|
|
Post by memeengine on Nov 3, 2012 21:56:11 GMT
1. Things change...all of the time
Quite often in suggestions for myths to test someone will ask something like "In the medieval period could a knight's armour be penetrated by an arrow" or "Could a Roman army really build 3 miles of road in a week".
The problem with these sorts of question is that the medieval period spanned around 3-400 years and the Roman empire from rise to fall spanned around 600 years. Things weren't static during these periods. An early medieval knight was different in many ways to the late period knight, as were the archers that were pitted against them. Similarly, the late period Roman soldier was a different beast to the men who forged the empire in the first place.
The same is true for shorter historical periods. World War II spanned just over 6 years (or even fewer, if you're American) but the world was a very different place in many ways at the end compared to the start.
So when proposing a historic myth do try to be specific about exactly when you're talking about.
2. Technological changes don't always happen to make things better
Sometimes changes in technology happen for purely economic, social or political reasons. For example, the transition from archer to musketeer didn't happen because the musket was a superior weapon to the bow. It happened because the musket was easier for an untrained man to use. Instead of spending their time training to use a weapon, the peasants could be working the fields and then grab a gun when the time came to fight.
As a consequence, there were occasionally what would appear to be backwards (or at least sideways) steps in technological development. So don't assume that simply because something came later that it should out-perform its equivalent from an earlier period.
3. Standing on the shoulders of giants
Quite often, there are 'myths' proposed along the lines of "prove that X really invented the Y" or "Who actually invented X?".
It's actually very rare for any invention to be completely original. Most inventions are incremental improvements on other inventions which themselves are incremental improvements, etc, etc. While we tend to give a lot of credit to certain engineers, inventors and scientists for the invention of key products or discovery of major scientific phenomena, it should always be remembered that few of them worked in isolation.
It's also worth remembering that in many ways, until global communication in the 20th Century, the planet could actually be considered as several different worlds. As a result things could be invented several times over in different places by different people.
In the grand scheme of things, it probably doesn't matter who invented X so much as that it was invented at all.
4. Hindsight is 20/20
Another common element of 'historic' myths, is the "what if" scenario. The common failing of these myth suggestions is that they rely on information gained since, or scientific developments that happened after, the event or period in question.
So when proposing a myth, do consider the historic technological context.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 7, 2012 5:36:43 GMT
In most cases I have had experience with, the first generation of a new technology is inferior to the last generation of the technology it will eventually supplant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 7, 2012 14:22:17 GMT
Well written, making this a sticky.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Nov 8, 2012 0:28:11 GMT
My pet peeve is also that so many today thing ancient=stupid. Just because they didn't have computers, doesn't mean the couldn't build and do incredible things. A short glance at DaVinci's notebooks is proof of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 8, 2012 1:09:27 GMT
If I may add another recommendation?
"Never presume that your first source of information on any one topic is a full and complete presentation of what happened. Instead, examine multiple sources, preferably from different points of view, for a fuller picture."
All too often, writers and pundits will exaggerate certain situations and downplay others.
In some cases, the person in question does not know any better and are merely repeating what they themselves were told. For example, the average school kid may know full well that Columbus is credited with discovering America, but may not know that the Vikings arrived first and is generally unaware of the debate concerning whether or not other peoples arrived before Columbus as well. This is due to the fact that Columbus is heavily emphasized in the average textbook, while the other groups are often only given token nods if they're mentioned at all.
In other cases, the person in question might be attempting to distort the message for their own personal gain. For example, in the wake of the Battle of Midway, the Japanese government did everything it could to hide the fact that the Imperial Navy had suffered a great loss. Rather than admit that poor planning and arrogant leadership led to the loss of multiple aircraft carriers, the official line was that Midway was a Pyrrhic victory in which American losses were just as heavy. It wasn't until almost a full decade after the incident that two of the officers involved (one who was at Midway, another who with the diversionary attack on the Aleutians) were able to publish a book detailing what actually went down. (If anyone's wondering, I read an English translation over the summer; given that it focused on the Japanese side, the US military funded the translation so that military cadets could study both sides of the battle.)
Sometimes, all it takes is just a few minutes' additional reading and research.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 8, 2012 1:34:54 GMT
Two points to add to ironholds comments;
1; It is very unusual to find documentation, especially if it covers things such as battles, that was written by someone who was present at the time. More often the writer was writing accounts after talking to some of the men involved, and rarely did that include the rank and file.
This is especially true for paintings and drawings of battles, where it is unusual to find that the artist was anywhere near the battle - and almost never had been near the army - and was painting for effect, not accuracy. You will, for example, find that paintings of troops going into battle tend to have them dressed in their best uniforms.
2; Writers can misrepresent events in order to try and make some sociological or political point, usually (although not always) this involves writers using past events to make a point about current events.
For example we have the image of the British Royal Navy of the 1700's as being a brutal workplace where men were flogged every five minutes. This image comes from later writers, who were trying to make a point about capital punishment, rather than from facts.
In reality the RN's sentences for crimes were considerably more lenient than in the Army or in civil courts - the heaviest flogging sentence in the RN was 500 lashes, and that by court martial. In the army even minor offences could get you a hundred lashes.
Another example is the 'Archimedes Death Ray' story. This was written a few hundred years after the fact by a well known satirist, who was probably making fun of how Roman Generals excused having lost a battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 8, 2012 1:51:12 GMT
If anyone's wondering, the book is Midway by Mitsuo Fuchida and Masatake Okumiya.
Fuchida, the primary author, was a flight commander in the Imperial Navy. His flight was on board the Akagi for the mission to Midway, but he came down with appendicitis shortly after the carrier left territorial waters. As such, he was unable to fly with his unit; instead, he watched the battle from as close to the ship's flight deck as possible. He was on board the ship when it was hit, and was one of the many wounded who were transferred in private to a military hospital, wherein they were kept in total isolation so that the government could allow the official story to spread. He was reassigned as an instructor after the battle due to a leg injury, during which he was tapped to write a report on the battle. Although his final draft disappeared, he retained possession of an earlier draft and used it as the core for the book.
In the process, he encountered Okumiya, an aviator with the force that struck the Aleutians as a diversionary effort. Okumiya provided him with details from the effort, allowing him to get a full picture of the overall effort.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Nov 8, 2012 21:06:46 GMT
And let's not forget the good old saying, commonly attributed to Winston Churchill: "History is written by the victors."
In the case of the book Ironhold mentions, it's a rare one. More the exception than the rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Nov 8, 2012 22:41:35 GMT
Never presume that your first source of information on any one topic is a full and complete presentation of what happened. I think that it would be safe to say; "Never presume that any single source of information on any one topic is a full and complete presentation of what happened." You might be lucky enough to find a work that has deliberately sought out differing view points and sources for its facts but even the best works aren't perfect and even the finest authors can make mistakes. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 20, 2012 10:31:31 GMT
HRH The Queen Mum, saw the invention of household electricity, and then the first man on the moon.....
That was one lifetime.
From Horse drawn to Rocket power.... how quick did THAT happen?....
What will I see in my life?....
I helped the generation that bought us Home computers.
I was literally "There" when the Internet began....
When it comes to computers, I have forgotten more than many people will know, as what I knew was quickly outdated as technology accelerated... to the stage where I could not keep up.
And its still accelerating....
It scares me somedays...
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 20, 2012 16:45:07 GMT
HRH The Queen Mum, saw the invention of household electricity, and then the first man on the moon..... That was one lifetime. From Horse drawn to Rocket power.... how quick did THAT happen?.... What will I see in my life?.... I helped the generation that bought us Home computers. I was literally "There" when the Internet began.... When it comes to computers, I have forgotten more than many people will know, as what I knew was quickly outdated as technology accelerated... to the stage where I could not keep up. And its still accelerating.... It scares me somedays... I know the feeling. I've been doing role-playing games longer than some of the kids at my table have been alive. Yeah. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Nov 20, 2012 16:49:36 GMT
Anyone studying technology or engineering should watch two series that were produce for the BBC by James Burke: "Connections" and "The Day the Universe Changed."
Connections looks at how various people, ideas, inventions and events though out history come together to create some of the things that are vitally important to today's world.
The Day the Universe Changed looks at how the advance of technology influences our view of the world.
Some comments on Memeengine's post:
Really those three cover probably cover 97% of all inventions though out history, and economic considerations probably account for at least 2/3 of them. There are really not many instances of inventions that were invented purely for the sake of inventing it.
The old saying that necessity is the mother of invention is true. The problem is that the reasons behind inventions often gets lost. One example is the printing press. Gutenburgs press was invented soon after one of the most devastating outbreaks of the black death across Europe. Europe lost nearly 1/3 of it's population. Imagine what that does to a business when you loose a 3rd of your work force. On the other hand, the new prosperity after the plague left made for several new resources including supplies of cheap paper.
Gutenburg was dealing with the loss of scribes So the creation of a practical printing press eliminated the need for people who were in short supply to manually copy texts.
One of the ironies of technology history is that credit rarely goes to the person who actually invented something. Instead it almost always goes to the person who took someone elses invention and made it practical.
James Watt took existing steam engines and correct design flaws that prevented continuous operation. Otis invented a brake system that made elevators safe to use. The Wright Brothers invented 3D control systems for airplanes and corrected flawed airfoil designs. Henry Ford was able get the price of a car down to a point where the average family could afford one. Same with Singer and the sewing machine.
They are also based on previous technology. A totally new inventions is almost unheard of. They alalmost always taking existing technology and using it in a new way.
To go back to Gutenburg, the printing press was around for over a thousand years before him, but it required that each page be manually carved the entire plate. He took the basic printing press concept that dates back to China. Then you had Gutenburgs work as a goldsmith and metals and making dies and common molds for lead part was able to create the movable type.
Invention is an ongoing process that builds upon itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 20, 2012 16:58:49 GMT
and those inventions that do not fit the above criteria were often something that didn't work for the intended purpose; and someone (sometimes the original inventor and sometimes someone else) found a use for it.
case in point: Thomas edison did not set out to create a music recording device - he set out to create a message recorder, as he did not think Graham Bell's device would get beyond a telegraph office, and would therefore require that the voice messages be recorded and then played back to the recipient.
in a case of double irony, his device became a popular entertainment technology, and someone else gets the credit for the answering machine.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxman on Jan 9, 2013 22:36:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 10, 2013 8:31:42 GMT
Consideration to ponder on....
History is written by the Winners.
Cases in point, if you google Ancient civilisations that were destroyed by Barbarians, you get plenty to ponder on...
Not all of the ancient civilisations were destroyed for the good, and Barbarians is a term used to describe those that were not always a "better" people.....
I have been watching something on Ancient Rome, and it has inferred that during the reign of Gadaffi, many historical Roman artefacts in that area and perhaps Un-documented remains have laid almost abandoned.
This is the "Modern" world.....
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Feb 10, 2013 12:56:21 GMT
Just remembered a point that I should have raised earlier on:
Sometimes, change is not for the best.
There are countless examples throughout history of situations in which technological, societal, and/or political change that were supposed to make life better for people backfired spectacularly, especially if those changes were forced on the people making the changes by a "superior" power.
For example, the average US history textbook treats "The US government outlawing polygamy and forcing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to abandon it" as a major step forward for humanity.
It wasn't.
Utah was one of the first territories in the nation that allowed women the right to vote. As a result of this, the state became a haven for early suffragettes; by the early 1870s, Salt Lake City had become the de facto capital of the suffrage movement.
Thing is, the "Mormon Women" voting bloc generally voted against laws that would prohibit polygamy. The folks over in Washington D.C. couldn't understand why they kept doing this (there were a variety of social, cultural, and religious reasons that nobody back East ever bothered to learn about), and so wrote into an anti-polygamy bill a clause that nullified suffrage in the state. As of 1878, it was once more illegal for a woman to vote within the Utah Territory. After all, the folks in Washington figured, it was "for their own good" since they "obviously" were not responsible enough to go to the polls on their own behalf (re: they didn't vote the way Congress wanted them to vote).
In other words, "Washington forcing Utah to abandon polygamy" had the net effect of setting the suffrage movement back several decades.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jun 25, 2013 22:06:18 GMT
A new one based on a debate I've recently been having -
History changes with new discoveries and advancements; unless you're going for a period piece, then the older the work you're referring to the greater the odds that it's out of date.
For example, at one point people scoffed at the notion of Native Americans using weapons more sophisticated than spears, clubs, slings, and arrows. Then the macuahuitl was rediscovered. One version was essentially a crude broadsword, while the other version was essentially a crude morningstar.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 21, 2014 15:36:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 21, 2014 19:10:23 GMT
Today's news is tomorrows history.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 22, 2014 7:02:24 GMT
When researching History, please remember, much of it happened before the Internet was invented.
let that stand on its own.
As a discussion note, I would like to enter the following as evidence.
I am reminded of this from an argument currently playing out elsewhere.
Someone is arguing the (pedantic) about the inclusion of a certain part on a certain vehicle.
I know it existed, I drove that vehicle, I am keeping out of the argument, as the defendant is managing quite well.
As he is keen to point out demands for a "Link" to vehicle design from a vehicle that was discontinued before the internet was ever invented is no way proof that it did not exist because the designs were done on Paper.
The majority, if not all of history existed before the Internet.
Can the protagonist therefore include links to the exact nature of the Higgs Bosun, as its happening right now, so failure to post such links by his own rule is proof that this research is invalid then?....
Please also post links to a complete inventory of the findings of a certain Mr Carter who found Tutankhamen's tomb....
Again failure to post such links...
Yet we all know it existed.
For my own part, I have a complete set of the Haynes Manual type reference material as used by RAF mechanics for anything flying in WW2.....
I have never found any replica of these as Internet reference, but I can tell you what size bolts hold the superchargers in place on a Spitfire, if that was needed....
I also have unique experience from a Battle Enactment Society, who although documented some interesting findings, also pre-dated the importance of internet.
|
|
