half true.
not even die hard republicans think the Iraq invasion was a good idea anymore
Is this cunt completely retarded or is it like a fugue state he goes into time to time?
I'm going to leave my academic specialty out, but my hobby is U.S.-Latin American relations, Cold War era in particular. I'm sure you can figure out why it's polarizing.
made up by the axe lobby to make swords sound dangerous
I know a guy in a teamspeak who really talks up his Scandinavian heritage and how cool Vikings were and he's also convinced shieldmaidens were real and prevalent. He's also a total fedora.
Anyone ever try and read this book? Worst example of pop history I've ever tried reading. This chick cites urban dictionary of all places for a joke citation, compares viking warlords to modern celebrities, (personal niggle, she calls the men of the first crusade an "(un)holy army" which is completely uncalled for in this book) and all around treats the reader like a complete moron.
swords in general are not that great of a weapon, we just idealise them in pop culture because they look cool. 9/10 times spear guy vs sword guy, spear guy wins. its not rocket science. now add that a fucking battlefield with a whole bunch of dudes. lets also not forget that alexander the greats campaigns revolutionary tactic? really fucking big spears.
What about the Romans. They used mostly swords throughout the Republican era and they kept on trumping spear wielding enemies such as the various Greeks. Hell, they even beat Pyrrhus of Epirus who was the second closest there ever was to Alexander.
>the nazis invented stealth
IF I HAVE TO HEAR THIS BS ONE MORE TIME REEEEEEEEEE
superior manpower and discipline. romans were career soldiers, in a way nowhere else is europe was. thats the innovation of rome
>contradict Gibbons
Gibbons is shit by modern standards. He is outdated, similar to field of biology is now way ahead of Charles Darwin. You are the cancerous type of pop historian if you correct people for `contradicting gibbon`
Going back to your original question though\
I'll be PhD fag in Byzantine History probably around 2018. The most obnoxious bunch are
>Slavs who have a mythical view on Byzantines
>Christians who put some magical meaning to Constantinople, mostly Americans
>Crusaders dindu nuffin Greeks deserved it types, mostly Catholics from USA
I would have expected Greeks to sperg out but they are pretty cool about it. Maybe because they have a very large heritage.
>spears are better than swords
>easier to make than swords
>easier to use than swords
>swords still being made all over the place
Can someone explain this?
I met someone with a history degree (from a second-rate but still reputable state school), who didn't know what the thirty years war was and didn't know that the Eastern Mediterranean and north Africa was christian before the Islamic invasion. He thought he was smart too. Also he wrote for Gawker.
>manchild
>naive
you act as though its a good thing
>romans were career soldiers
"no"
that was only in the later republic
When your ethnic group is as old as the Greeks', you don't really need to get emotionally attached to a particular person or era.
Dont get baited smart user
Pls stay and help improve board
They're handy so you can show off with them how rich and tough you are by walking around in your city with a suboptimal and overly expensive weapon.
If you only want to show of, you get ceremonial swords, if you actually want to use it as a side arm in case your spear breaks, you get normal swords.
Dan Carlin
I didn't know knights and Roman legions primarily used spears.
>implying he isn't more qualified to talking about historical subjects than 99% of Veeky Forums
But the crusaders dindu nuffinh its all the venetian's fault
We're talking about celtic and germanic tribes.
That doesn't necessarily mean anything except you don't know what a history degree is for. Having a history degree doesn't mean you learned everything about historical events; the purpose of a bachelor's degree is mostly to teach someone how to do research. Facts are sort of secondary to that, and unless a person specifically studied a set of events (or other topic), they can't really be expected to know about it.
He has never claimed that he knows better than historians, he just proposes his own theories.
William Lane Craig
That's not what OP meant regarding people who contradict Gibbon. While current historiography may have shifted from Gibbon's views he's still a widely respected historian and rightly so due to the depth of his research and arguments. So for modern pop historians to shit on Gibbon without having anywhere near the clout that he does is incredibly petty. It's like pseuo-psychologists who laugh at Freud or any of the early psychologists. Yeah their theories are antiquated but at least they put in original thought and tread new ground for everyone to build their knowledge of the field on. It's only easy to see the flaws in their thinking in hindsight.
he's partly right
they usually didn't execute citizens. Even for murder/treason they were usually given the option to go into exile instead
It's not impossible for "a women" to be a warrior, but it's silly to send women to war when they could be giving birth to the next generation of physically stronger men.
Most of the books regarding history I've read treated the reader like a moron, in the sense that they explain shit you might not know because the writer doesn't expect you to be well versed in history. I think that's not so bad, that way average people can learn some history, but it depends on how much of an idiot the writer thinks you are. I remember in one book the writer discussed a battle and said something like this
>The early roman army was made out of mostly infantrymen, which means they marched on foot.
No fucking shit
Those are general statements, it's much more complex than that
>spears are better than swords
What kind of spears, what kind of swords, what context?
In a duel good luck winning with your spear if the enemy has a shield you're fucked. In a battle spears are short which means you can get two lines at best - again, against a shieldwall of solders with swords good luck doing anything. Pikes are better than spears because you can lay down 3, 4, 5 rows of em and the enemy will be stabbed from multiple directions of he approaches.
>easier to use than swords
How are swords hard to use? They're lighter and in close quarters you can hack haphazardly with them, whereas with spears you can only thrust and thus you need precision which isn't something the average pleb has
>swords are made all over the place
Life isn't battle after battle, there were cities and towns out there, peasants would carry swords for their own protection, because a sword would hang by a belt, and you wouldn't want to go grocery shopping with a giant stick in your hand.
Tell us about the C.I.A.
Could you give a link to a academic article which explains why he's outdated?
Is it just a matter of new sources of information/archaeology being discovered or is it merely that the modern form of history is more fashionable than his?
>Trusting Edward "Define Byzantine" Gibbons
Please be a troll. Swords were not brittle and unwieldy, the Saxons didn't use horses from 400-1066 in combat, and they didn't invent stirrups in any way. You fucking baffoon.
You can't use a spear in the first rank of a shieldwall. The shieldwall was the main tactic used by all European armies for a thousand years.
Dude, again, I'm going to have a fucking doctorate in Saxon weapons soon specifically, shut the fuck up and learn your place.
>I'm finishing up a PhD in Migration Period Saxons
That'll sure look great on your Starbucks application!
Oh thank god someone understood. I meant in terms of respect in history. "Gibbon was wrong" is fine if you can prove it. Insulting and mocking him, like Mary Beard, isn't.
Sorry, I think Starbucks turn down applications from people who've fisted your mother. Makes the coffee foul.
Oh yes, this. As a fellow archaeologist I can relate.
>There's nothing more to find, like, nothing
>All the evidence you bring to me only causes me to get more autistic in my disbelief
Sometimes I wonder how we got here as a species
And then there is the documentary herd, those who randomly watched once a documentary about some semi-obscure ethnies and come to you "What?" big surprised eyes "How come you cannot list all the characteristics and feature of this FUNDAMENTAL population in HISTORY?"
Sometimes I go to youtube to laugh at the comment section historians.
Barbarian comes from the latin word 'barba' which means BEARD. The Romans shaved daily, and considered themselves 'civilized', while the barbarians didn't shave often. That's were the name comes from. To be a barbarian was to be unshaven, and therefore unclean. A insult that the Romans gave to everyone that was not Roman, and from a northern tribe.
another person replies
Beard is a Barbaric attribute no doubt, however etymology is from the word Varvar - boiler, distiller of salts. Varvars had beards, and sold salts, and carried steel swords and bronze axes and knifes. It takes metallic salts to make bronze, steel, colorful glass beads, bronze mirrors, strong ceramic, colorful silks, indigo and scarlett dies.
The last person also said this after some Germanicaboo said Germanic tribes occupied Russia
Genetic evidence shows that Russia has never been "occupied" by Germanic tribes. Alas, it is clear that you are not familiar with the ethymology of the word "Viking". To "Go Viking" meant to go AWOL, rogue, outcast. What Englishmen call "Vikings" are Vorungian outcasts from Balkans that lost their crew, took wifes from Persia ans settled in Scandinavia. Their current language and genetics reflects it to be true.
>This person is Russian if you haven't noticed
Good one.
Although Americans assuming that people with PhDs in history or archeology will have problems finding decents jobs makes me laugh every time.
>Gibbons is shit by modern standards.
This
>I'll be PhD fag in Byzantine History
What your take on the history of Byzantium podcast? I know it's 99% narrative but I find it quite educating.
I can relate.
I am working on my PhD in GDR history and gotta deal with people who were """educated""" by public history/macros/their parents and they keep telling my what my research will look like while ignoring that there already is a shit ton of publications virtually on all aspects socialist states contradicting their nostalgic assumptions.
Especially obnoxious is the idiot here that keeps calling the GDR the real defender of Prussian values.
Also people unable to differentiate between socialism, communism and Marxism.
>Vorungian
Oh boy found another gold comment.
Goths are the Germanic peoples ancestors and migrated into Europe in the 3-4 centuries AD from east. The Romans called them Germans. They divided into 2 groups, Ostrogoths or eastern and Visigoths or western goths. Visigoths moved through France and Spain to north Africa then disappear from history. From Ostrogoths descend todays Germans, Austrians, part of Belgium, Denmark, Swiss, Saxons, and Scandinavian. Saxons moved to the British islands.
>Germanic confirmed to have migrated into europe during 3rd century.
>In a duel good luck winning with your spear if the enemy has a shield you're fucked.
Duels and Pas d'Armes typically involved matched weapons though.
>You can't use a spear in the first rank of a shieldwall.
How so?
Is the phalanx not a shieldwall? Because it typically involved ranks in the first spear.
yeah, my old roommate was a history major and he was dumb as shit about everything history.
isnt the contractual agreement between plebian and patrician based on military service? i know in the far past they were referred to as bandit shephards, so theyve always had an aggressive culture. rome was founded in the midst of war, in the middle of territory where the tribes met, was it not?
That isn't the sun, it's London's poorly constructed commieblocks catching fire.
>female historian
There's your problem.
Byzaboos are such scum.
>Crusaders dindu nuffin Greeks deserved it types, mostly Catholics from USA
Pay your fucking debts and that shit doesn't happen.
swords are just fake spears.
>make up words
>get called out
>continue to sperg
Not as influential as most people think after 1960.
>almost literally quoting from wiki to appear smart
what did he mean by this?
>From Ostrogoths descend todays
They moved to Italy where they defeated in the Gothic Wars.
The doc that these comments were talking about wasn't exactly quality either.
>Shieldmaidens didn't exist
According to historic sources, they sort of did - not shieldmaidens specifically (I guess), but there was a large mass of organized fighting women in the 'largest battle Scandinavia had seen' in like the bronze age or something, might've been iron age.
That's the only time I've heard mention of them though.
>And then there is the documentary herd,
What about the Joe Rogan herd?
>Dude, Graham Hancock was on the Rogan podcast. That was some crazy shit, I didn't know archaeologist were covering up so much.
Try being an engineering student.
You get /x/, /pol/, and /diy/ making you reconsider life.
>specialise in early modern Scottish linguistics
>"dude what a waste of time, they speak English in Scotland"
>Genetic evidence shows that Russia has never been "occupied" by Germanic tribes
T. retard.
Gothic tribes spent centuries in Ukraine and Scandis ruled over their slavic serf-scum for centuries in northern Russia.
The retard goes by Spider Bugbear on youtube and he frequents the Technology of the Goths doc.
How full of shit is he?
Any podcast/audiobook you'd recommend?
No offense, but I would assume most of the stupid shit you encounter from people would be similar to dealing with people ignorant in any profession or hobby. Like someone who thinks sealing a pip with duct tape is a good idea. And socially, at least you get to act like you're superior because of the STEM meme.
With archaeology, though, there are a lot of people out there who have no idea what you actually do ("OMG I love dinosaurs!"). Or who don't take you seriously at all. And that goes beyond normal ignorance into weird and sometimes contentious territory. I mean, there's a whole industry dedicated to psuedoarchaeology, and that's getting to be the dominant narrative in pop culture. There aren't very many other fields based on actual scholarship which are shit on as much as archaeology.
I thought shieldmaidens existed, even if they were nowhere near as common and historical fiction folks like to believe.
Were they really non-existent?