Are we neglecting many historical events?

[ray243]

Often, we like to talk about important historical figures, or famous historical battles and debated about their historical signifiance.

However, it seems as if we are making one big mistakes. From what I can see, many of the famous generals that we like to talk about for instance, such as Caesar, happened to be historical figures that was well recorded. Too often, many people tend to compare Casear against Alexander or some other historical figures that tends to be very well recorded as well in order to find out who is the best general.

However, how could we judge who is the best general when there is plenty of historical figures that isn't well-recorded? Many people talked about Caesar as an excellent General, while few talked about Septimus Severus as an excellent General. Many people talked about the decisives battles such as Adrianople, while few talked about the battle of Mursa, the battle of Naissus or the battle of Mediolanum.

Are we neglecting too many Generals, too many battles when we are trying to debate the historical significance of those leaders and battles? Are we narrowing our viewpoints to things that happens to be well-recorded?

[G-Megas-Doux]

Often, we like to talk about important historical figures, or famous historical battles and debated about their historical signifiance.

However, it seems as if we are making one big mistakes. From what I can see, many of the famous generals that we like to talk about for instance, such as Caesar, happened to be historical figures that was well recorded. Too often, many people tend to compare Casear against Alexander or some other historical figures that tends to be very well recorded as well in order to find out who is the best general.

However, how could we judge who is the best general when there is plenty of historical figures that isn't well-recorded? Many people talked about Caesar as an excellent General, while few talked about Septimus Severus as an excellent General. Many people talked about the decisives battles such as Adrianople, while few talked about the battle of Mursa, the battle of Naissus or the battle of Mediolanum.

Are we neglecting too many Generals, too many battles when we are trying to debate the historical significance of those leaders and battles? Are we narrowing our viewpoints to things that happens to be well-recorded?

Has anyone talked about Giuseppe Garibaldi? I believe he has a well documented life but he is often overshadowed by Ernesto Guevara de la Serna. Garibaldi may actually have been more successful and they had similar goals. Garibaldi was active througout his life and lived to be an old man.

[Publius Clodius Pulcher]

Has anyone talked about Giuseppe Garibaldi? I believe he has a well documented life but he is often overshadowed by Ernesto Guevara de la Serna. Garibaldi may actually have been more successful and they had similar goals. Garibaldi was active througout his life and lived to be an old man.

?

In America at least, the only person ever associated with Italian Unification is Garibaldi.

[G-Megas-Doux]

?

In America at least, the only person ever associated with Italian Unification is Garibaldi.

I dont see many people talking about him in Britain, I certainly have not seen any documentries on him and he lead a very impresive life, not just in Italy but in South America. I also have not noticed threads about him on this site. But if there have been lots in the past I would have missed them as I only started looking at twcentre 2 and 1/2 weeks ago and have been a member only since the 24th Oct.

[Barry Ferguson]

I dont see many people talking about him in Britain, I certainly have not seen any documentries on him and he lead a very impresive life, not just in Italy but in South America. I also have not noticed threads about him on this site. But if there have been lots in the past I would have missed them as I only started looking at twcentre 2 and 1/2 weeks ago and have been a member only since the 24th Oct.

I am at uni in Britain and I was only vaguely aware of who he was until I studied him last week

[G-Megas-Doux]

I am at uni in Britain and I was only vaguely aware of who he was until I studied him last week

I was only aware of him through a comment made by a family member in passing when the surname was mentioned for a character in a TV show. I later read up on him by myself.

In Britain a lot of History is neglected for the twentieth century syllabus. The rest of the syllabus when I was at school covered British History.

When I was young I think we learnt basics on Egypt, then Romans and Norse, it was very brief. Later we learnt a bit more about the Romans and the Middle Ages, following that we learnt briefly about the renaissance and then the Industrial Revolution. Throughout the time from the Romans onwards it was very British orientated. In the twentieth century we started covering a global politic history and the major conflicts from WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and Cold War. Also we studied Weimar Germany, 1920s America and Britain, then the depression in those three countries.

At college we went into more depth about the twentieth century but did not study anything else. The only new thing was Communism in Russia.
I did not take the second year of the course as I left college. So really there were a lot of things missed from the historical part of my education that I have had to research elsewhere.

[William the Bastard]

Has anyone talked about Giuseppe Garibaldi? I believe he has a well documented life but he is often overshadowed by Ernesto Guevara de la Serna. Garibaldi may actually have been more successful and they had similar goals. Garibaldi was active througout his life and lived to be an old man.

T-Shirts >>> Biscuits

[G-Megas-Doux]

T-Shirts >>> Biscuits

not quite. Wrong era for pop culture as far as Garibaldi is concerned. Still a legend though.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Has anyone talked about Giuseppe Garibaldi? I believe he has a well documented life but he is often overshadowed by Ernesto Guevara de la Serna. Garibaldi may actually have been more successful and they had similar goals. Garibaldi was active througout his life and lived to be an old man.

It was pretty funny.. My freshman history teacher's last name was Garibaldi.. He was black and Italian.. so all he would go on about was his ancestor Giuseppe.. and cook Creole food... not that we complained.. The food was good and we got a good little history of Italy lesson a year early

[Selim Yavuz]

The whole idea of comparing who is the better general is futile unless they actually clash. And yes, many generals are overlooked, Traun's victory at Piacenza was brilliant, and the campaign of Herman Maurice, Comte de Saxe in the Austrian Netherlands was nothing short of incredible. There's countless generals who nobody knows about anymore, Eugene of Savoy, Turenne, the Spanish captains like Spinola and Alba, Francisco Castanos. There are so many great generals it's pointless to argue who is the "best." In terms of numbers of battles won, then it's Napoleon, but Radetzky was defeating the Italians when he was 75. It's much easier to find the idiots, Benedek is the first one that pops in my head.

?

In America at least, the only person ever associated with Italian Unification is Garibaldi.

What? What of Mazzini, Carlo Alberto, Cavour, Vittorio Emmanuele? Or lesser known men such as Alfonso La Marmora? American education is so shallow it's absurd.

[Sher Khan]

Personally, I think we're neglecting history itself, that is all of it, in preference to the historical event. We prefer the operatic pageant to the encyclopedia, of course.

And we do limit ourselves to what's well recorded, but this is something beyond our real control.

The better something is documented and accessible, the more historians focus on it, the more ink is spilled on the matter, and the greater chances there are of this discourse trickling down to public education to be packaged in manageable terms (re: simple).

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

Often, we like to talk about important historical figures, or famous historical battles and debated about their historical signifiance.

However, it seems as if we are making one big mistakes. From what I can see, many of the famous generals that we like to talk about for instance, such as Caesar, happened to be historical figures that was well recorded. Too often, many people tend to compare Casear against Alexander or some other historical figures that tends to be very well recorded as well in order to find out who is the best general.

However, how could we judge who is the best general when there is plenty of historical figures that isn't well-recorded? Many people talked about Caesar as an excellent General, while few talked about Septimus Severus as an excellent General. Many people talked about the decisives battles such as Adrianople, while few talked about the battle of Mursa, the battle of Naissus or the battle of Mediolanum.

Are we neglecting too many Generals, too many battles when we are trying to debate the historical significance of those leaders and battles? Are we narrowing our viewpoints to things that happens to be well-recorded?

Ever since the concept of writing down history became a habitual trait of literate societies the answer is NO. Basically, it works the other way around. When a historical figure happened to be a great general or statesman, he attracted much more attention through his actions and accomplishments than ordinary leaders, the natural consequence of this being earning a principal place in the historical records composed by his contemporaries and sometimes later generations.
For example, there were works about Cyrus the Great being written by the Greeks 200 years after his death. Volumes upon volumes of historical works about Philip and especially Alexander were inspired by the extraordinary feats they performed. Even if his memoirs had been lost, so we wouldn't be aware of the multitude of his (possibly tuned up) victories under unfavourable circumstances, Ceasar would still be hailed as an excellent general because of his conquests. Septimus Severus conquered what? And Andrianople saw two thirds of the Eastern Roman army being annihilated along with its Emperor. How can it not be recognised as a crushing defeat(at the hands of an external foe), when only a couple of other battles in the millenia long Roman history can be compared with it? (Allia perhaps, Cannae and Teutonburg)

The question is what happens with the evaluation of historical figures which appeared before the concept of writing down history was established, and thus their possibly noteworthy acheivements went unrecorded. For example, under the first Pharoahs of the 18th dynasty, up to Tuthmosis III, Egypt became a highly militarised state, which conquered chunks of land and expanded its terriotry in all directions, from Crete to Ephrates valley and from Syria to Sudan, yet minimal evidence survives about these wars. And perhaps the rise and the great expansion of the Hittites in 15th century BC should be attributed to a great general or a series of great generals, the names and even the existence of whom we will never know.
In these cases it would be appropriate to say not that we neglect these figures and events, but that we bypass them or that we only form a very vague impression of them due to the partial or complete absence of information. And this should not be considered a mistake, since the problem lies with the siutation as it is, not the acceptance of it.

[ray243]

And Andrianople saw two thirds of the Eastern Roman army being annihilated along with its Emperor. How can it not be recognised as a crushing defeat(at the hands of an external foe), when only a couple of other battles in the millenia long Roman history can be compared with it? (Allia perhaps, Cannae and Teutonburg)

You forget to mention the Battle of Mursa, where the Romans lost more troops as a whole, more than Adrianople.

Of course. And you have historians to blame for this.

Really? A number of Historians that I know tends to recall more events that most history bluff would neglect. In my opinion, the people who tends to neglect many historical events are usually history bluffs.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

You forget to mention the Battle of Mursa, where the Romans lost more troops as a whole, more than Adrianople.

The phrase at the hands of an external foe was specifically aiming at Mursa.
First of all, it was a battle fought between Romans. As such it is studied within a different context, that of the civil wars of the late empire. And secondly, it's questionable to what extent is Zonaras' account accurate. It sure must have been very bloody, but to argue that it definitely was bloodier than Andrianople on the basis of a record that came 800 years later is precarious.

[Copperknickers II]

Neglecting in what way? If we learned about everything in history in history class we would be 500 years old before we left Elementary school.

And there is not really much point in studying history that has not been well recorded. The most interesting history is that which has been best recorded, whether in physical evidence, in literature or in legacy.

[ray243]

And there is not really much point in studying history that has not been well recorded. The most interesting history is that which has been best recorded, whether in physical evidence, in literature or in legacy.

And that's a huge problem! History isn't meant to be a storybook!

It's like why we cannot neglect the social and economic factors in history if we really want to understand how and why wars were waged in the past. If people wants to have an assessment on history, they need to understand the big picture.

The phrase at the hands of an external foe was specifically aiming at Mursa.
First of all, it was a battle fought between Romans. As such it is studied within a different context, that of the civil wars of the late empire. And secondly, it's questionable to what extent is Zonaras' account accurate. It sure must have been very bloody, but to argue that it definitely was bloodier than Andrianople on the basis of a record that came 800 years later is precarious.

Well, for one, it is commonly accepted by the historical community in regards to it being one of the bloodiest battle that result in the death of many Romans. The lost of so many Roman troops did result in more barbarian invasion in gaul for example.

[Niles Crane]

Often, we like to talk about important historical figures, or famous historical battles and debated about their historical signifiance.

However, it seems as if we are making one big mistakes. From what I can see, many of the famous generals that we like to talk about for instance, such as Caesar, happened to be historical figures that was well recorded. Too often, many people tend to compare Casear against Alexander or some other historical figures that tends to be very well recorded as well in order to find out who is the best general.

However, how could we judge who is the best general when there is plenty of historical figures that isn't well-recorded? Many people talked about Caesar as an excellent General, while few talked about Septimus Severus as an excellent General. Many people talked about the decisives battles such as Adrianople, while few talked about the battle of Mursa, the battle of Naissus or the battle of Mediolanum.

Are we neglecting too many Generals, too many battles when we are trying to debate the historical significance of those leaders and battles? Are we narrowing our viewpoints to things that happens to be well-recorded?

Of course. And you have historians to blame for this.

[Junius]

For me there is too much emphasis on the historical event, and not enough about the general trend of history, or what was happening in the pysche at the time. Take for example Caesar. Everyone knows the story about how he crossed the Rubicon and conquered Rome, becoming a Dictator for Life. However, that ignores the general trend of history before that, showing that there was an unstoppable move in Roman world towards a monarchy. It was something that tore apart Rome for seventy years. The reasons and events that come from it are what is studied, but people tend to forget the idea.

Another example is feudalism. We all seem to know the story of Charlemagne, the reorganisation of Europe, the subsequent disintegration, and then how feudalism grew out of that. But feudalism as an idea, how it developed and emerged over that period, is ignore. We seem to be focused on the history of events, and tend to leave out the history of ideas.

[G-Megas-Doux]

Perhaps the point of the thread was that there are people and events of great importance and large amounts of data that have been ignored for the specific design of treating history as a story with a series of plots and a story arch. This is done to wrap history into a neat little parcel and say that several events were directly responsible for other events which lead to the formation of the current issues of the day. It is something to consider that our view of history may be sometimes to linear without considering the difficulties of other peoples and states which prevent them from taking part in the Historical events of the day. There are no guarantees that the events of history are certain from their onset and others given the opportunity may have prevented those events.