30 People Share Historical ‘Facts’ That Have Been Proven Wrong Long Ago, But Many People Still Believe In
A smart man once said, "What is history but a fable agreed upon?" The idea is that history reflects the ideals and beliefs of the one who's teaching it and not necessarily what happened. Repeat a lie a thousand times and someone might actually start believing it.
Last week, Redditor u/throwaway000689 decided to find out which of these myths are the most popular and asked other platform users: "History buffs, what is a commonly held misconception that drives you up the wall every time you hear it?" People immediately started submitting their answers and provided valuable insights into our collective ignorance.
This post may include affiliate links.
That the further back in time you go the more sexually suppressed everything was or the more racist everyone was or the more misogynistic everyone was - basically any perception that the entirety of history can be charted as a steady progression. All of these things fluctuate. Women in Medieval Europe had more rights than women in 18th century Europe, our concept of racial superiority based on skin color would have come off as insane in many other eras, and I want to tear my hair out every time I hear someone claiming that it would have been scandalous to show an ankle in 19th century Europe. Hell, even in living memory none of these claims are accurate. The 70's were more sexually liberal than the 80's, and you would have to be dumber than a bag of sh*t to not see how much we're backsliding on human rights right now, especially women's rights - and yet people still overwhelmingly cling to the delusion that we're constantly marching ever and ever forward on all of these issues, each day more progressive than the last. It's just not true.
When I was a kid (late 80's, early 90's) I remember most women at the beach, a lot who had grown up in the 70's, being topless. Now when I do it, I'm often the only one and looked at like I'm a paria. Sucks really, seems like we're going backwards.
The person who ignited the discussion, u/throwaway000689, came up with the idea for it quite spontaneously. "I was thinking about the conversation I had with my friend where he said that the reason for the downfall of the Roman empire was because of the rampant hedonism," the Redditor told Bored Panda, adding that they find this assessment completely wrong.
One might think that such talks are of little importance. After all, people live in the present, they plan for and worry about the future, but history is the study of the past. Why bother with what has been?
Peter N. Stearns, a professor at George Mason University, where he had been provost for 14 years, said the reason is quite simple: there's much to learn from the bygone days.
"In the first place, history offers a storehouse of information about how people and societies behave," Stearns wrote. "Understanding the operations of people and societies is difficult, though a number of disciplines make the attempt. An exclusive reliance on current data would needlessly handicap our efforts. How can we evaluate war if the nation is at peace—unless we use historical materials? How can we understand genius, the influence of technological innovation, or the role that beliefs play in shaping family life, if we don't use what we know about experiences in the past?"
u/throwaway000689 agrees. "History [not only teaches us about the] mistakes of the past, [but it] also allows us to learn more about the world we live in which helps expand the mind of the average individual."
That people from the past were just less intelligent than modern people. Fact is, humans from even 15,000 years ago were just as intelligent as modern humans (intelligence being the ability to learn and apply knowledge). They just had different things to worry about and had not discovered everything that we know today.
The whole of modern civilization is built on discovers made thousands or tens of thousands of years ago. Our ancestors, starting with nothing but stone tools and basic survival skills, created agriculture, writing, mathematics, standardized language, the wheel, metallurgy, ship building, architecture, trade routes spanning all of afro-eurasia, currency, banking, cross breeding of animals and plants to create better strains, the list goes on.
If I plucked a human baby from thousands of years ago, properly immunized it to modern diseases, and raised it as any other child today, you would be unable to tell the difference between them or any other child.
Fact is the only difference between us and our ancient ancestors is the discoveries, philosophies, technology and effort performed, created and understood by the hundreds of generations between us.
Our ancient ancestors were simply smart in different ways because we only really learn what we have to. Ancient Polynesians literally memorized the night sky for navigating the innumerable islands of the Indo-Pacific and Oceania, Norse people's built ships capable of sailing from Europe to America using only hand tools, wood, linen, nails and rope. Ancient east Asian cultures built massive temples out of wood using only precisely crafted wood joints and no nails. Rome built, well, Rome, with hand tools and hand calculated math. Same can be said of the wonders of Egypt, India and mesopotamia.
Then there is Göbekli Tepe, an amazing structure of precisely placed monoliths, engraved walls and cobblestone paths built nearly 12,000 years ago. Which is nearly 6000 years prior to our earliest records of advanced civilizations.
We stand on the backs of thousands of years of knowledge painstakingly collected and handed down for millennia to us who have taken it and created wonders our ancestors would attribute to gods.
Yet we ignore the gargantuan effort that our long dead kin have contributed to our success and even view them with distain. Calling them savages, ignorant and fools. Truly we are the ungrateful child looking down on the gracious teacher that our ancestors were.
We are the summation of all of humanity, just another step in a long history of advancement, not a separate holy being above it or separate from it.
This. I once had a discussion with someone who thought the pyramids could only be built by aliens because the people in the past were too stupid to build them.
That white people were the only ones that traded in slavery. Forgetting about north and east africa where natives sold others mostly to the middle east. White women brought high prices and were often shipped great distances. Women in russia were also traded to the middle east.
Africans did a roaring trade. It was the perfect way to get rid of an inconvenient rival or family member
However, the prevalence of these misconceptions can be indicative of the fact that history is losing in the academic popularity contest.
According to statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics, there were 34,642 history majors in 2008. Fast forward to 2017, the count was just 24,266. Most of that decline occurred after 2012, with a notable single-year drop of more than 1,500 between 2016 and 2017.
However, maybe it's not yet time to be ringing any alarm bells. Northeastern University’s Benjamin M. Schmidt pointed out that the history major has had low points before. The discipline weathered a significant decline from 1969 and 1985, when the major dropped by 66 percent.
However, those numbers were linked to higher education’s boom in the ’60s that saw the discipline’s rapid expansion and subsequent bust when higher education growth slowed in the ’70s.
This drop is especially pronounced at private, not-for-profit institutions. While all demographic groups are impacted, the highest drops in the field have been seen among Asian-Americans and women.
That Rosa Parks was just some nice old lady who wouldn't give up a bus seat.
She was a political activist who meticulously planned that specific instance of civil protest.
Cowboys were not cool white guys with endless independence!!! Cowboys were in fact largely black, Mexican, and Native American men who were in need of money and were seen on the low end of social hierarchy. Originally they used whips and dogs to control their herd. Eventually the lazo became the lasso, chaparajos became chaps, and the sombrero turned into the ten gallon cowboy hat we know today. Herding cattle was hard work and was beneath “respectable white folk”. Cowboys worked in groups of 12 or so to herd thousands of cattle over hundreds of miles, and they too had a leader called the trail boss. Cowboys were in fact not rugged icons of independence, but took orders like everyone else and made wages lower than skilled factory pay. Cowboys could also come as young as 12 years old.
That Jewish people and other victims of the Holocaust went willingly to their death and no one fought back. While it’s true that a lot of victims did not believe the genocide was occurring and they were simply being relocated (Nazis/Hitler were very persuasive and no one could imagine a genocide), plenty fought back. There were resistance groups all over the place as well as people fighting from their homes when they were being taken for deportation. Guns were used, makeshift bombs, stolen bombs, etc. Not everyone was going to go to the concentration camps/death camps/detention centres without a fight.
Been studying the Holocaust since 2008.
Maybe it's because I am German, but I have literally NEVER heard anyone say that. No one here (aside from neo nazis) believes the Jews died willingly like sheep. There is a vast number of interviews with holocaust survivors and in all of them you will here them say "And then I knew we were going to die." They knew. Most of them already knew on the trains taking them to the camps.
People didn't die at 30-40. The high infant mortality rate skews the average. If you could survive into your teen years you had a pretty good chance of living into your senior years. Obviously there are a lot of factors to consider(eg class, gender, occupation, where you lived, etc.)
It’s petty, but I hate it when people say that Marilyn Monroe was a size 12/14/16. This may have been true in the 1950s, but clothes sizes have changed A LOT since then. Reports of Marilyn’s measurements by her costumers noted that she was 5 ft. 5.5 inches tall; 35 inch bust; 22 inch waist; and 35 inch hips and 118 pounds. Of course her weight fluctuated, but it is simply dishonest to think that in modern times, she would have been considered “plus size.”
In today’s sizing, depending on where she’d shop at, she would be a size 00-4.
The United States spent the majority of its time and resources in WWII fighting the Nazi’s to free the Jews.
The majority of US fighting was in the Pacific theatre against Japan, because they bombed the sh*t out of us. We weren’t even going to join the war at first, only assist Britain.
The USA wanted nothing to do with WW2 and refused several times get involved. Until the Japanese snuck up on Pearl Harbour where the yanks had conveniently parked all their boats which made Japans job very easy.
Knights weren't exactly chivalrous. It was a concept designed to make them appear magnanimous, and to justify their brutality among the common folk of their enemies when they weren't at war.
Knights could even pay their respective kings to chicken out of fighting in a war if they were summoned to do so, which many did to keep on pillaging hovels full of bumpkins because it was easy sport.
In short, a lot of Knights were rich, murderous bullies with too much free time on their hands.
The whole "Courtly Love" thing was an attempt to actually make the knights behave chivalrously, to make following a code of honor fashionable, and to make knights less bullies and more... knightly. This started in the 12th century, after knights in shining armor had been around for a while, don't get me started.
“Medieval peasant food was bland”
People seem to think peasants only ate bread and potatoes with no seasoning. In reality, while salt was indeed a luxury they often couldn’t afford, they had access to plenty of herbs to flavor their food. They also had access to things like fish and other meats, so they weren’t just eating bread, though it was an important staple of their diet.
If you’re interested in how a bunch of civilizations ate throughout history, check out Tasting History on YouTube. It’s a great source of historical information and entertainment.
The potato arrived in the West in the late 16th century anyway, so after the Middle Ages.
"Even Einstein was bad at math"
No, his grades were disclosed multiple times and showed very high marks in math.
That Napoleon was short. Dude was 5"6'. Making him downright average for the European standard at the time. A brief investigation shows this was a rumor that his enemies spread in order to deminish his reputation and how serious his subjects took him. Funny error, but still an error
That Neanderthals were monosyllabic brutes. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. Their brains were bigger than ours and casts of the inside of their skulls show that they had all the same structures our brains had. Their tool making was comparable to any Homo sapiens' took making (at least before the Great Leap Forward) and they lived in communities just like we did.
We also regularly mated with them and had kids, which I really don't think we would if they were little more than quasi-gorillas.
Only around 40% of colonists supported the American Revolution. Another 40% was indifferent, and about 20% sided with the British. Most Americans think that it was the vast majority who wanted Independence.
I wouldn't say indifferent so much as "not immediately involved", given what I know about US history. They were busy farming or whatever, and not really concerned with high ideals beyond, "Can I feed the family this winter? Is the cow sick? That's terrible about the deaths in Boston, but I live in Podunk, and we never see redcoats." So, typical human mindset, really. (See: Brexit.)
That witches could only be women. There were plenty of male ‘witches’ over hundreds of years. In fact there are lot of misconceptions about witchcraft in general
I've mentioned this before but the Earth was mathematically proven to be spherical by the Ancient Greeks in the 3rd Century BC. Literate people, at very least, wouldn't have believed the Earth to be flat in the Medieval era.
Furthermore, the Dark Ages weren't the Dark Ages because the Church allegedly suppressed science that they disagreed with. Many important discoveries were sponsored by the Church, and scientists/clergy were not mutually exclusive.
Ιt's been proven since the 3rd century BCE yet there are still people who think Earth is a floating raft smh
That carrots magically make your eyesight better. I still hear people say this to this day. Carrots are good for you, but not any better for your eyes than any other vegetable.
In World War 2 when the Nazis were bombing Great Britain, they couldn't figure out how the Brits were able to shoot their planes down at night. British propaganda stated that their gunners and pilots ate a lot of carrots to improve their eyesight.
In actuality they were covering up the fact that they'd invented RADAR and didn't want the Jerrys to know about it.
Actually I read somewhere it was not to hide the fact that the UK had radar (as the Germans had Freya and Wurzburg) radar systems, which the British knew and captured in operation Biting). But to hide the fact that the British had it miniaturised enough to allow mounting them on planes. For more info see https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/a-wwii-propaganda-campaign-popularized-the-myth-that-carrots-help-you-see-in-the-dark-28812484/
Oh, so many.
Native Americans were just as capable of ecological destruction as any other humans. My favorite example of this was from my archeology professor who does excavations of Native American sites in Baja. In excavating a midden (trash heap) he found at the bottom were bones from the local land mammals, that got smaller and smaller as the locals over-hunted. Then was a level of fish and sea mammals -- again, starting with bone from large fish and mammals and getting smaller and smaller until they practically disappeared from over hunting and over fishing. Then on the top were the shellfish -- and again, the same pattern. Until apparently there was nothing left at this site to eat, and the Natives moved on.
Native peoples used every bit of the animal when they had to, when said animals were tough to kill. North America didn't have horses between last ice age and Columbus. In fact, the favorite method for killing bison was to chase a herd off a cliff. And we know where this was done because the Natives left a whole lotta bones in the kill zone. Which we obviously couldn't find if they really used every part of the animal.
Native Americans understood property rights. Various systems between tribes, from quasi-socialist bands of multiple families where all produce was held in common (but very explicitly belonged to the band and would be defended against outsiders), to land assigned to different families for use and periodically reapportioned, to land that was held by families and inheritable. My theory is that this myth was first started by colonists to justify stealing the land and then perpetuated as Rousseauian "look at how much better the primitives are!" nonsense.
If we admire the native peoples for using every part of the animal, we must be over the moon about hot dog producers.
That AD means after death.
It gets so frustrating having people tell me that actually, it DOES mean after death. Correct my spelling please, but AD is Latin for Anno Domini, which translate roughly to English as 'the Year of Christ'
The myth about the Vomitorium
The story goes that Roman nobility would go there to eat so much till they puked and would then continue eating.
It was just the name for the Colosseum entrance.
That if you were a Peasant you could marry who ever you wanted for love and if you were a noble, royal or the like you could only marry for power During the Medieval period.
Higher class people could and did (though it wasn't common) marry for love and most of the time Peasant marriages were arranged for the same reason as noble ones were, to link two families together, you very rarely got to marry who you liked it was usually who your parents liked.
Also Prima nocta has, as far as I know was never actually being recorded as a thing.
The belief that Anastasia did not die with the rest of her family
I have had way too many of my university students tell me that Lincoln owned slaves.
There is no record of Queen Victoria ever saying "We are not amused".
And Roman gladiator fights usually weren't just pointless, bloody, fights to the death for scumbag convicts. The gladiators themselves were very highly trained celebrities who were very well looked after. It was entertainment done for show, much like WWE or similar today.
French revolution storming of the Bastille freeing hundreds of political prisoners.
When in actual fact there were only 7 prisoners. (4 cheques forgers, a lunatic, a sexual deviant and a man who tried to assassinate King Louis XV 30 years ago).
Ive read this too- also I believe the French did not celebrate it until about 100 years after it happened - I love France but I really dont understand Bastille Day in the same way I dont understand Guy Fawkes Day in the UK!!
Deep breath.
I've been studying the Titanic disaster for over three decades. Titanic comes up on reddit a lot, which I love because how cool that my nerdy hobby interests so many people, but the amount of misconceptions is large. This is no ones fault, nor is it ignorance, Titanic had the (un)lucky fortune to become a symbol very quickly, so very often what we think of as history is really folklore. That being said, here are the ones I see often.
There is enough evidence, good evidence, where we can say that William Murdoch most likely did shoot himself. The scene James Cameron shot is a direct recreation of witness testimony- multiple witnesses actually. There is a huge amount of first hand and second hand evidence that this happened. Why it's thought to be a myth and why James Cameron had to apologize is actually another interesting part of the story but for the main question- in all my research, I've yet to see a fact based reason why we should think Will Murdoch was not a victim of suicide.
2)On the same note- yes Charles Lightoller lowered early boats without filling them- as he should have. It wasn't incompetence or ignorance, there were many reasons why this was the best course of action and it was practiced throughout the night. To add- Titanic's crew weren't incompetent or unprepared, they were, quite literally, the best of the best.
3)There were lifeboat drills. Multiple. Every night at 6pm.
4)The 4th funnel wasn't fake- it just served a slightly different purpose than the first three.
5) Titanic. was. not. speeding.
6) Boats were not filled by class.
7)Third Class was not locked below- but some of them thought they were. This is actually pretty interesting in that every view of this situation is the correct one. To refer to Cameron again- his portrayal of this is correct- depending on who you ask. It was miscommunication, not classism.
9) Coal fire damage- not a thing and the "evidence" is just ... wrong.
10) The switch theory not only makes no sense, it is literally impossible.
11) Titanic wasn't a cruise ship. She was an ocean liner :)
The switch theory is impossible...but still a very fun conspiracy theory to explore. It's also worth noting that one of the crew members on the titanic, Violet Jessop, survived not only the sinking of the Titanic, but also the sinkings of both the Olympic and the Britannic.
Olympic never sank. Olympic was withdrawn from service and sold for scrap in 1935.
Load More Replies...
I'd agree with most of this, but I think (9) is maybe open to some question. The bunker fire was only given cursory attention at the British enquiry (the Board of Trade were more interested in the actions of the passengers and crew rather than HOW the ship sank), but there's no doubt that the bunker fire caused some damage to the watertight bulkhead separating boiler room 5/6. How that damage might have contributed to that bulkhead failing during the sinking is open to some question, but the witness was pretty clear that boiler room 6 filled suddenly- as if a bulkhead had suddenly failed. In the end though, the question is irrelevant as the iceberg damage reached just into Boiler room 5- meaning that the only thing holding water back was the non-watertight door to the bunker. The ship was doomed. It's not a question of whether the fire caused the sinking, but I think it's valid to question whether it sped up the final minutes of the sinking.
The Titanic hit a frigging iceberg. It sank. Trying to set a speed record overall is not the same as "speeding"; there were NOT ENOUGH LIFEBOATS so the drills were irrelevant, and that's fact; and I have seen some survivor stories that indicate the women-children first order never made it down to steerage, and they were waiting per instructions for their turn, but their turn somehow never came.
Well these are a fine collection of opinions being passed off as absolute fact. Number 2 is demonstrably wrong, as the lifeboat davits were capable of handling fully laden boats and the boats were strong enough to lowered full. We know this because 1) full boats were lowered later that night 2) tests on the Olympic showed that this was possible.
Lightoller said at inquiry that thought the Captain wanted the boats filled with women and children ONLY, and took that to mean launching them with only those few women he saw around him on deck, get the boats to stand-by the ship and then fill them to capacity later on- using the ship's gangways. While Captain Smith knew the situation was serious, it probably took until about 12:00-12:15 before he was convinced that the ship would sink quickly. It probably took even longer for the officers (busy managing the preparation of lifeboats) to realise the ship was going to sink immediately. Many officers were also worried that lifeboats lowered under the strain of their full capacity would break apart because out of water the weight is only supported at the ends, not the middle. It was established maritime practice to use lifeboats in the way Lightoller planned to. He intended to lower them to the water and load them from the passenger gangways. Lightoller was wrong with hindsight.
Load More Replies...
Didn't Cameron have to pay Murdoch's family for defaming their ancestor?
Yeah I think the issue was that Cameron showed him panicking and killing a passenger - which didn't happen. That's what rightly pissed them off.
Load More Replies...
For a very brief summary: Titanic's sister ship, RMS Olympic, had an accident with a naval vessel called HMS Hawke. Hawke was equipped with a ship ram, which tore a pretty impressive looking hole in Olympic and nearly capsized Hawke. Cost to repair Olympic was $125k and a delay in launching Titanic. Titanic sinks the year after. In the 1990s some dude published a book saying that Hawke's ram damaged Olympic's keel and put the company in a dire financial position, so while Olympic was in dry dock in Belfast with Titanic they disguised Titanic as Olympic and engineered the Titanic disaster to scupper Olympic for insurance money. This situation is malarkey - Olympic didn't take keel damage from Hawke (in fact the lack of damage to Olympic actually caused the navy to abandon the use of ship rams as non effective), the company was in a very comfortable financial position, Titanic and Olympic were differently designed in several ways, Olympic was only in dock for 40 days, and no company has enough hush up money for the whole of Belfast.
Load More Replies...
The idea that 'there weren't enough lifeboats' was down to penny pinching. There were laws stipulating minimum requirements. Ships as large as Titanic almost always sank slowly and by far the safest way of rescuing passengers was to ferry them across from the sinking ship to a waiting one that had arrived to offer help. With the experience of shipping up until that point it was perfectly good enough. The speed with which the Titanic sank was shocking to everyone.
just want to add: the laws at time around lifeboats were based on the tonnage of the ship and outdated by the time the Titanic was built. According to the laws at the time, a passenger ship of 10,000+ was required to carry 16 lifeboats sufficient for 960 people. The Titanic actually carried 20 lifeboats, which was four more than legally required.
Load More Replies...
There was a coal fire though, there are eyewitness testimonies that confirm it.
The fire was present, but the extent to which it damaged the watertight bulkhead between two boiler rooms isn't known. However, the whole issue is irrelevant because the iceberg ruptured 5 compartments- the ship was certain to sink anyway. If the bunker fire in 6 meant the bulkhead between 6 and 5 failed quicker than it should (and there's some evidence to suggest it did), Barrett's testimony suggests it happened so late in the sinking that it affected the outcome by minutes only.
Load More Replies... 
11 points made. Maybe true but nothing to back them up. Even. with. extra. periods.
Boredpanda scrapes reddit, it's only the parent post you get. Thy have gone through backing up points in the OP, you have to read the source.
Load More Replies...
I have never seen a piece of fiction were the crew of the Titanic was portrayed as incompetent. In Camerons movie Lightoller even explains why he wasn’t filling the boats up to capacity. I have also never heard of anyone referring to the Titanic as a cruise ship.
The common, recent, misconception about the Titanic which bugs me the most is that the lobsters in the Titanic's kitchen would have thought it a miracle! a) Lobsters were below peasant-class food at the time. Show up to school in Nova Scotia in the 1910s with a lobster roll for lunch and someone would kick your teeth in for being poor. This was basically a reality through the 1980s, even after it started becoming a delicacy elsewhere. b) There was no lobster fishery at the time. No one wanted sea bugs for money, so again, basically just the ultra poor and the Mik'maq. c) Ok, let's say by some miracle the Titanic time-warped their kitchen up 100 years and there were lobster on board. Lobster live in cold *shallow* waters, max depth being about 480 m. Titanic sank 3.7 kilometres or 3700 m. Lobster would have drowned with the rest of them or been left clinging to that lintel along with Jack and Rose!
My favorite thing about the RMS Titanic lately are the people who think something MUST be done to preserve it. Uh.... it's 5 miles underwater and broken into pieces and is mostly rust by now any way. There isn't a way to "preserve" it.
ad Murdoch... the problem was tha time suicide was taken as a big disgrace fo the whole family. So... yeah, they were offended, even though that could be truth.
Please elaborate on (10)? Are there some people alleging that the entire boat had a twin, or what?
Some people say that the titanic and its sister ship the Olympic switched , ( for financial reason I think), but as the person above said that is impossible because they had very obvious physical differences
Load More Replies...
And the boat didn't break in two pieces over the surface, it broke while sinking and ended up far away from each other. I watched a documentary on Disney+ about Titanic and they used 3D scanning and could almost see how it looked like etc,
I'd like to hear just one good reason #2 was "the best course of action." Anyone...?
The Switch Theory is supremely ridiculous, like the one about J.P. Morgan's ordering Titanic to be sunk for one business reason or another. As for Ms. Jessop, she cold not have survived the sinkings of the three sisters, as only two of them sank. She was merely aboard Olympic when she was in collision with HMS Hawke in 1911. Of the two, it was Hawke that sank, torpedoed years later in WW1. Olympic, for her part served for 24 years, including a WW1 tour as a troop ship, during which she rescued sailors from a sinking British battleship and later rammed and sank a U-boat. In the mid-1930s she was retired and sent to the breakers to be, as the sayig went, "turned into razor blades." The idea that Titanic would have survived if she's hit the iceberg head-on is mere speculation. One perhaps two such collisions had been recorded, but involving much smaller ships. We don't know the mass of Titanic's iceberg. We know for a certainty only that she won the sliver medal.
Murdoch’s order for a hard turn to port was right but ordering the port and starboard engines full astern was all wrong. Correct shiphandling going astern requires reversing engines and rudder BOTH or the turn will be opposite to the desired direction. Better to have starboard engine full or half ahead and port engine dead slow ahead, causing it to drag and act as a pivot for the starboard screw. I have seen this done from the bridge of a 24,000-ton liner. This is a standard maneuver but a slow one. Could it have spared at least one of Titanic’s compartments? That seems unlikely: Titanic was at her 21-knot service speed, and her rudder was a dainty little thing, more grace note than rudder. Was she put to making hard high-speed turns during her trials, and if so did she swing quickly? Still, I would like to see what computer modelers would come up with.
Murdoch might have shot himself on realizing that his orders were wrong. After correctly ordering a hard turn to port he ordered the center-line engine stopped and the port and starboard engines full astern. That slowed or even prevented Titanic’s turn by producing sufficient turbulence to interfere with rudder effectiveness. Further, rudder-to-port was just plain wrong. Correct shiphandling when going astern requires reversing engines and rudder BOTH lest the turn be opposite of the desired direction. A better sequence would have been 1, turn to port; 2, port engine dead slow ahead; 3, stop center engine; 4, starboard full ahead. The drag of the port screw would act as a pivot for the starboard screw. This is a standard maneuver, but a slow one. Could it have spared even one of Titanic's compartments? Frankly, that’s unlikely. Titanic was at service speed (21 knots), so it’s possible her rudder had little effect. I'd like to see this computer-modeled.
I'll post my earlier explanation because long: Titanic's sister ship, RMS Olympic, had an accident with a naval vessel called HMS Hawke. Hawke was equipped with a ship ram, which tore a pretty impressive looking hole in Olympic and nearly capsized Hawke. Cost to repair Olympic was $125k and a delay in launching Titanic. Titanic sinks the year after. In the 1990s some dude published a book saying that Hawke's ram damaged Olympic's keel and put the company in a dire financial position, so while Olympic was in dry dock in Belfast with Titanic they disguised Titanic as Olympic and engineered the Titanic disaster to scupper Olympic for insurance money. This situation is malarkey - Olympic didn't take keel damage from Hawke, the company was in a very comfortable financial position, Titanic and Olympic were differently designed in several ways, Olympic was only in dock for 40 days, and no company has enough hush up money for the entirety of Belfast.
Load More Replies...
What I find interesting is how many things went wrong. I think I counted 13 different things - and if one of those had not gone wrong, the ship would not have sunk. Like the second officer (first? I forget) being replaced and going off with the key for the cupboard that held the binoculars. The sea being flat calm. There being no moon. Et cetera. Change one of those factors and the ship avoids the iceberg.
For the locking of third class, I learned that it was US customs that required the locked gates. Though, not sure how accurate that is cause I don't remember where I learned it from. I've been quite interested in the Titanic as well :)
The gates and all emergency doors WERE opened- multiple stewards said this at testimony. The problem, it seems, is that to reach the boat deck third-class passengers had to move through parts of the ship (1st and 2nd class public areas) that they hadn't even SEEN before. Naturally, they would be confused and disoriented. There was a lower ration of stewards to passengers in 3rd class, so fewer people directing them. Add in the fact that a significant proportion of the 3rd class passengers did not speak English, and it's inevitable that the evacuation from 3rd class would be more difficult. Patterns of evacuation are actually quite predicable- it's a modern science. Today computer models are used to determine the best ways to design large public buildings and airliners in a way that people can easily evacuate.
Load More Replies... All I got from this is that you've studied a ship that sank for thirty years
The fact that Shah Jahan cut off hands of his workers after they completed Taj Mahal.
There's literally no evidence except for tell tales.
Many monuments were built after Taj Mahal under reign of Shah Jahan. Just think, who would work for you knowing that they're going to lose their hands if they did a good job.
Louis-Michel le Peletier cast the single vote that sentenced Louis XVI
Actually the vote was a pretty clear majority in favor of execution
That corsets were uncomfortable and prevented free movement and breathing, so were a way of physically subjugating women.
Firstly, this is often asserted by people who don't know the difference between bodies, stays and corsets, proving that they're waaaaay out of their lane.
It's pretty obvious even just from contemporary art that women were perfectly capable of getting through physical labour including farm work in that kind of supportive garment whether stiffened with interfacing/stitching or "boning" (not necessarily made of bone). And if you've ever worn one, you'll know how great they are for supporting your back and core.
They're much more comfortable than bras, in my opinion.
Oh and they didn't leave red marks all over your skin because unlike a bra you'd never have worn one against your skin (too difficult to wash) but over a shift/chemise/combination garment of some kind. Try putting your bra OVER a tank top or similar, and note (1) no loss of support, (2) much kinder to the skin, and (3) bra needs much less frequent washing.
BULLSH*T from a medical doctor. Many corset styles caused incredible harm, you're not meant to need anything to support your posture unless you are INJURED, and the boning was made of bones (whale, flexible) or metal, or WOOD, so don't try to sell this myth. Do NOT. We saw skeletal remains of women who were strictly corseted or "stayed" in med school. Girls were put into them before they finished growing. It may not have killed, but it wasn't like it was "good" fory ou. AND PEASANTS/FARMERS didn't wear high fashion, so duh they didn't wear the corsets seen in fashion! Good grief...
Note: this post originally had 49 images. It’s been shortened to the top 30 images based on user votes.
The one the bothers me is when people say that Christopher Columbus was a great explorer and proved the earth was round. People knew very well that the earth was not flat at that time in history. The reason nobody took him seriously is because his math was way off on how far away india is. He would have died on the ocean if there wasn’t a continent in the way that nobody knew about. That jackass got incredibly lucky. He also enslaved the natives and let his men commit horribly crimes against them.
Yes, he was a monster, "explorer" is a strange romanticization.
Load More Replies...
Who's to say the information in these posts are any more accurate than than the information on the rest of the web?
Many of them do seem rather naive, as though they writers may be teenagers and just repeating random bits of hearsay, which isn't the same as a widely held belief.
Load More Replies...
This is just a list of people who have their own misconceptions about history. That's it.
A whole lot of "aKsHUally" going on in the posts and in the comments here.
SOME of these pieces of info also have a kernel of falsity. How the heck would these OP's be able to prove whether a person who lived more than a century did a specific action or not? Just like Marie's "let them eat cake". You will never be able to prove if she said that or not, the same goes with many historical figures.
Seriozsly, how do you think we know ANYTHING about history?
Load More Replies...
That the Bible isn't a respectable historical source and that Jesus never existed as a historical person. It is a historical source just as all the other ones we have about history and we have overwhelming evidence on the existence of a historcial person who was called Jesus of Nazareth, even outside of the Bible (for an expansion on this please take a look at NT Wright and other historians). Unfortunately, people have been dismissing these facts out of their own negative and biased emotions and beliefs about it and towards religion. But that would be the same as me saying I don't believe the historical sources that Iulius Ceasar existed just because I hate him. Quite subjective, isn't it?
I don’t agree. I don’t dismiss the bible as a source of history just because I don’t like religion. I dismiss it as a history book because to me it looks a lot like a bunch of storys only BASED on something that happened once. I don’t dismiss that Jesus existed but was he the son of god and did he walk on water? I don’t dismiss there might have been an ark but was it exactly for the reason described in the bible? Two of each species wouldn’t be nearly enough to guarantee a species survival. That is just a fact. You see what I mean? To me it would be like referencing James Bond movies while talking about the inner workings of MI6.
Load More Replies...
I don't like it when people say that Colombus was the first European to reach America. It was the Vikings.
My particular bugbear of a misconception is that Rome (the west at least) was conquered by pagans. People seem to believe that passive Christianity weakened martial morals of the empire. The Vandals, the Goths, and Lombards were all Christian as well. (The Huns, Franks and Saxons were not).
I'm sorry but there's no freaking way Marilyn Monroe had a 22 inch waist. Kate Moss has a 24-26 inch waist. That is impossibly small if you look at the 2 or them side by side. Even if there's a height difference. There's nothing soft on Kate Moss.
The last name of my great-grandparents was changed after they came through Ellis Island.
They changed their own name, then. At Ellis Island, the ships would give the immigration officials their ship's manifest with all the passengers' names in it. It would have made the process so inefficient to review everyone's name.
Load More Replies...
One of my favorites - Darwin converted to Christianity on his death bed. NOPE! If you think it's true then you're buying in to the lies perpetuated by a harridan called Lady Hope and published in the "Watchman Examiner." He had family around him the entire time and ALL of them said his supposed conversion never took place.
Very interesting. I do think when others post there comments or their opinions, the reader could agree or disagree without the name calling and negative rude comments. It's sad that you cant have an opinion without being ridiculed. If you disagree, fine. Explain why. You may even change their opinions but the harsh comments and the name calling is just disgusting.
I think people now spend too much time trying to prove facts to be false …. And keeping alive memories that aren’t necessary to keep alive.
This is debatably historical but it frustrates me when people say Satan and Judas Iscariot are the bad guys. They're not, they're the good guys.
They are respectively the one who tried to deprive all of mankind of eternal bliss, and the second one who sold the guy who came to fix the first one's s**t to the local dictator who tortured and killed him. They were not the good guys.
Load More Replies...
How about when people misunderstand how few descendants there are of black slaves in the US. I know this number because it has been my life's work for over 30 years and because I authored a book.
Shame. A convenient post for all the closet racists to come out and wax on all their favorite talking points.
The one the bothers me is when people say that Christopher Columbus was a great explorer and proved the earth was round. People knew very well that the earth was not flat at that time in history. The reason nobody took him seriously is because his math was way off on how far away india is. He would have died on the ocean if there wasn’t a continent in the way that nobody knew about. That jackass got incredibly lucky. He also enslaved the natives and let his men commit horribly crimes against them.
Yes, he was a monster, "explorer" is a strange romanticization.
Load More Replies... Who's to say the information in these posts are any more accurate than than the information on the rest of the web?
Many of them do seem rather naive, as though they writers may be teenagers and just repeating random bits of hearsay, which isn't the same as a widely held belief.
Load More Replies... This is just a list of people who have their own misconceptions about history. That's it.
A whole lot of "aKsHUally" going on in the posts and in the comments here.
SOME of these pieces of info also have a kernel of falsity. How the heck would these OP's be able to prove whether a person who lived more than a century did a specific action or not? Just like Marie's "let them eat cake". You will never be able to prove if she said that or not, the same goes with many historical figures.
Seriozsly, how do you think we know ANYTHING about history?
Load More Replies... That the Bible isn't a respectable historical source and that Jesus never existed as a historical person. It is a historical source just as all the other ones we have about history and we have overwhelming evidence on the existence of a historcial person who was called Jesus of Nazareth, even outside of the Bible (for an expansion on this please take a look at NT Wright and other historians). Unfortunately, people have been dismissing these facts out of their own negative and biased emotions and beliefs about it and towards religion. But that would be the same as me saying I don't believe the historical sources that Iulius Ceasar existed just because I hate him. Quite subjective, isn't it?
I don’t agree. I don’t dismiss the bible as a source of history just because I don’t like religion. I dismiss it as a history book because to me it looks a lot like a bunch of storys only BASED on something that happened once. I don’t dismiss that Jesus existed but was he the son of god and did he walk on water? I don’t dismiss there might have been an ark but was it exactly for the reason described in the bible? Two of each species wouldn’t be nearly enough to guarantee a species survival. That is just a fact. You see what I mean? To me it would be like referencing James Bond movies while talking about the inner workings of MI6.
Load More Replies... I don't like it when people say that Colombus was the first European to reach America. It was the Vikings.
My particular bugbear of a misconception is that Rome (the west at least) was conquered by pagans. People seem to believe that passive Christianity weakened martial morals of the empire. The Vandals, the Goths, and Lombards were all Christian as well. (The Huns, Franks and Saxons were not).
I'm sorry but there's no freaking way Marilyn Monroe had a 22 inch waist. Kate Moss has a 24-26 inch waist. That is impossibly small if you look at the 2 or them side by side. Even if there's a height difference. There's nothing soft on Kate Moss.
The last name of my great-grandparents was changed after they came through Ellis Island.
They changed their own name, then. At Ellis Island, the ships would give the immigration officials their ship's manifest with all the passengers' names in it. It would have made the process so inefficient to review everyone's name.
Load More Replies... One of my favorites - Darwin converted to Christianity on his death bed. NOPE! If you think it's true then you're buying in to the lies perpetuated by a harridan called Lady Hope and published in the "Watchman Examiner." He had family around him the entire time and ALL of them said his supposed conversion never took place.
Very interesting. I do think when others post there comments or their opinions, the reader could agree or disagree without the name calling and negative rude comments. It's sad that you cant have an opinion without being ridiculed. If you disagree, fine. Explain why. You may even change their opinions but the harsh comments and the name calling is just disgusting.
I think people now spend too much time trying to prove facts to be false …. And keeping alive memories that aren’t necessary to keep alive.
This is debatably historical but it frustrates me when people say Satan and Judas Iscariot are the bad guys. They're not, they're the good guys.
They are respectively the one who tried to deprive all of mankind of eternal bliss, and the second one who sold the guy who came to fix the first one's s**t to the local dictator who tortured and killed him. They were not the good guys.
Load More Replies... How about when people misunderstand how few descendants there are of black slaves in the US. I know this number because it has been my life's work for over 30 years and because I authored a book.
Shame. A convenient post for all the closet racists to come out and wax on all their favorite talking points.
