Historical Controversies

[Penner]

If we are not going to get a subthread for all of our Historical controversies, then I feel I may as well create a thread just for it:

And here is something from the old place:

Debate aspects of historical knowledge that are open to interpretation

[Penner]

Just to get the ball rolling here is one of my posts that I think should be here:

So, I just heard about this and it looks like Henry VIII isn't liked by authored historians:

King John I may forever be known as a Bad King following that seminal history textbook 1066 and All That, but according to history authors, it is Henry VIII who should bear the title of the worst monarch in history.

More than 60 writers were surveyed by the Historical Writers Association (HWA), with Henry VIII taking 20% of the vote to find the worst monarch and criticised for a wide range of crimes: he was “obsessive”, “syphilitic” and a “self-indulgent wife murderer and tyrant”, according to respondents.

Robert Wilton, the author of The Spider of Sarajevo, called the Tudor king “a gross man-child, wilfully and capriciously dangerous to everything around him including the country”, adding that psychologically, Henry “barely made it out of infancy, let alone adolescence, and ruled with little more policy than petulant self-gratification”.

Edward VIII was named the second worst, with 14% of the vote, with John I and Charles I joint third, with 8%.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/s ... in-history

[Penner]

Wrong place.

[Penner]

Wrong place.

[Penner]

I just read this article on IO9 and it pointed out that there were 7 major crisis events, that could've started WWI.

The First World War was instigated by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, but it’s no small miracle that a general European war didn’t happen earlier. Here are 7 international crises in the years before 1914 that could have started a global-scale conflict.

For most Europeans, the century leading up to the First World War was peaceful and prosperous. After the fall of Napoleonic France, European people busied themselves with science, art, and industry. And when war threatened, the Concert of Europe—with its emphasis on a power balances and diplomacy—managed to avert war time and time again.

But things began to unravel after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71. The international dynamic changed considerably once the new German Empire asserted itself in central Europe, while Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire struggled to retain prominence. What’s more, Bismarckian diplomacy was replaced by a more assertive German leadership, one demanding that the new nation-state get its own “place in the sun.”

Starting in 1875, Europe began to experience a series of crises, each threatening to uproot the longstanding peace. Here are the most serious of these incidents, listed chronologically.

http://io9.com/7-ways-that-world-war-i- ... 1725104055

[Penner]

S

o, this is something that Dan brings up in both his CS and his HH shows and I was wondering if anybody supports either one and why. Personally, I think that the truth is a little bit of both. That history can be modeled by a great man and/or a great movement. Both seems to be major factors that very few people have power over. Overall, I do think that the Great Movement theory is much stronger than the Great Man Theory because great movements seems to happen more often than great men.

[katarn]

So, this is something that Dan brings up in both his CS and his HH shows and I was wondering if anybody supports either one and why. Personally, I think that the truth is a little bit of both. That history can be modeled by a great man and/or a great movement. Both seems to be major factors that very few people have power over. Overall, I do think that the Great Movement theory is much stronger than the Great Man Theory because great movements seems to happen more often than great men.

I think that is a good summation of it. Both clearly influence events, and great men often start great movements and vice versa.

[Otern]

Congrats to Grumpycatface for making the last post ever on the DCF.

Also, the last post was factually wrong; Denmark did NOT discover America.

Iceland(or Norway) did. Iceland was under control of Norwegian chieftains at the time, while Norway was not under control of Danish chieftains. Making the discovery of America a Norwegian endeavor.

Leif Eiriksson was probably born on Iceland(tiny chance for it being Norway, no way Denmark), his father was definitely born in Norway. The only reason Leif would have to set foot on Denmark would've been to bash their heads in. He got the task to discover further east by a Norwegian king, also born in Norway. Sure, Harald Blåtann was born in Denmark, and probably ruled Denmark + "Norway" at the time Leif was born. But this "Norway", was basically just Oslo and the areas around it. And none of these Norwegians were born in the Dane ruled Norway. They were all born in non-Dane parts.

And sure, the Norwegian Eirik Håkonson accepted the royal supremacy of the Dane Svein Tjugeskjegg between 1000-1014, while ruling most of Norway himself. But this happened after the sailing season. The battle of Svolder was in middle of September the year 1000. Leif probably set foot on Newfoundland before that sometime in 1000.

And then again, Leif Eiriksson didn't discover America, although he or his men were the first to take a step there. Bjarne Herjolvsson was the first to spot it, when he got lost trying to visit his dad on Greenland in 986. He was probably born on Iceland, but lived in Norway.


So, Iceland discovered America, and if you're trying to be tricky with "but this guy ruled that land, and that guy from that land found this land", then it could be argued that Norway discovered it.

But no way in hell am I ever going to accept the phrase "Denmark discovered America". It's wrong, no matter how you try to bend the rules.

Also, Denmark, give back Greenland to either Norway or Iceland. We're only living rightful owners. (The Kalaallit discovered it from the west after us, and the Dorsets (who were there before us) all died because of it.)

[SuburbanFarmer]

Denmark = Norway = Scandanavian. Same as anything in the region of Germany = "Germanic Tribes", which also conquered France, England, Denmark, etc, etc...

I counter your facts with generalities. Because I killed the DCF.