Get Premium
Dark mode theme is available exclusively for premium users. Learn more about the benefits of subscribing.
No fees, cancel anytime.
Dark Mode 
No fees, cancel anytime 
then open in external browser
and click "Open in External Browser" 
30 People Share What Historical Facts Many People Believe To Be True Are Actually 100% Fake
History is the study of the past, but as we all know, not everyone remembers stories the same way. Accounts aren’t always documented accurately, and over time, tales can be exaggerated or changed through word of mouth and desires to make them sound more exciting or palatable. Governments can tweak history to place their own nations on the “right side” of it, and readers are prone to believing everything that’s written in a history book.
Unfortunately, however, you can’t always trust the fun facts and stories you’ve been taught about the past. Sometimes, historical fallacies spread even more rapidly than the truth. One curious Reddit user started a conversation earlier this week about untrue parts of history that are widely considered to be facts, and many readers chimed in to dispel these rumors that you might have been taught as well.
Keep reading to also find an interview with Susan and Beckett, co-hosts of The History Chicks podcast, and be sure to upvote the responses that you would have appreciated hearing in history class. Then, if you’re interested in reading a Bored Panda article featuring fallacies that are widely believed, look no further than right here!
This post may include affiliate links.
#1
The idea that Vikings (Early Medieval Norsemen) were dirty barbarians with shaggy hair and wild beards, who wore leathers and furs. In reality, Vikings were notorious for being very clean by medieval standards (bathing every day and washing their hair). They wore shoulder length, very well combed hair, which they sometimes lightly bleached with potash to accentuate the blond. They wore short, very neat beards and carefully trimmed stache. Later on in the Viking Age, some wore undercut/crewcut kind of a trim, but with longer bangs. Instead of leathers, which they almost NEVER wore, they had woolen clothes in bright colours; with blues and pinks being particularily popular. They almost never wore actual fur, they sold it all, and instead wore "fake fur" made of pulled wool (basically fur rug trims). Instead of crusty savages, they were fabulous, clean and neatly fashionable, to the point that the Church chronicles of England note tht this excessive dandiness was dangerous in itself, because it helped them lead Christian women astray. (Still of course, they were quite often murderers, slavers, thieves and raiders. Just FABULOUS ones.)
Dan Bexell 2 years ago
They were actually preferred by Saxon women, partly because of their cleanliness. Also, back then the only way to meet women was by attacking their village.
Load More Replies...
D. Pitbull 2 years ago
... I would be very interested to see "Vikings" redone... with everyone in bright pink/blue faux fur and bleached hair or fashionably coiffed hair (crewcut with longer bangs?? I'm probably imagining this wrong)... Costuming would definitely give the whole series a 'different feel'
Appalachian Panda 2 years ago
I hate the trend in so many movies to dress "medieval" people in nothing but shades of gray and brown. Look at art from the time. People loved brightly colorful clothing back then, probably more than we do now.
Elisabeth Chai 2 years ago
Not to mention the actors with ridiculously white (bleached) teeth . Don't think they had that kind of healthcare
Load More Replies...
OhBlahDi OhBlahDa 2 years ago
Erm, is it just me or does this description have Vikings sounding kinda hot?
I Am John 2 years ago
A historian friend of mine told me that "Viking" was a verb. So Scandinavians be like, "hey Olaf, what you up to this Summer?", "oh hey Helga, me and the lads are going Viking in the UK".
Torben Møller-Nielsen 2 years ago
Scientists are pretty much agreed on that viking comes from "vig" or "vik" meaning bay, or the place called "Viken" which is the Oslo Fjord.
Load More Replies...
To learn more about some of the commonly spread historical myths, we reached out to two history buffs: Susan and Beckett, co-hosts of The History Chicks podcast, which shines a light on some of the most fascinating women in history. First, we wanted to hear what inspired these ladies to start The History Chicks and what they love most about studying history. "We launched the show in 2011 after Beckett realized there were not only no podcasts on a subject she wanted to learn about (Gilded Age Heiresses), but there were none about Women's History in general," the co-hosts told Bored Panda. "Uttering, 'How hard could it be?' she contacted Susan. 12 years later, we laugh because we knew the answer to her question was, 'Pretty darn hard, starting with a nearly vertical learning curve'."
"Our favorite part of studying history is discovering the interconnectivity of it all," Susan and Beckett shared. "That people in history aren't all that different from us, they just lived in different times and those times (and people) connect all the way through to modern-day in the most interesting ways."
RELATED:
#2
The Lady who sued McDonalds didn't do so frivolously. She received third degree burns from how hot that coffee was, and needed a skin graft. It was quickly found that that location was keeping the coffee well above the temperature you can legally serve a hot drink in a cup at. The fact that most people think this suit was over the temperature of the coffee, and not the debilitating burns that woman recieved, is one of the PR worlds greatest triumphs. You are not immune to propaganda.
John Hammer 2 years ago
She had the last laugh, she just wanted her medical bills, but McD's lawyers played hard ball. She ended up with $30 million.
Perfumista Perfumista 2 years ago
No. McDonalds was able to get the settlement reduced. In they end she may have received around $500,000.
Load More Replies...
BeKindAnyway 2 years ago
If I had a dollar for every time I've heard people incorrectly tell this woman's story... And then I recommend watching the documentary 'Hot Coffee'.... I'd have quite a savings account.
maswartz 2 years ago
Similar to the "rock stars asking for only a certain color M&M" They do that to check if they complied with the safety requests they included and if they didn't do the M&M thing they knew they didn't.
Jacqueline Pie Francis 2 years ago
This too! Once I heard the reason, I was like Oh that’s smart!
Load More Replies...
Michael Largey 2 years ago
McDonald's own safety experts were subpoenedto testify. They revealed that they had warned management over and over about this very danger but were ignored. Know of a hazard in your business and doing nothing about it is the textbook definition of negliegence.
Impasta (she/they) 2 years ago (edited)
@ Joe Belkin, I spent hours researching the McDonald's coffee incident for a school project, and at first the woman asked McDonald's just to cover her medical bills and change the temperature the coffee was stored at. When McDonalds didnt do anything about it, she decided to sue. Then McDonalds spent thousands running her name through the dirt.
Jacqueline Pie Francis 2 years ago
This one really upsets me. What this poor woman went through only to have her story completely adulterated by corporate propaganda.
Ches Yamada 2 years ago
While "you are not immune to propaganda" is a fairly true statement, but by saying this directly it's perceived as an "attack" and will not be taken seriously by many. For instance, I knew the truth about this story.
Nora Rivkis 2 years ago
So did I, but I didn't mind the comment. I know very well that I'm not immune to propaganda. Just because I happened to have the facts on this one doesn't mean I will on all of them, and I need to keep that in mind.
Load More Replies...
Melissa Boufford 2 years ago
If memory serves the coffee was heated to about 190 degrees and there had been complaints prior to her injury.
Sherilynne DeMaio 2 years ago
This is true. No large corporation is ethical. I feel pretty safe about the accuracy of that statement.
#3
That when Europeans first arrived on the East Coast of what is now the US, the land was very sparsely populated and so there was a lot of free land to settle. (At least that's what I've been taught in school.)
In reality it turns out the coast was densely populated with Native settlements, to the point where Europeans couldn't even disembark because the Natives wouldn't allow them - they would keep them at the bay just to trade and then force them to turn back. It wasn't until European diseases spread through the continent that 95% of the indigenous population died, and that's when the first colonies began in the US, so that's why we now have the misconception of there always having been lots of open land.
In general there are tons of misconceptions about Native Americans and colonial history. I recommend the book 1491 by Charles C. Mann which clears up a lot of these misconceptions (it's where I got the above information from as well.)
Somebodys grandmother 2 years ago
Well the Vikings arrived in what we know call Canada around the year 1000. So "the europeans" were far behind.... Read about "Leif den lykkelige"
The Scout 2 years ago
While the Vikings traded with native americans long before Columbus, they never managed to keep a permanent settlement going there, although they tried.
Load More Replies...
JP Doyle 2 years ago
Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong written by James W. Loewen is a wonderful dive into how much of our public school education is simply propaganda. He dives into 12 of the most "well known" periods and incidents to show that they are (in some of the cases) utterly made up fantasies.
Sherilynne DeMaio 2 years ago
Thanks for the book tip. Another tragedy to lean more about.
Load More Replies...
Katie Lutesinger 2 years ago (edited)
A similar situation in Australia, sadly. In fact it wasn't until recently that I for one found out my douchebag colonial ancestors found stone buildings and extensive agriculture which they deliberately destroyed so they could pretend the whole country was "merely" home to a few "primitive" itinerant hunter gatherers and therefore it was ripe for the picking. Hell, some people still use ignorant terms like "Indigenous Australian culture". Which one? There were and are literally hundreds of different cultures and languages, all conveniently erased from history - or almost so.
K- THULU 2 years ago
Well, the funny thing is that traders from right across asia were coming to Australia for hundreds of years before europeans.... Sea cucumbers only found in Australia feature on chinese ceramics from over 500 years ago because they were a sought after delicacy.... Malaysian traders came here regularly....
Load More Replies... Biofish23 2 years ago
I've lived my whole life in New England (the Northeast corner of the US). In all my years of education the only thing I remember learning about the native people of this area is the ridiculous romanticized "PIlgrims and Indians" Thanksgiving fable. The indigenous people never featured in any of the early colonial to revolutionary war history that we covered repeatedly. Then Native Americans appear briefly in the 19th century Westward Expansion chapter of the history books. Other than the fact that the names of many towns, river and other places are clearly of native american origin they have been nearly erased. Hopefully this is changing though. I recently chaperoned my son's field trip to a local history museum and they started talking about the history of the area by talking about the Abenaki people who lived here first. I learned more about them in 10 minutes, including their name, than I ever did in school.
François Carré 2 years ago
Same for Australia. European colons arrived there and deemed the land "unused" and not belonging to anyone because there was no farming where they thought there should be according to their European conceptions. But the Natives had lived there for millenia and deeply transformed the land by the use of fire and other distinct hunting and gathering techniques they had. So the traditional colonizer's excuse for stealing the land, that we still hear now and then - "we just settled there because it was empty and we created everything" - is plain b******t.
Michael Mckeon 2 years ago
I love how you said "there was no farming where THEY thought there should be". You are 100% right, Aboriginal people most definitely farmed (yams, kangaroo grass, lomandra, not to mention fire stick techniques and much more depending on region) we didn't settle the flood plains for long because, you know, they flood. Aboriginal people fostered a landscape in which we only had to work about 4hrs a day to get everything the entire mob needed. Imagine that...................4hrs work and your choices if you were a man was fishing or hunting today? And if you were a woman it was yams, berries, fishing? Then come together and have a big feed, dance and tell stories and everybody helps out with the kids. Sounds like paradise to me
Load More Replies...
WonderWoman 2 years ago
Propaganda spread to alleviate responsibility for killing people and stealing their land. Still goes on to this day.
Michael Mckeon 2 years ago
Same narrative was told in Australia. This lie helped perpetuate the lie of Terra Nullis (empty land) and justified colonisation. It was actually illegal at the time to colonize anywhere that had people living on it, clearly they worked around this rule time and time again all around the world.
censorshipsucks 2 years ago
we have the identical myth in south africa, that the trekboers (basically wagon-riding dutch) went into the hinterland and found it "empty"... reality, they shot the place up.
We also asked Susan and Beckett if they could share some of the most widely spread fallacies that they were taught or have heard. "For starters people who did Big Things, usually didn't do them alone," they noted. "Paul Revere, for example, wasn't the only one traveling with a message that night (and he didn't shout 'the British are coming' because people would have just thought he was coming from a pub since everyone in the Colonies was British.)"
"Sybil Ludington did a similar ride in Connecticut, truly alone, all on a horse, and remained uncaptured, and she was only a teenager at the time," Susan and Beckett told Bored Panda. "It's a way cooler story, but history often only remembers the people with the sizzle, or the louder mouths or, like in Paul's case, their names rhyme with enough words for Henry Wadsworth Longfellow to write a poem about him nearly 100 years after the fact."
#4
The Irish famine wasn’t just a natural disaster - there was plenty of food in Ireland, it was just exported to Britain
Pedantic Panda 2 years ago
Very true. Only the potato crop failed which also happened in many other countries, however it was the only crop the native Irish had access to, all more valuable crops were under the control of British landlords or their agents who continued to export.
Margaret H 2 years ago
The Scottish Highlanders were almost equally decimated - during the Clearances, most had been moved to the coast, where potatoes made up to 80% of their diet. That's why so many people emigrated to Canada and Australia around that time.
Load More Replies...
crazy_stupid 2 years ago
I was born in the UK and taught in history class how the British had helped the Irish. I moved to Ireland where I now live, and was given a reality check!
Sherilynne DeMaio 2 years ago
I find it stunning that the vile, tragic, attempted genocide of the Irish by the English isn't universally known. One pitiful, half-a**d apology in 1997 does nothing to make up for that horror.. Shameful
BetterBitterButter 2 years ago
And adding some "beautiful" comments by Churchill.
Load More Replies...
RoanTheMad 2 years ago
Same with many of the famines in India. I may live in Britain, and yes some of the history here is amazing, but there's a lot of dark and horrible stuff they did, too. :/ (and ffs MAKE REPLICAS AND SEND THE STUFF IN THE MUSEUMS BACK e_e )
WonderWoman 2 years ago
Britain has been murdering people for thousands of years and lying about it.
Joelle Jansen 2 years ago
Yep, this is true. I personally think it more accurate to call it the Irish genocide, even if no weapons were used for it.
Gayathri E 2 years ago
So was the Calcutta famine! biggest British made disaster that killed so many people.
Michael Mckeon 2 years ago
The poor Irish were made to load ship after ship with grain that could have help end the famine and send it to England. It would have absolutely heart breaking to see knowing you have family at home starving
Pedantic Panda 2 years ago
"For you stole trevelyan's corn, so the young might see the morn, now the prison ship lies waiting in the bay"
Load More Replies... #5
That historically people, especially the 'peasant class' of medieval Europe, stank. This is born of two factoids: firstly that people very rarely if ever had baths, and secondly that people rarely if ever washed their clothes. Both are kind of true but misleading and with massive caveats.
First, bathing. Think of the amount of work involved in preparing a bath in the days before hot running water. You go to the well, get a bucket of water, lug it back across the village to your house, put it in a pan over the fire to heat it up. That's one bucket. You'd have to do that half a dozen times at least. Even if you've got servants to do all the actual work, it would take a lot of servants a lot of time to get you a bath ready. But that doesn't mean people didn't wash! Most people washed daily - using a basin of water and a cloth, basically a sponge bath. Soap made of animal fat and ash has been around for thousands of years and is pretty effective at lifting dirt off the skin. As any one of us who's had to sponge bathe for a while (e.g. After a surgery) will know, it may not be ideal, but it gets the job done. Films generally portray "peasant" with smudges of dirt all over the face but that's just lazy costuming.
And now the clothes. True, the outer layers - the layers that we see - were very rarely washed becausd most people only owned one set and they could be very difficult to wash effectively, but you have to remember people, even peasants, wore a *lot* of layers, so that the layer we see was really the equivalent of a coat, and was never really against the wearer's skin gathering sweat. How often do you wash your outer coat? For people in roles where external dirt was very likely to get onto the clothes, aprons and other easily removable garments were used. The layers worn right against the skin - a full dress-like smock for women and a long shirt for men (long enough to tuck around the genitals and butt and also do the job of underpants) - *were* changed and washed as often as possible, because they were the layers that got the body sweat etc on them. They were made more simply and usually of cheap, hardy fabrics specifically designed for easy laundering.
Tl;dr medieval peasant were not filthy and stinking. They washed their clothes and bodies as best they could.
Ripley 2 years ago
THIS! There is a lot of imagery showing people in public baths, and washed undergarments drying on lines or spread out on the ground. We sometimes seem to think that people in earlier times didn't understand hygiene - it wouldn't stand up to today's standards, but people kept themselves and their clothes and homes clean.
Terran 2 years ago
Thank you! Spread the word! I am tired of explaining this to people! Also: people didn't wear all black, brown and gray! The colour blue for example was considered a peasant colour, as intense blue was affordable even for the peasants!
Rumina Io 2 years ago
There are loads of natural dyes that make very beauitful colours. You can get a good yellow from onion skins or nettle root, green from nettle leaves, red from a plant called madder.
Load More Replies...
Martin Annau 2 years ago
Also the wore linnen or hemp or nettle as "underwear". They don't accumulate moist very good so bakteria, that make the stink in modern cloth, don't grow that much. The best "functional fibers" are still wool and linnen
Hobby Hopper 2 years ago (edited)
The technology, entertainment, conveniences, health care, etc. we have now is amazing, and it truly is a great time to be alive. But in some ways, we've gotten too advanced and discounted things from the past that perform as well or better than what we have now.
Load More Replies... François Carré 2 years ago (edited)
Also, most medieval cities had decent public baths, the culture of which came from the Roman era. It was the Catholic Church in Western Europe that somehow gradually urged local authorities to close these places because they were said to encourage physical promiscuity, sex outside marriage and prostitution. This happened more during the 16th-17th centuries so actually people of this time became dirtier than their medieval ancestors. Louis XIV's court in Versailles was probably the place where people stank the most, hiding it with massive perfume use. On a sidenote, our current standards are quite high. What we call "stink" was probably regarded as natural skin smell that people were acustomed to and didn't even notice. And in terms of hygiene, you can perfectly survive and stay healthy without baths and using just little water, provided you priorize the body parts that could get irritated or infected by skin friction (i.e. crotch, armpits etc.).
Debby Keir 2 years ago
Even though the peasants may not have smalled bad, the whole village would have - no proper toilets and everything bunged into the midden.
TheElderNom 2 years ago
I had older relatives that only showered/bathed once a week or every second week, but they did do the sponge bath thing and they didn't smell at all.
SilverIsGold 2 years ago
There was a time, though, when bathing was associated with the plague.
Mama Penguin 2 years ago (edited)
Relatively more modern period, but watching Tudor Monastery Farm taught me that peasants having stinky, oily, gross hair is a misconception. Though they didn't wash their hair as often as we do now, they brushed their hair regularly. The point was to distribute oil from the scalp to the hair tips and getting rid of the dead skin layer from just sitting on the scalp. This helped keep the hair from getting greasy and stinky in between washing.
"Sometimes embellished (or truly fake) stories are remembered because they are convenient or romantic, and telling them sweetly and simply allows people to accept the behavior," the co-hosts explained. "It makes the story less messy, and also, less true, like the story of Pocahontas. There was no romance with John Smith. He was a scoundrel, for starters, and she was a kid when their paths crossed. She also was later kidnapped by the British, forced to change her identity, ignore her Powhatan heritage, and marry a white man, but those facts are often omitted."
"Sometimes propaganda justifies mistreatment," Susan and Beckett pointed out. "By making someone sound of worse character than they actually were, it lets us think, 'They deserved what they had coming.' Dismissing them with a catchy, oft-repeated, and fabricated phrase like, 'Let them eat cake,' which Marie Antoinette never said, is very effective in reshaping history to fit a purpose."
#6
Jesus being white
Jrog 2 years ago
Well, Jesus existing at all is disputed. There are no contemporary accounts, and the only reference to his existence outside of the Bible is in a document -Flavius Josephus "Antiquities on the Jews"- dated a century later, but preserved only with IV, IX and XI century modifications, and the few words about Jesus are never referenced in any commentary before the XII century. Mind that in the decades around year 30 a lot of the most famous latin historians were alive, active and documenting even minor political events... but not a major kerfuffle in Galilee? The gospels have been proven to be written over nine decades after the "facts", and are contradictory so cannot be taken as a witnesses accounts. The geographical names are not accurate for the names used at the times, and the documents about Herod Antipas' reign make no mention of him.
David H 2 years ago
But he wasn't a dark skinned southern arabian man, like many of those newer depictions do. Levantine Semitic peoples in ancient Egyptian Descriptions from between 1700BCE through the Roman era describe the people there as what we would call a light olive complexion, with Black, Brown, and Red Hair, with many color eyes. During the 15th Dynasty Levantine people were usually drawn as red and brown hair with blue eyes. However every culture made a version of Jesus in their image. In 10th century China they made Jesus Chinese looking, Ethiopia they made him black, etc. He wasn't white, but he isnt how some try to draw him either, and without understanding of how every culture imprinted Jesus in their image in their own depictions. Very good post https://imgur.com/gallery/M1JwawD but also there are quite a few historical writings on Christian depictions of Jesus as well
alwaysMispelled 2 years ago
Jesus, if real, was JEWISH, not black or brown. Maybe an olive-y Mediterranean skin tone. He was Jewish and would have looked Mediterranean.
Srinivasan S 2 years ago
MAGA fanatics and white supremacist groups believe in this. I'm not sure this is universally true. In India no christian thinks Jesus was white
Hobby Hopper 2 years ago
I love trying to be accurate about these historical details, but everyone should remember that ultimately, it's just trivia. It shouldn't affect policy or doctrine one iota. Jesus' specific genetic makeup doesn't make anyone else's greater or lesser.
Pieter LeGrande 2 years ago
What, like a blonde Scandinavian, or a southern European, or a white Egyptian. You'd think at the very least he'd be very sunburned.
Penny Hernandez 2 years ago
Just imagine 13 Middle Eastern men (Jesus and his disciples) with no visible means of support showing up at a US Customs and Immigration station asking for entry into the US.
TheKitKatLizard 2 years ago (edited)
Middle Easterners are still legally Caucasian in the USA though if I remember correctly... And the Jewish MENA especially are considered white there.
#7
A women's place has always been in the home. For thousands of years women did basically whatever her husband did whether that be farming, baking, brewing alcohol, sewing clothes, or selling things in the market, sometimes the man would take the stuff to the market while the woman stayed on the farm to tend to the animals or crops and vise versa. The only professions women did not take part in were, law, politics, and military work, and even this was only kind of true as women influenced their husbands politics, and were expected to help during sieges (which happened a lot.) The idea that a women's place is taking care of the house and not working is a 19th century idea that came about after the industrial revolution.
Not-a-Clue-What-to-Call-Myself 2 years ago
An even then you are only talking about certain cultures. That stereotype doesn't exist everywhere.
Lou Cam 2 years ago
And only for certain social classes. Working class women have always had to work even taking their kids with them.
Load More Replies... Pieter LeGrande 2 years ago
True, but I think women were a lot more active in law, politics and warfare than you give them credit for.
Jake B 2 years ago
True. While the men of age were at the crusades my ancestor was saving the castle. None of the men returned and when she married the king made him take her name after his. Gesperte-Hoodenpyle (American spelling)
Load More Replies... VACA 2 years ago
Viking women were often just as powerful as the men, and were allowed to own property and even get divorced and win half
Nitka Tsar 2 years ago
„Allowed“ is a bit misleading though. It wasn‘t as if some man said „ok, I allow you to do that“. No, it was more like… it just was normal
Load More Replies... Michael Mckeon 2 years ago
As an proud Dungutti man I can guarantee woman have more of a role in society than what traditional western culture would have you believe. In my culture woman are equal to men but do have different roles that are equally important to the survival of the mob. The Aunties sit on a council of Elders and help hold knowledge and make decisions. Seems for a long time my people were called "primitive" yet the rest of the world is only now grasping some of the concepts Aboriginal Australia has been practicing for millennia
HarriMissesScotland 2 years ago
My mother was one of 16. They were a farming family, and my grandmother did stay home to care for the children, the home, and even the farmyard animals. But one thing she did was to make sure every child graduated high school, walking uphill, both ways, in the snow and mud, doing chores before and after school. Beginning in 1915!
Margaret H 2 years ago
True. And don't forget women were responsible for spinning and weaving, too.
Seabeast 2 years ago
In some societies there were women in the military to a small degree. The Vikings had "shield maidens", for example.
François Carré 2 years ago
More precisely it is a bourgeois conception, valuing a kind of mix between capitalistic and religious gender stereotypes - a man has to work hard and let his wife stay at home ; a decent woman doesn't need to work. Outside of this peculiar minority that happened to pretend to rule the whole world at some point around 1900, women in all cultures have always worked as much as men.
Debby Keir 2 years ago
Agreed - in medieval times, women were also 'apprentice masters' and able to run businesses.
Carla McNeil 2 years ago
The Greeks were pretty strict about what their women did. Greek wives and daughters were largely confined to their homes.
Jordan Miller 1 year ago
Greece was a series of states. Whats true in Athens wasnt true in Sparta. There were a multitude of cultural different in each state.
Load More Replies...So why is it important to learn history accurately? "It's important so that we don't perpetuate half-truths, misconceptions, and downright lies," the History Chicks told Bored Panda. "To understand history, we have to see the whole story, not just the soundbites of history. If we just repeat an oversimplified version lacking perspective and context, we only think we know the whole story, but we're not even close. And here's a riddle: Can history repeat itself if the history we're repeating is wrong and incomplete?"
#8
So many people completely misunderstond pre-industrial lifespans. The average age of death was 30 not because our bodies wore out faster, but because of how averages are calculated. A lot of people died as children. A much larger chunk of the population died in wars. If you got in an accident, healingb without modern medicine was difficult.
But for people who reached adulthood, and then avoided violence, injury, and plague, living to be 60 or 70 was pretty normal.
XenoMurph 2 years ago
For people "who avoided violence inury or plague", so people who lived to 60 or 70 because other causes hadnt killed them.... that's the same in any society. It's the prevalence of violence injury or plague/illness that reduces the life expectancy. Life expectancy for a ten yr old in 1850s was about 55. Much less if you were a man, and a manual worker.
WonderWoman 2 years ago
wealthy lived longer....not much has changed there
Load More Replies...
Seabeast 2 years ago
Well... I walked through a graveyard in Nova Scotia where many of my ancestors were buried and found very few graves for anybody over 70. Most of the older adults buried there were in their 50s and 60s. Diseases that tend to hit later in life are mostly treatable now with modern medicine.
Dizzie D 2 years ago
I think sepsis would have been a big killer. Until I researched it, I never realised how easy it is to get from a simple cut if untreated or that your own body can go into overdrive with inflammation. No penicillin or antibiotics back then and no clear knowledge about keeping wounds as clean as possible for as long as possible. There is a reason archers dipped their arrows in mud or dirt before firing, they knew that if the arrow didn't kill the enemy, the dirt from the arrow inside their bodies would.
alwaysMispelled 2 years ago
YES THANK YOU, it's the high rate of infant mortality that drove down the average age!!!
alwaysMispelled 2 years ago
If you managed to survive childhood you had quite a more decades to look forward to
Load More Replies...
Lara Verne 2 years ago
They said first 5 years of your live was the most dangerous. But If you managed not to die of childhood illnesses, you had a good chance to live into your fifties.
Knox Warner 2 years ago
Yes. Living to be 60 or 70 tends to happen if nothing else kills you. What a coincidence!
#9
Einstein never failed math, the rumor started from Ripley’s Believe It Or Not and Einstein actually responded to them saying “I never failed in mathematics. Before I was 15 I had mastered differential and integral calculus.” He wasn’t very good at the non-science related classes though and did fail French.
David H 2 years ago
He had a 1.01GPA in Math in School, but at the time Germany used a 1-5 system where 1 was the highest, the 5 was the lowest. People outside of Germany, not knowing this, and used to a 1-4 system where 4 is the highest, thought it meant he failed, rather than one of the highest scoring in Germany
I Just Live Here 2 years ago
Because I've gotten great book recommendations from these threads, let me say that I learned a lot from and really enjoyed the book, "Einstein's War" by Matthew Stanley.
Ann-Marie Bentley 2 years ago
That makes more sense as physics involves a lot of maths you basically can't study physics at college without a reasonable aptitude in maths. The other subjects he would have struggled with if indeed he had dyslexia (which people think he may have).
Jon Steensen 2 years ago
In fact he did not figure the relativity out completely on his own. He got a bit of help with the math part.
Huddo's sister 2 years ago
"So how did this myth start? In 1896-Einstein's last year at school in Aargau- the school's system of marking was reversed. A grading of 6, the bottom mark, was now the top mark. (Einstein scored 4.91 out of 6- quite a good mark.) Anybody looking up Einstein's grades would see that he had not scored any grades around 1- which under the new marking scheme, meant a fail." Great Myth Conceptions by Dr Karl Kruszelnicki
Huddo's sister 2 years ago
"Because the 19th century German education system was very harsh and regimented, it didn't really develop his non-mathematical skills."
Load More Replies...And if you're looking to further your history studies and correct any false tales you've been taught, Susan and Beckett say that, "The greatest resource available to anyone is a library card. It gives you access to passionate advocates for knowledge (commonly known as 'librarians') and to apps like, Libby, which are packed with digital resources you can access from any place you have an internet connection."
"We think a great place to start learning history is small: with one person," the co-hosts shared. "Learn about that person, and you will understand their times, their limitations, their societal challenges, their geography... Their world. Learning about that world will always lead you to another."
If you'd like to learn stories about some of the world's most fascinating women (who you might have never even heard of!), be sure to check out Susan and Beckett's podcast The History Chicks right here.
#10
Ghandi wasn’t as good as he was made out to be.
DC 2 years ago
The Ghoul of Calcutta. Refues ANY painkillers to people with Morphine-and-above-level pain. When she finally stopped croaking her nonsense, her death was made to be as pleasant and smooth as possible...
Load More Replies...
Pedantic Panda 2 years ago
Very few people are. He did good work but his time in South Africa did raise some racial concerns. As for his behaviour with his niece...
censorshipsucks 2 years ago
yep he referred to our local people as an offensive word starting with a K, worse than the N word, much worse. And said we are lazy and just want to grow maize and drink.
Load More Replies...
Giles McArdell 2 years ago
If Keanu turns out to be evil too that's it, I'm quitting the planet.
Sunny Day 2 years ago
Ghandi had very rough skin on his feet due to being barefoot most of the time. His frequent fasts had a detrimental effect on his health, and when he did eat, his uncertain diet caused bad breath. He was a super calloused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.
Tushar Roy Mukherjee 2 years ago
Your spelling error is closer to the Hindi word 'Gandi'( Dirty) than to Gandhi, AND I LOVE THAT!
Two_rolling_black_eyes 2 years ago
Don't discount someone's faults because they had successes. Also don't discount someone's successes because they had faults. Humans are fatally flawed, hypocritical, self-centered animals who are struggling to look past their own noses to make the world a better place. We should aspire to follow the actions of those who succeed in helping others while recognizing their personal demons so we don't recreate those as well. Ghandi made some horrible mistakes but they were made while doing great things that are still changing the world.
Bruce Horton 2 years ago
No one is as good as their myth makers want you to believe. Nor does being not-perfect detract from their achievements.
#11
General public not being aware that classical Greece and Rome had colored paints all over those statues, much less colored dyes in their clothes.
Edit: point being, we tend to believe that there was a *lot* of white in the Classical period, which isn't actually the case.
Pedantic Panda 2 years ago (edited)
Surely all was in black and white before for TV was invented? Edit; Sorry before colour TV was invented.
Pieter LeGrande 2 years ago
No, it was the movie The Wizard of Oz that introduced colour.
Load More Replies... 
Annik Perrot 2 years ago
In medieval Europe, the churches and cathedrals were brightly painted as well.
D. Pitbull 2 years ago
Same (I believe) goes for the Egyptian art/sculptures - because paint fades - and somehow... we collectively forgot... (seriously... just 'blerp' - because think about it.. **of course they had freakin' paint**)
Bunzilla 2 years ago
I know statues and relief carvings were painted... HOWEVER, I do NOT subscribe to this idea that everything looked like garish fiberglass carnival statues. I know there's all these scholars who have said that they found these traces of those specific colours there... But anyone who has ever pained any kind of statue, or done any kind of painting, will tell you that you have to START with a base coat. Then you do shading and highlights over top of that. I refuse to believe that they left them looking like the above.
Tyranamar Seuss 2 years ago
Reasonable assumption. Although we learn these layering techniques as time goes on. So maybe it hadn't been done yet.
Load More Replies... Zia Barrett 2 years ago
But they also weren't in that garish flat single tone either! They knew how to paint them properly with layers, tones, and shades!
Robert Trebor 2 years ago
Just think of the uproar when the Sistine Chapel paintings were cleaned of centuries of heating stove smoke, and hot air (from the assembled prelates), and people complained of the bright colors.
Tyranamar Seuss 2 years ago
I know! I want to see more recreations and movies using all the vivid colors.
Mama Penguin 2 years ago
The Met Museum had an exhibition on this. It was very jarring to see how colorful the statues actually were.
#12
The image of Roman gladiators fighting to the death. While there were many exhibition fights in the arenas where the goal was death, these were not gladiator contests. Prisoners, and the condemned, were thrown out to fight to the death, but not real gladiators.Training a gladiator was an expensive, and lengthy, investment and having them die constantly would be bad for business.
Dan Bexell 2 years ago
Having gladiators fight to the death was expensive, and their owners had to be compensated. It was generally for special occasions only.
Rumina Io 2 years ago
Imagine if people 1000 years from now look back at WWE and think it was all for real and to the death
Who Panda 420 2 years ago
I always thought they'd dig up harry Potter and assume they're our religious beliefs!
Load More Replies... 
Nitka Tsar 2 years ago
I think I‘ve seen or read somewhere that gladiator fights were for show and not real fights….
Robert Trebor 2 years ago
Be like giving light automatic weapons to football players (either American football or World).
#13
Whatever the f**k is on the History Channel nowadays.
Taibhse Sealgair 2 years ago
Not just ALIENS, but ANCIENT ALIENS. And their hiding treasure on OAK ISLAND!
Load More Replies...
VonBlade 2 years ago (edited)
History begat Nazis begat That "the best I can do is $40" show (edited for overly severe censor) begat Aliens and pseudoarchaeology.
PandaRave 2 years ago
Damn censorship. Now I don’t know what you’re trying to say! This is fücking bullshìt!
Load More Replies...
Deborah Rubin 2 years ago
Swamp people! For more about actual history, try Science Channel. I learn a lot there.
Jeffrey Diehl 2 years ago
Yah. All of their history programming is now on their "History Vault" streaming service.
Cydney Golden 2 years ago
There are so many channels that began in the early days of cable that proved not to be as profitable and become something trashy or entertainment only...like The Learning Channel.
#14
Paul Revere did not run around Massachusetts shouting "The British are coming" because if he did everyone would look at him like he'd lost his mind. ALMOST EVERYONE IN THE COLONIES WAS BRITISH!
He actually said, "The Regulars are coming"
Nora Rivkis 2 years ago
They also usually didn't consider either themselves or the soldiers "British." They were English, or Scottish, or Welsh, or Irish, or Cornish, or whatever else. "Britain" was a political construct made up of many national identities, and most people considered themselves to be of the nation they were culturally part of. It's much the same way that, even though Europe is partially politically unified now, nobody identifies themself as "European" unless they're trying to be pretentious (as with those who describe themselves as 'a citizen of the world'). People who live in the European Union describe themselves as French, or German, or Polish, or Slovenian, or Greek, or whatever else they are.
Lady of the Mountains 2 years ago
Makes sense. I don't know if anyone's been taught that he said british in school though, I always thought it was red coats. but hey it was a long ride he probably said lots of things
Kennedy Kargeaux 2 years ago
It also wasn't even him who did this. Well he did. But he wasn't the only one. Nor the one who set helped the most. It was a woman named SYBIL LUDINGTON! But you know.... they had to rewrite herstory for history.
John Dilligaf 2 years ago
well, you have to admit that "Listen my children and you shall hear.....of the midnight ride of Sybil Ludington" doesn't have quite the same pizzazz
Load More Replies... David H 2 years ago
He also allowed himself to be captured early on to allow the other 2 riders to escape, and spent most of the night under arrest. But also it was a network of messengers, so in each town 1-2 more riders were added, people all the way to Connecticut and what is today Maine and Vermont were called up as part of the chain.
Cydney Golden 2 years ago
Also he didn't act alone and we never learn about the people who also risked their lives. Nor do we teach about Sybil Luddington a teenager who rode longer and in the cold rain to pretty much do the same thing.
Nancy Lynch 2 years ago
He wasn't the only person out warning people. There were a few people out each going in different directions.
#15
Ninjas dressed in all black to stay stealthy in the night or something like that. Ninjas dressed like normal people to blend in, the all black look stemmed from Japanese theatre to make it more obvious to the audience who the ninjas were.
If they wore all black it'd be quite obvious and they'd stick out like a sore thumb
EDIT: most of you pointed out it also came from stagehands, that makes a lot of sense too
Doctor Strange 2 years ago
In Japanese theater many of the stagehands were, in fact, on stage during the action dressed in all black 'costumes'. They'd manipulate scenery and props, etc. People would very quickly learn to ignore them, and they became 'invisible'. When plays about ninjas came out and wanted to portray them as invisible, super human killers, they'd dress them basically as stage hands. They'd disappear from the audience's perception, and thus it would be very startling when they suddenly directly interacted with the play. The modern idea of the 'ninja' is the equivalent of thinking that James Bond is an accurate representation of British spies.
Phasmainmachina 2 years ago
What? You mean Bond isn’t a real spy? Is disappoint! 😉
Load More Replies...
Wintermute 2 years ago
Another ninja fact that caught me off guard was their extensive use of gunpowder. I mean, smoke bombs to vanish into shadows? Sure. But big loud explosions and proto-firearm ambush assassinations? Apparently also a thing. In fact, a major reason they were so secretive was specifically protect the formula for good gunpowder.
Dan Bexell 2 years ago
If you dressed in all black and walked sideways everywhere, you'd really stand out in a crowd
Michael Mckeon 2 years ago
But they're sneaky ninjas and they wouldn't be seen because you know ninjas
#16
A stegosaurus fighting a t rex. They lived millions of years apart . Stegosaurus 144 lived million years ago T rex 65 million years ago.
Insane difference. Still almost most every dinosaur related media places them together.
Nora Rivkis 2 years ago
That T-Rex had better not be close to MY smartphone! 🤣
Load More Replies...
Lazy PANda (she/they) 2 years ago
Also, recent studies show that the horns and spikes on most herbivores could be to fight for mates, like deer with their antlers, because no carnivores have been fossilized with like a triceratops horn impaling them
David 2 years ago (edited)
Generally when I see footage of any dinosaurs fighting my brain groks that it is someone's fictional interpretation and not David Attenborough narrating a recently filmed event. Bonus Fact: Gozilla did not REALLY fight Mothra. It was all acting. Off set those guys are buddies.
Donnie Mc00 2 years ago
never seen Stegosaurus V tyrannosaurus before..its always been a Triceratops v T rex.
#17
Corsets were not typically tight laced. They were only tight laced by the highly fashionable women, and usually only for particular events or portraits. Corsets were designed to be comfortable. Women wore a cotton layer underneath the corset, so it didn't rub against the skin. The corset was more like a bra, bit instead of using the shoulders to support it used the whole torso. Some people claim they are much more comfortable than modern bras. The intense proportions of the past were achieved with Corsets AND padding. Tight lacing was uncommon, but layers of petticoats or hoops or bum rolls or whatever else at the time was very common to give women the trendy body shape at the time.
mandy the capibara 2 years ago
Bernadette Banner and Karolina Zebrowska (amongst others) have some entertaining videos on this point, where they debunk the myths around corset-wearing.
Alethia Nyx 2 years ago
The other advantage of a corset over a bra is that it supports posture as well. Using the torso to support the breasts, rather than putting their weight on the shoulders was probably healthier for some women too.
D. Pitbull 2 years ago
It's true - a properly made corset sized and worn correctly... ohhhh (I know I'm going to sound SO OLD saying this... don't care...) your back feels so. so. so. much better. (hint: For those with more severe back problems and require orthopedic corsets... find a certified corsetière who officially makes orthopedic-quality corsets and bring that prescription to THEM, and get something you LIKE - if you're going to need to wear it frequently, it doesn't need to be beige and ugly)
Miss Frankfurter 2 years ago
Having worn a medical corset for 5 months, the down side is it weakens your abdominal and lower back muscles. They don’t have to work to support you. OMG. The sit ups and exercises for my lower back I had to do after I was out of it. Not fun at the start.
Load More Replies...
GlamourGhoul 2 years ago
I absolutely adore my corsets. I have severe degenerative disease in my spine, and the support a corset gives helps with my posture and my pain.
Sunny Day 2 years ago
The answer it is clear - do you wear a Titsling, or do you wear a Brassiere?
Random Dent 2 years ago
Do you know how often this randomly pops into my head? Probably not as we don't know each other. But it's a lot!
Load More Replies... 
Susan Reid Smith 2 years ago
Women were asked to not wear them because the metal in them was needed for the war.
Load More Replies...
Lady of the Mountains 2 years ago
Yes I have heard it said that the tight laced ones were worn by the "Kardashians" of the day, people who were few and far between and also liked to exagerrate a lot
Sophroniel 2 years ago
Not to mention corsets/stays/bodies COULDN'T be tight laced until metal eyelets were invented. Before that they were sewn, and if you pulled them too tight all you'd get would be ripped fabric. Think about fashion extremes these days, for things like tattoos or piercings; some people have a few, many have none, and a small group of people go hard and have many body mods of all kinds. Tightlacing was a similar kind of "radical" fashion, and whilst a woman might tight lace for a pretty dress for a special occasion, very few did anything remotely close to tight lacing on a regular or daily basis. From what I've read it was usually reserved for a certain type of fairly young, vain and wealthy young woman who was preoccupied with finding the best and wealthiest husband possible, and not much else.
Caroline Fraser 2 years ago
They look uncomfortable to me and I’d never wear one. Then again I’ve banished underwire from my bra drawer as well.
#18
Lemmings just run off a cliff to their deaths every year... Thanks for that one, Disney!
scag$y 2 years ago
It might not be true but it made for a brilliant video game in the nineties.
PurpleUnicorn 2 years ago
I loved that game, still have the Sony Mastersystem game but I've lost the knack!
Load More Replies...
Helen Jane Witten 2 years ago
I remember watching that movie in my childhood (in the 60's) where hundreds of these lemmings jumped off a cliff. I was devasted to find out years later that all those poor lemmings were forced to jump off the cliff all for the sake of trying to make the film realistic. Disney and Hollywood had a long dark history of animal cruelty.
glowworm2 2 years ago
The film in question responsible for this myth was "White Wilderness" from 1958. I think the crew was just tossing them off cliffs!
Aboredpanda 2 years ago
It's mote like they're really angry seasonally and will do stupid stuff because of it like jump out of a bush and scream and hiss at a predator. We have a saying "as angry as a lemming".
#19
There is a joke saying that Austria’s greatest success is making everyone believe that Mozart was Austrian and Hitler was German.
MoonMango 2 years ago
Historian from Austria here: Yes, Salzburg wasn't part of Austria (or what is now known as Austria). Salzburg was an independent territory, which means it wasn't part of Bavaria as well. And while he lived most of his live in "Austria", he always said he was a "Salzburger" (person from Salzburg). But, funfact: The joke is also told with Beethoven, who was born in what is now Germany. Beethoven lived - just like Mozart - in Vienna for a long time. Both died there, though only Beethoven's grave is still known. So one can argue, that they spent so many years there - did it really matter where they were born? TIL: Neither Beethoven or Mozart were born in Austria, but lived there for a very long time and died in Vienna.
Two_rolling_black_eyes 2 years ago
Its a plinth. Thank you for asking because "plinth" is one of my favorite words and I get to use it about once a year. You've made 2023 for me.
Load More Replies...
gerard julien 2 years ago
"Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born on 27 January 1756 to Leopold Mozart (1719–1787) and Anna Maria, née Pertl (1720–1778), at Getreidegasse 9 in Salzburg. Salzburg was the capital of the Archbishopric of Salzburg, an ecclesiastic principality in the Holy Roman Empire (today in Austria)"
#20
That everything in Australia is trying to kill you. Everything here CAN kill you, but most likely won’t because killing you is an awful lot of effort and aussies are generally just too laid back to put in that much effort.
scag$y 2 years ago
Interesting. I mean, Steve Irwin professionally irritated crocodiles for many years and never got seriously bitten, so there's that. My only other source of information is Crocodile Dundee, and Mick and Sue got into quite a few wildlife-related scrapes, but neither died. In fact, they lived happily ever after. So based purely on that information, there seems to be little chance of you being killed and a pretty good chance of you meeting an attractive and witty life partner. So, book me a flight, I guess.
harpling 2 years ago
So many people now seem to have trouble researching, so thank you for seeking out multiple sources, including clear citations, acknowledging apparent biases, and indicating your own willingness to continue seeking first-hand knowledge!
Load More Replies...
Donkey boi 2 years ago
I love how the argument here isn't that there are safe things in Australia, but just that nothing is actively "trying" to kill you.
Huddo's sister 2 years ago
Well, it is true. Most things only go on the offensive if disturbed. It's not like they are predators (except for dingoes and crocdiles, but even attacks from them are rare).
Load More Replies...
Thomas Bentley 2 years ago
Mate, the roos are massive bastards, and the eagles will give you an a*s kicking during sky dives but overall, the animals are okay. the plants are worse on average, but that is just the Gympie Gympie raising it sky high. its the weather you have to look out for.
censorshipsucks 2 years ago
I'm scared of the bastard ant and spider thingies that are lethal. Also box jellies.
Load More Replies... Katie Lutesinger 2 years ago (edited)
Our venomous snakes and spiders use their venom to hunt their prey, ie small mammals, lizards and insects. They'll only attack a human if cornered or if the human tries to mess with them, and even then they're just trying to escape.
Nora Rivkis 2 years ago
Yeah, but it can be awfully easy to inadvertently scare a small creature you don't see into trying to defend itself.
Load More Replies... Robert Trebor 2 years ago
How many other countries had a Prime Minister vanish during a dip in the surf?
K- THULU 2 years ago
But he did get a memorial swimming pool named after him.....
Load More Replies...
Paul Orsulic 2 years ago
To be honest this is mostly true. I remember seeing a video of an elderly person over here simply kicking an Eastern Brown Snake because it was in its way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myeXMuGJAB8
Shyla Bouche 2 years ago
If I had a bear in my arms, and he didn't like being carried, I would definitely drop him!
Load More Replies... nuberiffic 2 years ago
I've lived in Australia for nearly 4 decades and I've never even been stung by a bee.
Huddo's sister 2 years ago
Ten less than you, but same. Even mozzies don't bite me anymore. (Must admit it's not the same for my brother and sister though) Even when I have seen a snake or a spider, I just avoid them and they do the same.
Load More Replies... #21
That the past was some idyllic wholesome time. Any nostalgia really. I grew up in the 80s and loved it. I have happy memories of my youth. And like many would love to go back to those days. But I also am very cognizant of how memory is vastly unreliable and inaccurate. And that we romanticize and cleanse our nostalgic recollections. And in many many cases, fabricate memories that never even occurred.
Roy Zobel 2 years ago (edited)
I was born in 1971 and I remember me being happy most of the time during my childhood. But - in retrospective my youth was full terrible things. Terrorism, the Chernobyl desaster, air-pollution, acid rain, the cold war, my homeland (Germany) still seperated ... and the list goes on.
Ripley 2 years ago
1970 for me, and I remember it as an idyllic time as well. In some ways it was,, but in others . . . In Australia, women were routinely fired once they got married, racism was rife, there was a lot of unrest all over the world. I remember having to queue for hours to get petrol (which had lead in it) during the strikes, lots of strikes for all sorts of things, walking to and from school alone and letting myself in with my own key. Consumer goods were REALLY expensive, but houses were (relatively) quite cheap. It was an amazing time to be a kid for the most part, but definitely not easy or trouble free.
Load More Replies...
BetterBitterButter 2 years ago
The good old days weren't good for everyone. Women were treated as second class citizens, there was little to no room for people from LGBTQ community and don't even get me started on the race issue.
Phobrek 2 years ago
This. The people that gush about how great things were in the past are usually straight white men.
Load More Replies... Adam Jeff 2 years ago
The thing is, being young is more fun than being old. Most people confuse the fact that they, personally, were having a better time in their youth, with everyone having a better time then.
Aisling Raye 2 years ago
I came here to say something similar. For the most part remembering the past is remembering your childhood. Despite the world kind of always being sh!t, kids are pretty good at just having a good time. You can grow up in terrible circumstances and still have great memories of childhood. There is a lot to say about remembering a time when you didn't have to pay bills, or worry about a job. My family went through a rough patch when I was little and I have only heard about it as an adult. I had zero idea how bad it was. I do remember being very confused when our family was chosen as one of those "Christmas families" that strangers donated presents to one year. (I figured it out because I got a doll that year and I never played with dolls. In a family that didn't really do the Santa thing it was very obvious lol)
Load More Replies...
Charlotte Dupre 2 years ago
Most poeple think the time of their youth was the best because they were sheltered from reality.
Elizabeth Tayler 2 years ago
It was because we didn't have bills to pay...
Load More Replies...
Squirrelly Panda 2 years ago
There are many good things in the past I would like to bring back. A single low/mid wage worker being able to support a family is one. But the bad things should be left in history, not forgotten, but learned from.
Helen Jane Witten 2 years ago
I agree and have said so on a few occasions and I have no desire to back pre computer and the techno era. I was born in the early 60's and yes childhood was overall a good one (that really always depends on the family dynamic) but I look at todays advances in wonderment at times and think who would want to go back? No microwaves, no dishwashers, no automatic washing machines, no dryers and not having access to the internet and all that information available at out fingers and that's just to mention a few.
Lara Verne 2 years ago (edited)
I grew up in the 1990s and 2000s, but I sure as hell can't find anything idylic about these times.
François Carré 2 years ago
I have good memories of my personal life. But I have studied History and I can't find any period of the past that was not tarnished by awful events somewhere in the world.
#22
“Under God” was not in the original version of the [Pledge of Allegiance.](https://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm). The Pledge was written in 1892. It wasn’t until 1954 that President Eisenhower added “under God” in response to fear of communism during WW2. Also - when first implemented, during the pledge people raised their right arm forward so the hand was level with their eyes (directed at the flag) however this was changed during WW2 because it resembled the Nazi salute. The procedure was changed to place the right hand over the heart.
Jan Rosier 2 years ago
Ok, I am not a US citizen, but still... isn't it time to throw out this 'under God'?
Fat Harry 2 years ago
It's time to throw out the whole pledge. It's weirdly Orwellian.
Load More Replies...
Dan Bexell 2 years ago
I was in the 4th grade when the teacher told us we had to include it in the pledge. Also, I don't know about anywhere else, but when we recited the pledge, we held our arms out exactly like the Nazi salute. That was eventually eliminated, but I don't remember when.
Ladedah 2 years ago
I totally just sent a screensot of this to my husband, as he and I have gotten into some pretty heated debates over this issue. Neither one of us are religious, but he had gotten all bent out of shape about "trying to change the country's history." Right now I am grinning ear to ear, just thinking about the earth-shattering victory I will have when he wakes up and finds this in the morning! 🤣🤣🤣
Penny Hernandez 2 years ago
I was in elementary school when that phrase was added and remember being uncomfortable with it, even though I was raised in a family that had many members of the clergy.
Lady of the Mountains 2 years ago
I am noticing how the children in this picture have their hand in the salute position over their heart, but it seems like it was taken well before 1938. Anyway to all the people saying it's weird to recite it I do kinda agree but it is more or less optional at my school it's just no one actually cares that much to change the routine. Bethany heller is absolutely right, it's just not worth arguing over
babyfacefinster 2 years ago
In Texas schools, they also pledge to the Texas state flag. I had not seen this in any other state.
Miss Mali 2 years ago
Except we don't put our hand over our heart, we put it on the left side of our chest which is actually where our left lung is located. The heart is in the center of ur chest. It drives me crazy that on TV and in movies they still try to sell us on the heart on the left bull.
#23
Carrots are good for eye health, but won't improve your eyesight. Nevertheless, people have been telling me all my life I should eat carrots to see better. The reason people think that is during WW2 the Royal Air Force had this new Radar system and they didn't want the Germans to know about it, so they spread the rumor that the reason their pilots could find their planes so fast was that they ate carrots.
Holly Race 2 years ago
This rumor drives my husband crazy. So I like to walk through the room with a bag if carrots and say that I'm off to do my vision exercises.
Debby Keir 2 years ago
Actually, most people in developing countries have vitamin deficiencies, leading to poor night vision. Carrots alleviate that deficiency (Vit A), improving night vision in those who were deficient. So, the 'nugget' of truth was already known in WW2, and was thus easier to believe that the Brits had some form of super night vision.
elcee 2 years ago
hm, I never heard they improved your eyesight,. I live in NH, maybe that's a regional thing
elcee 2 years ago
just they were good for your eyes, not made them better
Load More Replies... Michael Mckeon 2 years ago
Arguable, if you don't look after your eye health then it's logical to assume that your vision would suffer. So if I eat carrots to promote eye health would it not in turn help promote healthy vision?
#24
Not sure if quite at the level you're asking for, but it seems to be common knowledge that people didn't fight back against Germans in WW2 and it's because they didn't have guns or were cowards.
They fought back a lot. The largest was likely https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising. It just turns out that normal people fighting against a military tend to do poorly.
Iampenny 2 years ago
I have never heard of this, in fact, it's common knowledge that A LOT of people fought back (not enough, but definitely a lot)
Aboredpanda 2 years ago
Yeah I don't know where in the world that's "common knowledge", but in europe we know for damn sure we fought back.
Load More Replies...
Katie Lutesinger 2 years ago
And the people being sent to the gas chambers didn't just meekly go along with it. A lot of them fought back too.
София Харитонова 2 years ago
Yes. That's why it is stupid to say to modern Russians "Why don't you just overthrow the government?..". We would if we can. But the thing is - we f*cking CAN'T! They have military power and jails. We have nothing but hope which is diminishing by the hour.
Nora Rivkis 2 years ago
Well, numbers count for a lot. The hard part is getting them. Most people don't want to be among the first to commit, so it takes reaching a numerical tipping point at which most people believe you're likely to win before they join in with you. But no government can hold power over people who, en masse, refuse to obey it. They can threaten, they can kill a random sampling of you, but they can't keep control when nobody's listening. Russia and most of the rest of Eastern Europe already successfully overthrew their governments once in my lifetime, by exactly this method. Russia went in a more orderly way than many of them because Gorbachev saw the writing on the wall and accepted the inevitable, but Romania and East Germany's revolutions came about simply because enough people decided they weren't listening anymore.
Load More Replies... Wintermute 2 years ago
I remember a history professor breaking down in tears as he recounted the efforts of the French in keeping out Germany before they surrendered, and why it was the right choice at the time. The idea that they just rolled over and capitulated is just sensationalism.
Phobrek 2 years ago
The common American bs about the French being forever weak militarily, etc. is beyond stupid. I don't hear it as often as I used to, but it's such a tired, false trope.
Load More Replies... Adam Jeff 2 years ago
I suppose what is 'common knowledge' varies by country. Here in France I think it tends the other way - that almost everyone fought back. If you go by the number of people whose grandfathers were in the Resistance, it's amazing the Germans could even get a coffee, let alone run the country.
Miss Frankfurter 2 years ago
Not common knowledge. I’ve studied WWII in so many aspects. Every country had those who fought back and those who collaborated. Thank God for the fight back. I think the whole French didn’t fight back idea was because of the division into Vichy France. The rest of France had massive resistance groups. They were known by different names so others could identify who they were working with and different movements tended to specialize in different resistance jobs. OMG! The Warsaw Uprising was amazing and heartbreaking. But, also, the Gestapo had rooms in large buildings with info on sooooo many people. How do you think they got it? There were some horrible neighbours if you pi$$ed them off, they just might turn you in with some pretty good lies. It didn’t take much. There is sooo much to know about that time in world history.
Knox Warner 2 years ago
There was also the fear of German reprisals, eg, "if one of your people dares to kill one of our soldiers, we will then randomly execute a hundred of your fellow citizens". Reprisals are quite common even today in the US, where the parties in congress routinely practice them on each other.
Debby Keir 2 years ago
I'd disagree that people think no one fought back - many fought back, but often clandestinely - the resistance and the partisans to name but 2 groups.
#25
Almost everything about the medieval times. Our image of it is highly influenced by Hollywood.
Powerful Katrinka 2 years ago
Barbara Tuchman's brilliant book "A Distant Mirror" gives a much more accurate portrayal of that period. One thing she pointed out that the knights going on Crusade had huge unpaid armies that raped and pillaged their way across Europe. There was absolutely nothing noble or "chivalrous" about it.
Debby Keir 2 years ago
Most of 'history' is about the powerful people. Yes there was a code of chivalry, but 99% of the population were serfs or lowly farming stock, and their life experience was totally unrelated. Too boring for Hollywood, and therefore everyone's a Knight.....
Lara Verne 2 years ago
There are movies that shows life in medieval times realistically. But they usually aren't Hollywood.
A. Starhawk Hunt 2 years ago
quite a lot of what we think about the medieval times by the Court of Love of Eleanor of Acquitane
Knox Warner 2 years ago
Everything we think we believe is highly influenced by Hollywood, including most established religious beliefs, ie, most people's Christian beliefs come from the entertainment industry combined with images from the history of western art. For instance, look at your image of Moses holding the tablets containing the Ten Commandments. If the tablets were, in fact, that large, it's not likely he could even lift them, let alone carry them, let alone hurl the first set (as tradition claims).
MDonna Davis (M) 2 years ago
As is all historical ",imagery " and mannerisms most have been led to believe. Lol
#26
Pretty much most of the common public image of the "stone age". Paleolithic peoples didn't primarily live in caves. They were used for habitation sometimes, but tents or even relatively permanent huts were probably far more common. "Art caves" like those found in France and Spain often show no signs of habitation at all. They weren't stupid, brutish "ape people". Anatomically modern humans emerged at least ~~70-100k~~ 200k years ago (thanks to several comments who pointed out my mistake) and there's nothing to suggest they would have been intellectually inferior to us. Even Neanderthals probably were relatively close to us and it's questionable if you'd even realize it wasn't a Homo sapiens if you met one. H. sapeins *definitely* and Neanderthals probably wore ornaments of various kinds. *Even* H. erectus likely was broadly human in appearance and behaviour. You have to go back in time a *long* way before you'd consider early hominids more animal than human. Generally, even imagining "*the* Stone Age" as some sort of coherent period of human history is misleading. It's a periodisation based on materials used. Even though there is sometimes a remarkable cultural uniformity over long periods of time and large distances in Stone Age Europe, even single "cultures" span many thousands of years. World views and even life styles must have changed many times even during periods we now consider "uniform". In fact, even the name "Stone Age" is misleading. A lot of tools were made from flint or similar material, if available, but that's just the material that preserves the best. Wood, bone, clay, plant fibres, furs, etc. were also used, they just usually didn't survive long enough for us to find. It's likely that South East Asian pre-metallic cultures even used bamboo in a similar way flint and bone was used in Europe.
Katie Lutesinger 2 years ago
When I was watching "Walking With Beasts" and humans showed up in one of the last episodes, I actually cheered. The episode showed our ancestors living in tents propped up by mammoth tusks and using good old human cunning and team-work to hunt, and the final shot of the final episode is modern day humans looking at mammoth skeletons in a museum. I actually felt some honest to goodness species pride and said to my pet rat who was snuggling with me in front of the screen, "Look that's my ancestors! We've come a long way, baby."
Doctor Strange 2 years ago
One of the reason the media portrays neanderthals as hunchbacked is that one of the first skeletons found actually had medical deformities. They were not typical traits, but it got popularized that way and stuck.
Pedantic Panda 2 years ago
The fact about caves is true, more people actually live in caves now than at any other point in history ( https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20100915-the-cave-dwellers-of-21st-century-china) In relation to use of tools, cost was only used in the latter stages of the stone age (neolithic), and whilst other tools mentioned we used, stone tools were probably used to create/ prepare them.
François Carré 2 years ago (edited)
Well said. This is the basic example of the prejudices and biases that came along with the rising of modern science in the industrial and colonial era. Scientists back then did a solid job by laying the foundations of what is now our common knowledge. But they were genuinely trying to prove that human History was a long march towards intellectual and moral progress, the Victorian culture being the apex of it, obviously. So the past had to be described as brutal and obscure in comparison. We know realize that things are not that simple and one-sided. Prehistoric people not only were just like us but they even knew a lot of things that we have lost now, so they also could prove smarter than us to some extent.
Miss Frankfurter 2 years ago (edited)
Neanderthals definitely made jewelry. They have found them. In caves. It said in the archeology special that yes, different paleolithic peoples did interbreed, for lack of a better word but, they died out due to their inability to adapt to the changes the earth was going through.
Phasmainmachina 2 years ago
Recent research on Palaeolithic remains involving DNA show enough interbreeding between H.Sapiens and H.Neanderthalis that most humans now have between 2 and 7% Neanderthal DNA. Examination of food remains on utensils and teeth show they were very sophisticated at food preparation, knowing how to deal with toxic plants in order to remove the toxic chemicals. Recent examination of items left in a grave dating to around the time Stonehenge was being built, known as the Shaman’s grave because of the decorative items buried there have shown he was a tattooist, there are flint bowls containing coloured pigments, and polished stones with traces of gold embedded in the surface texture of the stones, showing he was a goldsmith as well. He’d have been a highly regarded individual 5-6,000 years ago.
Sophroniel 2 years ago
We also have proof that Neanderthal adorned their dead with flowers, and wore makeup/skin paint of crushed mica and iron oxide. Because we never see reconstructions in the context of modern people we assume we look nothing like Neanderthals or early humans probably did, but there are MANY people out there who look like dead ringers for some of the more modern reconstructions from Neanderthal skull finds.
#27
Marie Antoinette saying “let them eat cake”
Michael Mckeon 2 years ago
What kind of cake? Black forest is pretty good but if all she's offering is pound cake I'm gonna start a revolution
Pieter LeGrande 2 years ago
As I understand it, she actually said "Let them eat kek" which was the bits and pieces that overflowed the baking trays and was usually discarded.
marcelo D. 2 years ago
She didn’t say either. The quote comes from a book written by Rousseau, claiming “a great princess” said it. It was release at the time Marie Antoinette was in power, so people believed it was her, but the book was written actually several years before (even before she was in power), and Rousseau never atributed the quote to a specific person
Load More Replies...
that weirdo in ur closet 2 years ago
She would not of actually been such a bad ruler if she had been educated on actually HOW to do it. She did not know ANYTHING on how to rule, and that’s why she wasn’t the beeest.
Huddo's sister 2 years ago
I know I've read about this, but I can't work out where, which is really frustrating!
#28
That George Washington had wooden teeth. He had false teeth, yes. But they were made of ivory. He never had wooden teeth.
Thorsten Massow 2 years ago (edited)
They commonly raided battlefields for the teeth of the fallen.
Markus Holstein 2 years ago
He had dentures carved from hippopotamus ivory, which thends to be yellowy or brownish and have a veiny pattern not quite unlike wood. That might be what started the rumour
Robert Miller 2 years ago
from what I've read "ivory" isn't what was used ,so much as the teeth of slaves .
JE Cummings 2 years ago
Actually, part of his dentures was made of human teeth, extracted from slaves. It also was not uncommon for poor people to sell their teeth, and those teeth were used in medicines as well as dentures.
#29
Bill Clinton did in fact have sex with that woman.
censorshipsucks 2 years ago
who cares? really? two consenting adults. Honestly, impeaching him over that is way pathetic compared to what herr Drumpf did. I mean ... consensual sex versus ... an attempted coup, and telling people to inject bleach. Right. clearly america is not over its puritanism.
Daniel Atkins 2 years ago
It was for perjury under oath he said that he did not have relations with that woman. Also he debated the meaning of the word is.
Load More Replies...
Margaret H 2 years ago
Take your pick - he certainly seems to have had his pick!
Load More Replies...
Bon Jour 2 years ago
Poor Monica. She did NOTHING wrong. She was a little kid who had the opportunity to have sex with the President of the United States. I would take that option too.
Chonky Panda 2 years ago
A little kid? She was 22 y/o, don't put the pedo stamp on Clinton 😐😐😐
Load More Replies...
Kevin Ley 2 years ago
Many of our Presidents had mistresses, It was one of the fringe benefits of being President. It's good to be the President.
#30
"Romans indulged in food so much they had a special place to go and vomit so they could eat more"
Maybe that has been dispelled by now but many still believe it.
Not-a-Clue-What-to-Call-Myself 2 years ago (edited)
It comes from a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word 'vomitorium' which was a sort of exit passage. I was taught it was for throwing up in.
David H 2 years ago
yes by the coliseum, but many people did throw up there from all the wine and fatty foods served by the vendors at the stadium. The Romans loved fatty meats and wine as their concession stands
Load More Replies...
Pedantic Panda 2 years ago
They did have vomitoriums but I believe this was an exit point for crowds in theaters.
Knox Warner 2 years ago
What a coincidence! They also had a place where they could become food for exotic wild animals!
SAF saf 2 years ago
In fact, if you take a guided tour of the Forum guides will show you the remains of one these.
Nora Rivkis 2 years ago
Ours didn't. I'm not sure if that's because she knew better or simply left it out.
Load More Replies...
#31
How Spartans suited up for battle and fought against Xerxes. Contrary to what the movie 300 showed: - They wore heavy bronze armor. Not battle thongs and boots - Shields had a red Lambda painted on them - Only high-level officers had red plumes on them. S**t's expensive guys...not everyone can have them - At Thermopylae, the movie shows only 300 Spartans. There were actually about 1000-1200 allies that helped and rotated in and out of battle. - The battle was to stall the Persian advance to build up forces at Salamis - They rarely ever broke formation, like never. They maintained the phalanx discipline. In the movie you see them breaking formation a lot, especially in that slow-mo scene where Leonidas kills like 10 in a row - They were not ripped dudes. More disciplined and athletic, but not every single one was jacked. Edit: - bronze armor, not brass armor
Walter Bravenboer 2 years ago
It has to be said that '300' is based on a comic, not really meant as a real historic story. I do love the way they use their spears, not everything is wrong.
Mama Penguin 2 years ago (edited)
My husband got me to watch it. I nearly died of laughter seeing them march off to war in just underwears, capes, shin guards, and sandals. Absolutely nothing to protect the torso. On top of that, they brought zero provision and somehow found apples to eat in a coastal looking area.
Load More Replies...
Aaron Mccullough 2 years ago
At the time, there was also another pitch for a movie about the Battle of Thermopylae based on the book, "The Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield (fantastic book). "300," based on a graphic novel, won and "Gates" was not pushed forward. "The Gates of Fire" was far more accurate in its portrayal.
#32
The drought that preceded the 1930s Dustbowl was entirely to blame. Actually, it was the fault of the farmers (struggling with the Great Depression) who were trying to increase their crop yields by replanting mature crops into the deeper soil, then planting younger crops on top. The soil turned to dust because there the crops sucked out all of the soil's nutrients faster than it could be replenished, even with fertilizers. Had there been normal rainfall, the soil would have lasted a one year, maybe two. The drought just made the Dustbowl happen sooner, but it was going to happen anyway because of poor farming practices.
Powerful Katrinka 2 years ago
And it could easily happen again. Big Ag has absolutely destroyed the soil in the Midwest. That, combined with monoculture farming has made the whole ecosystem incredibly fragile.
#33
That people used swords and axes all the time.
Spears. Its spears, most of human history has been spears. Vikings used spears, samurai and knights used spears.
Hell, bayonets exist because people felt you always need a spear, even with a rifle in your hand.
William Blake said, "When the stars threw down their spears, / and watered heaven with their tears..."
Which is stupid. No one throws down their spear. Spears are great for poking people to death.
Jrog 2 years ago
Eh, not really. Spears were dominant in the middle ages for the lower rungs of the army, that made up the numbers but not the "firepower". They were cheap to make and easy to train, quite effective against cavalry but cumbersome and required preparation plus a tight formation to use properly. Axes were as easy to come by, as easy to train, and extremely effective against infantry, with the advantage of being fast to deploy, with high mobility, and they doubled as useful tools around the camp. Swords were reserved for heavy infantry and mounted troops (as a secondary weapon, primary was usually a mace or hammer). They required lots of training, but were unparalleled in mobility, protection (proper technique allowed very effective use shield) and sheer lethality. While field combat was mostly spears, and pikes (oh, and bows, lot of bows), assaults, sieges and woodland combat was mostly axes and swords.
sofacushionfort 2 years ago
When Richmond Virginia fell to the Union, they found an arsenal filled with pikes that Stonewall Jackson intended for a bitter-end fight to the death. Coincidentally, the Japanese had this same tactic in mind 80 years later, and when Shuri Castle on Okinawa fell, some soldiers from the US South raised the Confederate flag over it.
Lord Rimuru 2 years ago
Military history is just improving how you can attack with a sharp stick
Pieter LeGrande 2 years ago
What regular soldiers and cavalry really feared were big strong farmers armed with their agricultural tools. Very sharp, very heavy, and people who knew how to use them and had the big muscles to do so.
Miocha 2 years ago
I mean, it makes sense. If I were in a battle, I'd prefer a long ranged weapon like spears. Low risk rather than shorter ranged weapons like swords or axes.
Jon Steensen 2 years ago
The issue is that all the weapons has their advantages and disadvantages, which is why there was not simply a "best" weapon that everyone was given. In general sharp/pointy weapons are ineffective against armor, and you have to be lucky to hit him somewhere in the narrow gaps between the plates to hurt him. Blunt blows with more mass behind them, e.g. from an axe, a maze or a warhammer would be far more effective than a spear for that. However if you are in a tight space, e.g. the staircase of castle, a large weapon like a spear or an axe would be difficult to handle, and a sword might be your best bet there. So the weapon that you choose depends on who you will be up against, and where you are.
Load More Replies...
#34
Vikings wore horned helmets. They didn’t, sorry.
Fat Harry 2 years ago
We're going viking tomorrow! We viked yesterday and we'll vike again tomorrow! I have voked many times in the past.
Load More Replies...
Angrywolf 2 years ago
That's not a Viking, Its a Whiterun guard and the Dragonborn is standing next to him, The photo is re-enactment of Skyrim hahahahah
#35
That the Indians and the Pilgrims sat down at a big table at Thanksgiving and shared a big happy meal
Donkey boi 2 years ago
Genuine question: Why are they called Pilgrims? A Pilgrim was someone that travelled to a holy place. There are no sites of Christian importance in the America's.
#36
For most “historical” things: “that’s just how people were then!” Columbus was *known* and criticized for being excessively cruel. There have been slavery abolitionists in every era. Etc., etc.
wowbagger 2 years ago
Yeah, relativism gets to me. How would we feel if 200 years from now, people said, "Well, people like Bezos and Putin were just products of their time. Nobody knew any better back then." That would completely erase the huge numbers of people who are fighting back. There have always been people critical of oppression. Those who side with the oppressors are responsible for their own views, unless they're truly cognitively disabled or have no access to education.
Zia Barrett 2 years ago
Thing is, yu get this fuzz in actual history books. Was nosing through a book about my specialist subject (1790s Qing China) and it was explaining some of the important people. "So everyone knows that this guy was corrupt and controlling..." - uh, yeah, about that, the guy's corruption and controlling are very very much in doubt with overwhelming evidence being found that corrupt ministers altered documents to pin their own corruption on him because the Emperor was already targetting him. Yeah, no, evidence plz.
#37
Not fake, but the Boston Massacre was not “evil redcoats shooting peaceful American protesters”. That protest was anything but peaceful. It was basically a riot. They were throwing rocks and other objects at the redcoats, trying to goad them into something. The soldiers probably had orders not to shoot, but they were outnumbered and scared, so finally they fired. They were arrested and tried. John Adams (the future 2nd president) defended them in court. And won!
Walter Bravenboer 2 years ago
Like telling the rider; 'a man has been hurt!' and 40 miles later it is '30 men and women killed!'
Nora Rivkis 2 years ago
Well, yes, but firing into a crowd, even one that's rioting, wasn't considered great behavior. Adams largely got them off because nobody could be entirely sure whether the order came from the officer in charge or not, and therefore both the officer and his men got off because the jury was unsure who to blame.
Martin Kaine 2 years ago
And by Adams defending the British, it gave the New England colonists the air of respectability, that the American colonies were not a backwater in revolt, where these prominent "Americans" like the Adamses were out to get the British.
Load More Replies...
#38
That the library of Alexandria being burned down set humanity back hundreds or even thousands of years. At the time that it was finally destroyed in 48BC, most of its collection had already been copied and distributed to other libraries and universities or the important scrolls were relocated. It was no longer an important meeting place for great scholars either and it’s not entirely clear how much of it was even destroyed during the fire, as many believe that it was even partially rebuilt afterwards. It ultimately just fell out of relevance throughout the years and didn’t really take any of the information stored within with it.
Zia Barrett 2 years ago
It was not destroyed in 48BC, a single dockside storage unit was accidentally destroyed. All of the contents of that storehouse had copies elsewhere. The main library was fine and survived until it shut its doors from lack of patronage, probably around 260AD. All its contents were moved elsewhere.
#39
That the 'Founding Fathers' is a meaningful, coherent group of timeless sages rather than a collection of politicians who acted for political reasons and disagreed with one another. Some people who are technically founding fathers are obscure nobodies. Who the Hell cares about Button Gwinett? There was great diversity of thought at the constitutional convention. James Madison considered the equal apportionment of the United States Senate to be a defeat. James Wilson has been relegated to obscurity, but was among the most learned and respected members of the convention who in exasperation asked, "Can we forget for whom we are forming a Government? Is it for man, or for the imaginary beings called States?." A great deal of popular conception of the 'founding' and those who did it is rooted in misconception or outright falsehoods.
Freya the Wanderer 2 years ago
A county in Georgia is named after him. It's near Atlanta
Load More Replies...
CaptainDinosaur 2 years ago (edited)
Shelby Foote said that Americans like to think of themselves as uncompromising, but it is actually one of our greatest traits. Or something to that effect.
crowspectre 2.0 (he/they) 2 years ago
The musical hamilton was pretty good at showing how s****y the founding fathers were tbh.
#40
One from America would be that the famous Johnny Appleseed, out of the goodness of his heart, walked across much of the USA (and even a bit into Canada) planting apple orchards to provide the locals with healthy apples.
In reality, he was an eccentric who had financial means and was a shrewd businessman. Yes, he did, in fact, walk around barefoot with a cooking pot on his head -- that much is true.
Johnny Appleseed (known as John Chapman to his mother) was planting orchards in areas he believed people would soon move as westward expansion grew across the Midwestern US.
But the apples he planted were c**p; they were used to make cider and only to make cider. They were sour and not edible. People eventually moved to those lands, as he predicted, and he paid them to look after his orchards and harvest the apples he sold to breweries.
Jrog 2 years ago
Cider apple at the time were more valuable than "edible" apples. Cider, Perry and Beer were a staple of daily diet, and the main source of hydration for many. Drinking cider or beer avoided the risk of several infections that were common in stored water. In the USA grafting was not common (it was even considered a "fancy" thing until the 1850s), so many edible fruit plants were somewhat "un-optimized". At the time it made little sense to grow low-yield edible fruits when you could easily make tons of drink-making stuff that sold easier.
Zia Barrett 2 years ago (edited)
So I looked into it, and the stuff about them only being for cider and he was profiting off other people's labour was written by a single author, who came to that conclusion because John Chapman was against grafting. It is 100% a lie. He didn't plant any orchards, he planted nurseries and paid a neighbour to sell the trees or even give to those who needed them. He was a missionary, a vegetarian, a pacifist. On his death, he gave most of his nurseries to his sister.
WindySwede 2 years ago
Did he plant seeds or grafted trees? If seeds, then I understand why they where no good. But maby he planned to just make cider?
Zia Barrett 2 years ago
Seeds, he was against grafting because it is against nature. He created tree nurseries. There is no evidence that they were "no good", or even that they were cider apples.
Load More Replies... #41
The Boston Tea party didn’t have some grand celebration, a lot of the colonists were confused and it’s recorded as one of Boston’s most quiet nights
Lillian Tracy 2 years ago
And the perpetrators had just spent all night in a Boston tavern.... they were drunk
Donkey boi 2 years ago
I still think that it was empty crates that were tossed. Why throw away perfectly good tea and profit?
WonderWoman 2 years ago
To undercut the profit of the ship holder and the taxes that were to be forced upon the colonists.
Load More Replies... #42
Ned Kellys last words being Such is Life. That was made up by the reporter. So many Aussies have it tattooed or have big stickers on their 4x4s . But I guess Oh Well doesn’t have the same ring to it
Pieter LeGrande 2 years ago
Yes, being a colonial of Irish descent I rather suspect his last words would be censored by BP.
Huddo's sister 2 years ago
I don't think I've ever heard of him having last words. Must not hang around enough bogans!
#43
That the Spanish Armada was destroyed. They did lose 44 ships.... out of 137.....
And the British also didn't beat them off with a small force. Their navy was actually significantly larger with 197 ships since they were joined by the Dutch Republic.
A decisive defeat? Yes. A small English force overcoming and obliterating the might of the entire Spanish and Portuguese navy? No.
Jrog 2 years ago (edited)
That's inaccurate. The English force was significantly weaker, being made up mostly of small vessels usually relegated to auxiliary roles. The Dutch contribution was mostly in terms of "Vlieboot", repurposed coastal merchantmen averaging 80 tons against over 400 tons of the average Spanish warship and about 800 tons for their two dozen main galleons. These "Fly-boats" were used as skirmisher thanks to their good capabilities in shallow water, but were lightly armed. Even the English warships were at best 46-guns vessels, half the tonnage of the Spanish ones, closer to being frigates than battleships. The English flagship Ark Royal had 20 heavy guns, the Spanish counterpart Sao Martin had 48. The Spanish armada as a whole had twice the guns and three times the man of the combined English and Dutch force, and relied on proper military training while the bulk of the English defense was made by repurposed merchant boats.
Nora Rivkis 2 years ago
They did use their smaller vessels to their advantage, though. You can maneuver a ship faster if it's not huge and weighted down with heavier guns.
Load More Replies...
Fat Harry 2 years ago
Welcome to Britain, where 51% of our days are overcast!
Load More Replies...
Walter Bravenboer 2 years ago
Don't forget the more succesfull Dutch Armada, in 1688 they 'won'!
Pedantic Panda 2 years ago
And was followed the next year by the English Armada which was a disaster for the English.
#44
“Luke, I am your father” when really it’s “No. I am your father.”
T'Mar of Vulcan 2 years ago
Imagine if the Thermians had watched Star Wars and not Galaxy Quest...
Load More Replies...
Hume 2 years ago
No, it was: "Luke, I am your father". Just go watch the movie, this nonsense has to stop. And before you tell me to go watch the movie, I won't. I watched it years ago and I remember it like that, so there. :-)
Huddo's sister 2 years ago
Much like Sherlock Holmes never saying 'Elementary, my dear Watson'. Instead it was "Excellent!" I cried. "Elementary," said he.
#45
The Trojan Horse wasn't real. Historians are all pretty much unanimous on this.
Jrog 2 years ago
Latest linguistic theories do pretty much agree that the "hippos" in the text is a wooden ship. Invented by the Phoenicians, it was a merchant ship that was commonly decorated with a horse head on the prow. This ship was practically ubiquitous at the time, and has been found in sigils, etchings, bas-reliefs etc. The "hippos" was used to transport goods, and so made sense that it was used to leave a tribute or that it was seen as a rich prize during a military fall-back.
#46
I haven't seen this on here yet but....
No one in the town of Salem was actually "burnt at the stake" during the witch trials. Most of them were hung (muhahah) with one being crushed under rocks.
But with most of the kids in school now reading "the crucible", I think this'll start being more well known.
Pedantic Panda 2 years ago (edited)
(muhahah) Is this a laugh? Innocent people dying due to religious fantastics? Not funny.
Genericist 2 years ago
I think the OP is laughing at the phrase "hung" as a euphemism for well-endowed, but they've used it wrong anyway, because the past tense of hang in this sense is hanged.
Load More Replies...
Huddo's sister 2 years ago
I hated studying the Crucible! So many long drawn out descriptions of rooms and such. I could have read an abridged version, saved myself time, and still understood it enough to pass my exam! (I'm not a fan of 'realism' in plays, wish I never had to sit through Ibsen's A Doll's House either)
Victor Botha 2 years ago
Hanged not hung. You are hanged by the neck until dead. Beef jerky and washing is hung out to dry.
Aileen Grist 2 years ago
In England Witches were hung - burning at the stake was kept for Christians of another denomination that were decreed Heretics (Think Bloody Mary Henry VIII's daughter)
#47
Paul Revere did NOT ride from Boston to Lexington. He got as far as Cambridge. Israel Bissell, however, DID ride all the way to Lexington.
#48
Columbus was the first one who discovered America
Pedantic Panda 2 years ago
The first people to discover America were those who crossed the Bering Straits, the ancestors of native Americans, over 16,000 years ago and began what became known as the Clovis culture.
Chewie Baron 2 years ago
Columbus never even set foot on the American mainland. He got as far as what is now Haiti/Dominican Republic.
scag$y 2 years ago
Is this not about context? Like if I go into my city and there's a new restaurant opened up down a backstreet or something. I go home and tell my family about it. Thus, in a way, I have 'discovered' that restaurant, as nobody in my family was aware of it before. So whilst Chrissy C may not have been the FIRST to find the Americas, he did discover it in a sense.
Jrog 2 years ago
He was the first to discover America in terms of bringing the knowledge back to the main cultures of the times, leading to a stable network of communication, trade and relations. Sure, paleolithic populations settled the land, but had little to no contacts with contemporary cultures. Sure, Vikings reached America but they never established two-way trades or lasting colonies. Columbus discovery led to the creation of regular journeys, stable settlements, and prolonged trade, that's the significance.
#49
Most anything to do with pilgrims, in america atleast
Jrog 2 years ago
A common misconception was that the pilgrims fled to the Colonies from England due to religious persecution. Actually they fled Holland (after going there from England) because they did not conform to the local religious and social constructs and repeatedly failed in their attempts to proselytize and push their flavor of the Gospel.
N Miller 2 years ago
Yup, it's huge misconception that they were fleeing persecution - they were fleeing because they couldn't do the persecuting! One other bit of info to consider - the pilgrims were puritans. One of the most famous puritans was Oliver Cromwell - not known for his relaxed approach to religious freedom (or any kind of freedom really).
Load More Replies... sofacushionfort 2 years ago
Buckles on their shoes and their hats? “Where can we put buckles next? (I hope they don’t find what’s in my bedside table or I’ll be in the stocks for a month!”
#50
A lot of people think the whole " women and children first" was a standard belief in the past but, as even I've learned recently, that happening during the Titanic and Birkenhead were anomalies. It's not maritime law or common practice.
Pieter LeGrande 2 years ago
Actually the first would be a couple of seamen to manage the lifeboat.
DC 2 years ago
Sure so. Generally, one would decide who goes where by such things, usefulness for max survival rate before sentiment. And, in earlier times, with less stuff documented, the usefulness to the own household may have played a role, too. The breadwinner dead is a lot more tragedy coming on than one of the breadeaters dead.
Load More Replies... София Харитонова 2 years ago
In the nineteenth century it was still perfectly normal in Poland, Russia, Ukraine, etc., that in the village the father of the family ate first and bathed first. The children ate scraps. And if some foods were distributed because of the hunger it was "One meal per male" ratio. Women and children didn't count. "Good Old Times" were sometimes pretty horrific.
#51
That Einstein said “ The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”
Hume 2 years ago
Einstein was actually good at playing the violin. How do you go about learning to play the violin? By practicing over and over right? So it would be unlikely for him to have said this.
CHRIS DOMRES 2 years ago
Learning anything complex means doing it over and over again. It builds up the nerve pathways so that eventually we do not have to think about it.
Load More Replies...
#52
Martin Luther never nailed his 95 theses to a church door. They were distributed in a series of letters.
Pedantic Panda 2 years ago
Different theories on this one. Some of his contemporaries say one or the other or both https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
Martin Kaine 2 years ago
We should keep in mind that church doors were community bulletin boards. Everything was put on those doors, from guild meetings to lost dog posters. So Brian, absolutely spot on: if Luther didn't do it, someone else did it for him.
Load More Replies... #53
That 'War and Peace' by Leo Tolstoy was initially titled "War, what is it good for".
D. Pitbull 2 years ago
oh.. geezus... seriously? Alright.. earworm has happened.. must watch Rush Hour again...
#54
This is a little niche, but it's been a long held belief in the gaming community that one of Nintendo's business ventures before getting into the video game market was "Love Hotels", hourly hotels who's main purpose is to knock boots in. This has been repeated as fact alongside their other historical ventures like playing cards, taxis, instant food, and toys. But last year a Nintendo enthusiast did a dive into their historical financial records and found no definitive proof that they ever ran or were associated with love hotels in any way.
Zia Barrett 2 years ago
This rumour is really old and known pretty well in gaming circles.
Load More Replies... VonBlade 2 years ago
I'm sure Nintendo Enthusiasts are a) totally impartial and b) given full access to a giant corporations financial records detailing a part of their past they'd rather forget.
Zia Barrett 2 years ago
Actually, someone did go through all of the financial records Nintendo had (only exist from 1962) in search for love hotel references, and found none.
Load More Replies... What do you think ?
PVR 2 years ago
Me too! I especially like running a fact check on them, since most of the posters didn't provide references.
Load More Replies... Lene 2 years ago
I have a fact that most ppl get wrong! In Denmark during the occupation by Germany (2ww) people thought it was illegal to listen to English radio and they thought it was something the Germans had decided. But in reality it was never illegal. People still think it was illegal but it wasn't. I know for a fact that historians who have done their research perfectly well and write in their books that the Germans didn't care if Danes listened to English radio, these historians are sometimes threatened because people hold on to this idea about how the Germans liked to censor us. There are other things about 2ww that is still a bit risky for historians to write in their books and say in their talks about the occupation of Denmark.
PVR 2 years ago
Me too! I especially like running a fact check on them, since most of the posters didn't provide references.
Load More Replies... Lene 2 years ago
I have a fact that most ppl get wrong! In Denmark during the occupation by Germany (2ww) people thought it was illegal to listen to English radio and they thought it was something the Germans had decided. But in reality it was never illegal. People still think it was illegal but it wasn't. I know for a fact that historians who have done their research perfectly well and write in their books that the Germans didn't care if Danes listened to English radio, these historians are sometimes threatened because people hold on to this idea about how the Germans liked to censor us. There are other things about 2ww that is still a bit risky for historians to write in their books and say in their talks about the occupation of Denmark.
You May Like 49 Fascinating Photos Revealing What The World’s Capitals Looked Like Way Before Modern Times 37 Wild Historical Moments That Read Like Comedy Sketches 203 History Trivia Questions To Remind You Of High School
Viktorija Strelciunaite
Donata Ruzgaitė
Eligijus Sinkunas
Related on Bored Panda
