Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BeakersDream t1_iz5fyyo wrote

What kind of annoys me about the popular presentation of history is that people like William the Conqueror or King Richard the Lion-heart were see as chads. Neither of them were good rulers, outside of warfare.

11

HappyMonk3y99 t1_iz5rma8 wrote

Because correctly or not, people see greatness as something you do, not something you preside over. We’re sympathetic to people overcoming odds and subverting expectations and this is most achievable on the battlefield. And if we’re being real, conquest is one of, if not the most significant way in which history changes course. Where would Rome have gone without Caesar? Islam without Khalid Ibn Al Walid?

The songs and storytellers remember these people because they changed the world. But at the end of the day it’s propaganda, the person with the best story is most remembered. Richard the lionheart is a great example of this carrying over to someone whose reign was a categorical failure simply because we’ve established an expectation of warfare being the road to greatness. People don’t talk about how he bankrupted his kingdom or lost the Angevin lands in france as part of his story, so it might as well have never happened

13

BeakersDream t1_iz5s8z2 wrote

Yes, but from a historically minded viewpoint, it's annoying because it's inaccurate. My comment was made to highlight the differences between historical reality and what we are led to believe through pop culture.

5

HappyMonk3y99 t1_iz5w7y4 wrote

Well what exactly qualifies as a historically minded viewpoint? We don’t see these people glorified in textbooks, but we do in the history subreddit while talking about how a historical figures life was movie-like. Is this making its way into academic publications or is it more casual history conversations? Because the latter is rightfully affected by pop culture, we want interesting conversation topics, not to quote a phd thesis

3

BeakersDream t1_iz5yino wrote

A historically minded viewpoint is one that bases their conclusions and statements off of the available evidence. I'd argue that past historians did present certain figures, like Richard, in a positive light and as a result of that history textbooks present them in the same way. It's only been in the last 20 years that we've a shift in the academic community, a shift which has caused a reexamination of certain points in time (ex. Dark Ages weren't dark) or certain historical figures (Richard II's reputation was largely tarnished by Tutor bias in the historical record).

To briefly touch on your last sentence, would you rather have an interesting conversation or one that is based off of evidence?

My responses may slow, I have class.

2

HappyMonk3y99 t1_iz6qasl wrote

But isn’t it based on facts and evidence that Richard was skilled in warfare? I feel like this is a difference between partial truths and holistic overview rather than accuracy vs inaccuracy. Again the relevance of each varies depending on the context and depth of conversation. If someone were to argue that Richard was a great king based solely on his martial prowess then I absolutely would agree with you, in that context

2

BeakersDream t1_iz72klc wrote

Popular culture has the unfortunate habit of presenting Richard as an overall good king BECAUSE he was an effective military leader. However, this presentation is inaccurate because if you take his entire reign into consideration it becomes patently obvious that he greatly struggled in non-military governance, thus making him a poor king.

My original comment was directed at the issues surrounding popular culture because they often present their work as factually accurate or 'based off true events' and as a result the audience will go 'okay so now I have an accurate idea of *insert topic*'

Just in response to your second sentence: Partial truths are still inaccurate. No one is going to be happy with "Well its mostly correct." If you're learning about something you're going to want a full understanding of the subject, not bits and pieces that give you a partial understanding. As a professor once told me, "The devil is in the details, if you don't address the details he'll make an ass out of you and I."

1