Mysteries of history

[maurel]

Sorry creating another thread. but i feel like i am doing humanity a favor by doing it, and if it gets right, a lot of people will thank me later (including me).

For many ages we humans got fascinated by all sort of legends and mysteries, but we could never tell in many cases the truth from lie, and in many cases historical records where read in a wrong way to justify the mystery existence. So every educated person like me, and i believe that almost everyone in this forum, every time that read about mysteries of history (advanced civilizations that disappeared without trace, a possibly trade between the new and old world, ufos, aliens, stories of dragons,werewolfs and vampires...etc etc etc) we automatically don't give any credit to the idea because its 99% probably that its a scam just to get more audience (Curse you History Channel).

But them here we are, in EB2 forum, a place with thousands of historians and people that loves history and study it hard. this is a unique place where we can find and discuss some true mysteries of history. more than that, EB2 team went into a relentless research frenzy for the mod, reading thousands of studies and historical documents, this is the single and best place of the entire world to create this thread.

So then i ask, what where the biggest mysteries of history that you ever faced it ? things that puzzled you, strange events, very advanced civilizations or cities that just dissipated in the air. disturbing archaeological finds. or maybe just some horrifying events or legends. the time line doesn't matter.

IF someone wants, you can tell the root to some legends too and even educate us with the most evil or disturbing pagan gods of antiquity.

[HarkonRules]

Could turn out to be a pretty interesting thread! I'm a sucker for curiousities.

[Samraat Mahendra Maurya]

My mind has always pondered, perhaps, the Vedas are older than Aryans, Perhaps Dvaraka, A city that has already proven to be inhabited over 30,000 years ago was ruled by a glorious PC master race!

I am really Interested in Pre-Indus Valley Civilization India! But, I don't know what I am curious about?

[Achilles Lacedaemon]

I still believe that only 192 Athenians died at the Battle of Marathon.


Even if the numbers sounds ridiculous, many memorial and religious sites were described to portray 192 figures of fallen warriors, in memory of the soldiers that have died at the battle. Not only that but if I'm not mistaken the Parthenon itself had 192 figures of hoplites, each one with a story. Its not like the whole people of Athens would not know how many of their men died at the battle, and who did came back, and would blindly accept some kind of collective lie. If Herodotus did lie to make some kind of " War Propaganda " there would be athenians that would avenge the other dead, and point out the illegitimacy of his reports. What about the citizens who gave their lifes to defend the city? What about the families of those warriors? What about even their brothers in arms who survived the battle, and the following generations? Would all of them accept those fake sources? I think not.

In fact I think this isnt properly considered because of bias, and because modern historians/researchers/whatever are more concerned to their personal views and the convenience of what they want to belive. Many of you can relate to that, since many of you are also driven to points of view and guesses based on your personal preference. Like for example, there are those of you who like the Romans and admire them at all costs and circumstances, also those who like the Carthagineans and Macedonians, etc..

You would be naive to think that historians also dont pick their favorites, whatever if it is motived by historical inheritance, their modern countries/culture, fanboyism, ancestry, political reasons or hell I know what...

Its not like any of the modern sources tell lies, in fact none of them do. Its just a different way to tell the thruth, you know... Its like asking a German and an American ( for example, they are " stereotypes " ) about WW2, both may tell you the true history, but they would each persuade you of different views of the time period, its characters and events.

[adun12345]

I still believe that only 192 Athenians died at the Battle of Marathon.

French military historian Ardant du Picq dealt with this very issue, which led him to formulate his theories of combat psychology and unit cohesion. Basically, he argued that the dramatic disparities in battle casualties reported in ancient sources could be credible, since shock combat between large formations of men is usually decided not by extended hand-to-hand combat, but rather by a game of "chicken" as the two sides are charging at each other; once one side breaks and runs, the other runs them down and stabs them in the back.

[tobymoby]

...In fact I think this isnt properly considered because of bias, and because modern historians/researchers/whatever are more concerned to their personal views and the convenience of what they want to belive. Many of you can relate to that, since many of you are also driven to points of view and guesses based on your personal preference. Like for example, there are those of you who like the Romans and admire them at all costs and circumstances, also those who like the Carthagineans and Macedonians, etc..

You would be naive to think that historians also dont pick their favorites, whatever if it is motived by historical inheritance, their modern countries/culture, fanboyism, ancestry, political reasons or hell I know what...

I agreed with your point on Athens, but dispute you on your point about modern historians. You say that "modern historians/researchers/whatever are more concerned to their personal views and the convenience of what they want to belive," but while there are cases of historians pushing for their view of certain things (like Tarn turning Alexander into a Scottish gentlemen) and sort of ignoring other things, that is not really the case anymore in academia. There are outliers of course, but in general, most of the historians I have spoken to are quite willing to be respectful for other cultures not necessarily pertinent to their own field. As an example, my Hellenistic history professor studied classics at Oxford, and was really well versed in Greek and Roman literature. But in contrast to the stereotype of classicists only caring about Greece and Rome, he was objective in his depiction of the "barbarians" often destroying stereotypes about the Persians as weak or effeminate.

Further, your point on "You would be naive to think that historians also dont pick their favorites, whatever if it is motived by historical inheritance, their modern countries/culture, fanboyism, ancestry, political reasons or hell I know what" is a little extreme. I really like the Parthians because they strike me as a fascinating dynasty that straddled both Iranian and Hellenic worlds and turned from a mere border kingdom into a very powerful Hellenistic empire. But that doesn't mean I hate the Romans or the Seleukids or anyone else (I personally consider Augustus one of my favorite historical figures next to Phraates II and Mithridates I). They are "cool" too. The historians I have has experiences with are the exact same, and even my Roman history professor was quite intrigued in my discussion on the Parthians and asked many questions. I do not deny that there are those who can push too far and make out historical characters in a certain light; but much of modern historiography has moved well past that and there is a growing trend of more cooperation between historical fields.

[Appius Pulcher]

I still believe that only 192 Athenians died at the Battle of Marathon.

(...)

I would like to present a counter-argument. If we go by the account of Herodotus, the center of the Athenian line in the battle actually broke. It didn't just bend back, but broke. This, and the very low number of casualties doesn't really fit. So in my opinion, either Herodotus exaggerates when it comes to the line breaking in the middle, or he exaggerates when it comes to the number of casualties.

Other than that, I believe there are plenty of examples that show how Hellenic hoplite infantry was, in general, superior to their Persian counterparts, especially in those head-on situations. Xenophon describes the same thing, and it is a general theme in Herodotus that the infantry carries the day for the Greeks.

[adun12345]

I would like to present a counter-argument. If we go by the account of Herodotus, the center of the Athenian line in the battle actually broke. It didn't just bend back, but broke. This, and the very low number of casualties doesn't really fit. So in my opinion, either Herodotus exaggerates when it comes to the line breaking in the middle, or he exaggerates when it comes to the number of casualties.

Other than that, I believe there are plenty of examples that show how Hellenic hoplite infantry was, in general, superior to their Persian counterparts, especially in those head-on situations. Xenophon describes the same thing, and it is a general theme in Herodotus that the infantry carries the day for the Greeks.

If we accept the du Picq thesis on mass shock combat, then the majority of fatalities in mass pre-modern combat occur during the pursuit of a broken and disorganized adversary. If this is true, then it's possible that the Athenian center broke and ran, but that the Persians they were facing were not in a position to pursue them (perhaps because both of the Persian wings were similarly fleeing before the advancing Athenian force). If this were true, then an Athenian break in the center could still be reconciled with relatively low Athenian casualties.

[Abdülmecid I]

I still believe that only 192 Athenians died at the Battle of Marathon.

I also believe them, but that doesn't mean that they were the only casualties from the Athenean side. Ancient historians tended to count only the casualties that "mattered", that means the dead soldiers who were of respected nationality and social status. For example, in the battles of Alexander like Granicus, Arrian probably counted only the Macedonian casualties, since his Macedonian sources only cared about them. The same I think is true for Marathon. Finally, the numbers for the Persians are definitely exagerrated, imo.

[V.T. Marvin]

I also believe them, but that doesn't mean that they were the only casualties from the Athenean side. Ancient historians tended to count only the casualties that "mattered", that means the dead soldiers who were of respected nationality and social status. For example, in the battles of Alexander like Granicus, Arrian probably counted only the Macedonian casualties, since his Macedonian sources only cared about them. The same I think is true for Marathon. Finally, the numbers for the Persians are definitely exagerrated, imo.

This, IMO.

It feels as similar case to the 300 at Thermopylae. Several thousand Greeks perished in that battle, but we always hear just about the 300 homoioi. The rest is anonymous unrecognized mass. Perhaps the 192 Athenians were similarly just the fallen citizens, propertied hoplites, while many more disenfranchized auxiliaries could have fallen there uncounted.

[maurel]

the thread already started VERY interesting, please keep posting.

[k/t]

Casualties were usually very low among knights in the Middle Ages (compared to infantry), due, in part, to their armour. Hoplites were armoured too, so perhaps not too many died as a result.

Also, there are tons of lies being spread today by the media and governments of all countries, just as it has always been. We know very little about the world, since we cannot trust most of the information we are given.

[maurel]

Didn't the Athenians had allies in the battle of Marathon ?

Hoplites where heavy armored infantry, thus making them hard to kill. but poorer city-states maybe had less armored or trained hoplites and the part of the line that broke and suffered the major of losses where the part of the line with hoplites that where not Athenians.

But only 192 deaths doesn't mean that there had a low number of injured Athenian soldiers. maybe the heavy armor saved a lot of people from fatal injuries or Athens had a good medicine in that time.

[Architect of Doom]

I would like to know, is there any chance that advanced prehistoric civilizations existed and we have forgotten them? What if the first civilizations didn't appear at what we call the bronze age (whose sooner start date is 3300 in the Near East, according to Wikipedia), but actually thousands of years before?

And then, what if the ancient civilizations were actually way more advanced than we think? There is the Antikythera mechanism, which besides no longer being a mystery today (we already have an idea of who built it and how) still shows us how the ancient Greeks were sophisticated. I've watched this interesting video, which highlights some historical mysteries.

Another thing that bothers me is how much information we lost with the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria. Just imagine what could be there, and that now is gone and we will never be able to know.

[tobymoby]

Another thing that bothers me is how much information we lost with the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria. Just imagine what could be there, and that now is gone and we will never be able to know.

Indeed! But also think of how much information was lost when Alexander burned Persepolis. We could have had so much information on the Persians and their bureaucracy, until he burned it...

[Achilles Lacedaemon]

Indeed! But also think of how much information was lost when Alexander burned Persepolis. We could have had so much information on the Persians and their bureaucracy, until he burned it...

Imagine all the kebab we lost!

[HarkonRules]

Eh, let's be honest, noone really cares that much about the Persians anyways.

[Hummer]

Eh, let's be honest, noone really cares that much about the Persians anyways.

Not true. The Persians are fascinating...

[Abdülmecid I]

Marvin, I totally agree with you.+1

Not true. The Persians are fascinating...

I think he meant that not many people find the Persian history interesting, as they do for the Greek or the Roman case, which is unfortunately true.

Indeed! But also think of how much information was lost when Alexander burned Persepolis. We could have had so much information on the Persians and their bureaucracy, until he burned it...

Think also of the historical scources we lost, because they were not considered the "good" ones from the classic era. Every time I imagine a monk using the last copy of the history of Jeronymus for toilet paper, my atheist levels augment dramatically!

[Satapatiš]

Eh, let's be honest, noone really cares that much about the Persians anyways.

Let's be honest. You are completely wrong.

Not everything revolves around the Greco-Roman world.