ITT: The most normie historical misconceptions (aka reddit historical misconceptions)

How did Spartacus, a slave who led a slave revolt, not oppose slavery?

>The Irish were genocided

OP is a total edgelord.

Are prisoners who attempt to escape fighting against oppression of slavery?

Technically they are against themselves being slaves. It's not like his rebellion was based off of ethnicity or any other reason than vying for freedom.

>Technically they are against themselves being slaves.
Only because one fights for his freedom, it doesn't make him any sort of a freedom fighter that wants to change the entire world. Even if Spartacus rebellion was a bit more successful, he wouldn't become a social activist and fight every other kingdom in the world to free all the slaves.

I don't think that's the point. His rebellion was a class based conflict between the enslaved and owning class. Their long term goals or justification are besides the point. I dont think they were planning on forming a communist utopia to wage class war on the mediteranian but it doesn't really matter.

He obviously wanted to be free, but that doesn't mean he was against slavery in general.

I think that when the original group chose to stay together rather than hide et disperse a lot of slaves and peasants joined them and from here it snowballed until Spartacus was at the head of an army.

But he tried to flee the italian peninsula for Thrace, not liberating all the slaves and topple the Roman state like a "freedom fighter", and in that is the common misconception (which probably is a residue of a marxist vision of history.)

If there was only an immediate concern of his own freedom and freedom of his brothers in arms, then he was simply doing just that. One has to have a vision/long term goals of wanting to end slavery completely to be opposing slavery. He wasn't opposing slavery anymore than any sort of captured individual that took up arms to escape/fight people that imprison him.

>Christianity was anti science
How does this not have merit exactly?

Catholicism post-reformation was anti-science for a time, not Christianity as a whole for all time

Because it was Christian clergymen who laid the groundwork for the science of the enlightenment where they continued to make breakthroughs in their fields. It was the medieval priests like Thomas Aquinas and Roger Bacon who established the scientific method.

I agree with everything else, but please explain to me how Caesar's actions in Gaul not considered a genocide?

Chistianity wasn't against "science", but rather against things that contradicted its dogmas, even when it was science.

That's why the atomistic theory was considered as heresy, but "scientists" still worked without too much trouble, with sometimes the help of the Church, and some where even monks.

A concrete example is cathedrals, which necessitate a considerable knowledge in order to be built.

>the crusades were completely the fault of the christians, who were bloodthirsty fanatics that hated muslims and wanted to massacre all of them
they ate people and sacked the cities of people who had asked for their help in the first place

>poles were massacring Germans inside their borders which made Hitler invade

Normies dont think about history

This. Normies don't even know what the Persian Empore is, let alone have an opinion on it.

>le never fight a land war in asia
i see that one a lot

Fuck meant to reply to

>Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Something like that?

>atomistic theory was considered as heresy
Or because it was a naturalistic theory that had no evidence or provability. Things like the heliocentric model were adopted once they had almost scientific provability, but if it's just philosophical wank like Forms then it was given scepticism and the "theory" treatment so it wasn't treated as fact.

Top /pol/ Kek.

The irish werent genicides, but they should have been

fuck you

>genicides

>thousands of people were burned as witches during the spanish inquisition
This was probably the worst. In hundreds of years of operation, the Spanish Inquisition killed at most 3,000 people.
What is these people's problem with Christianity?

Define what you mean by dominant then, because christianity only really became predominant after Theodosious took power. Even then, there was difficulty involved in actually getting anti-polytheist laws to stick, either due to negligent enforcement or no enforcement at all.

>retards actually believe this

>the united states invaded vietnam purely out of imperialistic desires
Absolutely true
>the deaths of american natives was entirely a deliberate course of action intended as genocide
I mean yes, this did happen quit often. How else are you going to frame wounded knee?
>the american revolution started because britain was oppressive and tyrannical and they set taxes too high
This is a meme though and I hate it

It depends on why he did it.
If it was 'slavery is immoral and I'm going to force Rome to stop' (it wasn't) or was it 'fvck this shit, being a slave fvcking svcks, I'm gonna start a rebellion and hope I get out alive'.

Same reason Zhu became the Hongwu Emperor I guess. The system ain't so bad when you're on top.

The perfidious heretical ANGLO invented these myths to slander Espana and then didn't bother to correct them later on.

>Slaves built the pyramids
>Not paid workers who were allowed have paid leaves, medical care and even had successful strikes

Christianity wasn't anti-science. Until science started to come up with evidence discrediting their god. Then they were anti-science. They just claimed it was heresy instead of knowledge.

>socialism was never properly tried
>if a country calls itself socialist that is good enough for me
>democratic people's republic of korea
>NK is a democratic republic, it's in the name!

To be fair I've seen a few Egypt documentaries on TV lately and they're going the other way and insisting on how good the egyptian workers had it now
it's the same type of overcorrection as "the dark ages were a meme" meme so you'll be complaining about how normies think the pyramids were built under 21st century Scandinavian labor regulations soon.

>the treaty of versailles was unfair/what caused world war 2
But that's correct, because the treaty of Versailles is what creates and set the laws of the League of Nations. Granted most pope think that the Treaty of Versailles created the hyperinflation that allowed Hitler to become chancellor, which is incorrect as the Weimar economy eventually recovered before it's grand collapse, but yes the treaty was a major cause of the rise of militant Pan-Germanism.

That’s because the Persian Empore never existed user
Whilst 300 tells normies about the Persians

This desu, and I say this a catholic Englishman

Any thing about "epic" warriors.
Like spartan super soldiers and most atrocious of all the mega Viking warriors

Imgur is a bucnh a fuckin normie ass cringe fest.
Can't believe this fuckin redditard made imgur the least reproachable.

>the treaty of versailles was what caused world war 2
Literally true

Intellectual dishonesty.

What's wrong with the Islamic golden age?

>The Normans were Scandinavians who had nothing to do with the native Gallo-Frankish population of Neustria

>The Normans were French in every aspect

It's spoken of as a time of peace and scientific prosperity when it's almost exactly the same as what occurred under the Catholic Church. Pretty overrated overall, although there were a lot of scientific advances thanks to there being a strong and competent government thanks to the Islamic Caliphate conquering so much and ruling with an iron fist.

There were still plenty of issues desu

I think it's because people tend to mistake "muslims" for "Arabs", while most (not all, though) of the greatest muslim scientists and thinkers were Persians.

This

>who established the scientific method.
As taken by Islamic scholars

>the united states invaded vietnam purely out of imperialistic desires
this one bothers me so much tbqh

the US never invaded as much as they came to the aid of South Vietnam, who really were the good guys in the conflict

>Reddit misconceptions
Too kek, check /r/ history and /r/askhistorians. Some of those guys know more than this whole board put together

>South Vietnam, who really were the good guys

The problem then is a lack of awareness of Christian achievement too. That doesn't mean the Islamic age of achievement is a meme.

hot take: 9 out of 10 times the US backs a regime, it's better for the country involved

t.europoor

You mean like the Contras or the Taliban or ISIS?
Say what you want about Ho Chi Minh, but at least he had some actual followers

>Nazis are socialist, it's in the name!

Because it wasnt harsh enough
French plan would have worked

>the Contras
the 1/10 in this case
>the Taliban
mujahideen=/=taliban
US support for the mujahideen was good tho
>ISIS
nice meme

Don't mind me just restricting buddism and suspending all national elections until further notice.

Turned out great for the Shah and Pinochet (heli memes aside)

Thieu>>>Diem tbhfamilia

Hell no on the first one, yes second one. I actually go there. It's a real nice place; they had the decency to ban jokes.

To bad Diem was so much more important.

This is your brain operating at 56% capacity

That was your argument, dumbass. Are you making fun of yourself? Just because a country calls itself socialist that doesn't mean that it is.

The US calls itself a 'democracy' when they are actually a representative republic with an electoral college and because of the FPTP system the elected president doesn't even need the majority of the national vote.

Stuff normies don't know:

US assassinated the leader of South Vietnam

North Vietnam broke the last peace agreement and invaded the South.

Congress refused to give anymore funds to Nixon and led to a massacre in Saigon.

Im not arguing. I agree with you. That's just another one I see a lot of.

Nixon also prolonged the Paris peace talks to win his election.

Oh ok. Sorry for calling you a dumbass.

>Ancient Greece
>Heron of Alexandria was a Greek
Woah

Chinese dynastic overthrows were not meant to destroy the system but to perpetuate it.

The Mandate of Heaven says if the current dynasty sucks, it should be replaced by one favored of heaven.

sure, Reza

>Poland created the first constitution in history!

>vikings were the masters of warfare during the early middle ages and went almost always unmatched

>Vikings regularly fought knights and won

>there were female vikings

The first humans in America came from the Bering land bridge and not from across the Atlantic ice packs from Europe.

>there were polish death camps

you dun goofed

> socialism has never been tried

This one I agree with. Nordic brand socialism has created arguably the most livable societies in history, so it definitely has been tried

Name a good one then

>Nordic brand socialism
another misconception, and it smells like bait

>socialism =/= socio-capitalism
I hate the "muh Scandinavia is socialist" meme, they aren't pure socialist by any extent. They are socio-capitalist because despite what both sides say, a blend of these two systems helps to further the goals of both.

>.02$ have been added to your account. Thank you for shilling US foreign policy.

explain plox

The heavier theory right now is that the humans who arrived first to the Americas made it through Beringia

There is no such thing as pure socialism, that's the point.

Saying socialism is always bad and then ignoring Scandinavia is just as retarded as saying its always good while ignoring the Soviet Union.

You judge an idea on its own merit, not its fucking name.

Operating under delusion that socialism can exist in a single state is what makes it impossible
It was never meant as a state of affairs to be established in it will never "work" in that context.

>It was the medieval priests like Thomas Aquinas and Roger Bacon who established the scientific method.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham