EricD
Coeur d’Acier
History is a controversial field. Of all the humanities, history and its interpretation probably have the most impact on contemporary politics. How we view and interpret the events that led us to where we are in the world today shapes how we view the world today and what course we think we need to take in the future. All of us, naturally, view history through the lens of present conditions and events. As such, how we interpret history is immensely relevant and important. Because it is important, and because it is often politically charged, history as a field is fraught with controversies. You look at things like the Fischer controversy in Germany, the Civil War disputations in the United States, or the aptly named and ongoing "History Wars" in Australia, and you see just how emotionally charged and politically relevant the study of history can be.
As such, I thought it would be interesting to have a thread on SV to discuss these historical controversies.
So SV, what controversial opinions do you hold about history?
Before we start, please keep in mind the board's rules and expectations about debate. Controversial history can become extremely tense when discussing it, so let us try to carry out our conversations in a spirit of learning and inquiry. Feel free to ask people questions about their opinions and to discuss things, but let us avoid personal comments or attacks.
I have a few opinions I have been in vociferous debates over:
A large part of the fault for the First World War lays with Germany, and although the British and French Empires were hardly saint themselves it was for the better for Europe and mankind that Germany was defeated and Britain and France prevailed.
The fault of the Treaty of Versailles lay in its lack of enforcement and in the internal contradictions and conflicts amongst the Allies. It was not too harsh on Germany. It was proportional to the treaty which Germany imposed on France in 1871.
The Roman Principate was a horrific polity, existing solely to dispense patronage to the senatorial class and distribute pay and plunder to the Legions, and was more an imitation of a state than an actual working system of government.
The Battle of Jutland was, in fact, a British victory and a German defeat in spite of the greater British losses. It may have been the decisive battle of the First World War.
The Medieval World was far gentler, far more humane, far more "civilized" than the Roman World.
Christianity didn't corrupt Rome. Rome corrupted Christianity. Christ overthrew Caesar, and then Christ became Caesar.
The Christianization of Europe was, in the long term, for the better but was often executed in wicked, unChristlike ways.
The British and Canadian armies in the Second World War were just as skilled as the German Army, albeit in different ways, and were more than a match in combat for their opponents. Montgomery was a very good general cursed with a very great ego and poor personal diplomacy.
The Romans were not religiously tolerant. They were quite the opposite actually.
Of course my opinions reflect my interests: Fairly Eurocentric and English-speaking, focused on military, religious and political history. I would love to hear some controversial opinions from people more versed in social and economic history and from those whose historical interests focus more on Africa, Asia and indigenous societies throughout the world.
As such, I thought it would be interesting to have a thread on SV to discuss these historical controversies.
So SV, what controversial opinions do you hold about history?
Before we start, please keep in mind the board's rules and expectations about debate. Controversial history can become extremely tense when discussing it, so let us try to carry out our conversations in a spirit of learning and inquiry. Feel free to ask people questions about their opinions and to discuss things, but let us avoid personal comments or attacks.
I have a few opinions I have been in vociferous debates over:
A large part of the fault for the First World War lays with Germany, and although the British and French Empires were hardly saint themselves it was for the better for Europe and mankind that Germany was defeated and Britain and France prevailed.
The fault of the Treaty of Versailles lay in its lack of enforcement and in the internal contradictions and conflicts amongst the Allies. It was not too harsh on Germany. It was proportional to the treaty which Germany imposed on France in 1871.
The Roman Principate was a horrific polity, existing solely to dispense patronage to the senatorial class and distribute pay and plunder to the Legions, and was more an imitation of a state than an actual working system of government.
The Battle of Jutland was, in fact, a British victory and a German defeat in spite of the greater British losses. It may have been the decisive battle of the First World War.
The Medieval World was far gentler, far more humane, far more "civilized" than the Roman World.
Christianity didn't corrupt Rome. Rome corrupted Christianity. Christ overthrew Caesar, and then Christ became Caesar.
The Christianization of Europe was, in the long term, for the better but was often executed in wicked, unChristlike ways.
The British and Canadian armies in the Second World War were just as skilled as the German Army, albeit in different ways, and were more than a match in combat for their opponents. Montgomery was a very good general cursed with a very great ego and poor personal diplomacy.
The Romans were not religiously tolerant. They were quite the opposite actually.
Of course my opinions reflect my interests: Fairly Eurocentric and English-speaking, focused on military, religious and political history. I would love to hear some controversial opinions from people more versed in social and economic history and from those whose historical interests focus more on Africa, Asia and indigenous societies throughout the world.
