Popular Historical Myths

[Alaric]

This was a popular topic on the old forum so I thought I would bring it back, especially after this news:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i55z9vq47vnFMeo1MGW-6uT2ZoegD93C4O9O0

LONDON (AP) — The first excavation of Stonehenge in more than 40 years has uncovered evidence that the stone circle drew ailing pilgrims from around Europe for what they believed to be its healing properties, archaeologists said Monday.

"People were in a state of distress, if I can put it as politely as that, when they came to the Stonehenge monument," Darvill told journalists assembled at London's Society of Antiquaries.

He pointed out that experts near Stonehenge have found two skulls that showed evidence of primitive surgery, some of just a few known cases of operations in prehistoric Britain.

"Even today, that's the pretty serious end of medicine," he said. Also found near Stonehenge was the body of a man known as the Amesbury Archer, who had a damaged skull and badly hurt knee and died around the time the stones were being installed. Analysis of the Archer's bones showed he was from the Alps.

The archaeologists managed to date the construction of the stone monument to about 2,300 B.C., a couple of centuries younger than was previously thought.

-------------------------------------

So it's roughly 2,508 years old then. :)

[Volgadon]

Had anyone on the old forum mentioned the myth about Catherine's horse?

[Leyland]

Oh yes, Catherine was Greatly discussed on that thread along with the horse, as I recall!

[MLE]

Do let's forget that one.

[Volgadon]

Here's another one, that highland bagpipes were banned after Culloden.
They never were, the Diarming Act does not mention musical instruments and there are no records of any pipers being arrested for playing.

[Alaric]

Highland regiments (the 75th and 78th in particular) used to have bagpipe players instead of drummer boys in the Napoleonic wars, so I can't imagine where that one came from.

[donroc]

From memory, I believe the Charge of the Light Brigade failed and it was the Heavy Brigade that won the day.

[chuck]

How about Mel Gibson and others wearing Kilts in the deplorable film "Braveheart"......

[boswellbaxter]

How about Mel Gibson and others wearing Kilts in the deplorable film "Braveheart"......

Or from the same film, William Wallace fathering Edward III. Not to mention the droit du seigneur (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1139/did-medieval-lords-have-right-of-the-first-night-with-the-local-brides).

[chuck]

Or from the same film, William Wallace fathering Edward III. Not to mention the droit du seigneur (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1139/did-medieval-lords-have-right-of-the-first-night-with-the-local-brides).


Good one!.......William Wallace/Braveheart....Why couldn't the producers/Gibson just try to get a bit of it write....The true story can stand on it's own....Gibson really blew it...I can never forgive him....I refuse to watch his films.....Peace

[Rowan]

Had anyone on the old forum mentioned the myth about Catherine's horse?

Which Catherine and what horse? :confused:

[Margaret]

Braveheart totally lost me when the Scots went into battle with their faces painted blue. That was the Picts back in the days of ancient Rome, for crying out loud! The Scots were descendants of Irish raiders who settled in the north of Britain, and there is no historical or archaeological record to suggest they adopted Pictish traditions.

[EC2]

Braveheart totally lost me when the Scots went into battle with their faces painted blue. That was the Picts back in the days of ancient Rome, for crying out loud! The Scots were descendants of Irish raiders who settled in the north of Britain, and there is no historical or archaeological record to suggest they adopted Pictish traditions.

I think it was a 'Native Americans' versus the 'settlers' film transported to ye olde times in a different country. That's why the Scots were painted up and had weird hairdoes - to make them look more 'native.'

Some of my own myths
That people never bathed in the Middle Ages
That spices were used to contain the stench of rotten meat and make it edible
The law of droit du seignur on a bride's wedding night.
That swords were so heavy it took a guy the size of Arnie to lift one.

[Margaret]

I think that rotten meat/spices myth has its origin in the fact that many spices actually do have antibacterial and/or antiviral properties, and so they can help to preserve meats so they don't have to be eaten quite as quickly as they otherwise might be. I've gotten into the habit of rubbing fish with turmeric before broiling it, because it usually eliminates that "fishy" taste and smell that my fussy husband doesn't like. This is not a case of the turmeric flavor (which is pretty faint) "masking" the off smell of old fish. We don't eat rotten fish! I think the turmeric actually kills the organisms that cause the fishy scent, thereby eliminating the scent entirely.

[EC2]

I think that rotten meat/spices myth has its origin in the fact that many spices actually do have antibacterial and/or antiviral properties, and so they can help to preserve meats so they don't have to be eaten quite as quickly as they otherwise might be. I've gotten into the habit of rubbing fish with turmeric before broiling it, because it usually eliminates that "fishy" taste and smell that my fussy husband doesn't like. This is not a case of the turmeric flavor (which is pretty faint) "masking" the off smell of old fish. We don't eat rotten fish! I think the turmeric actually kills the organisms that cause the fishy scent, thereby eliminating the scent entirely.

A lot of medieval recipes - which were written for the aristocracy do call for spices of all kinds. The resultant recipes often emerge with what today would be a middle eastern or at least North African touch. In fact I was reading that the nearest modern cuisine to 13thC aristocratic food is Moroccan! So they did have appreciative palates and knew how to blend tastes and flavours. Spices were drastically expensive and would have been scarcely realised below the middle classes. Whether they used them as a preservative of good meats and fish, I don't know without asking my medieval culinary professor friend. I suppose pickled herrings and especially cured hams must be a part of this process though.

[chuck]

I think that rotten meat/spices myth has its origin in the fact that many spices actually do have antibacterial and/or antiviral properties, and so they can help to preserve meats so they don't have to be eaten quite as quickly as they otherwise might be. I've gotten into the habit of rubbing fish with turmeric before broiling it, because it usually eliminates that "fishy" taste and smell that my fussy husband doesn't like. This is not a case of the turmeric flavor (which is pretty faint) "masking" the off smell of old fish. We don't eat rotten fish! I think the turmeric actually kills the organisms that cause the fishy scent, thereby eliminating the scent entirely.

Margaret....I thought I was the only male that did not like to eat fish because of the smell....I do like Scallions cooked in a wine cheese sauce....

[Volgadon]

I've lived my whole life around Moroccan Jews and their cuisine really is very old and is very close to Spanish cuisine of the 16th and 15th centuries, especially in the use of spices. Very subtle blends of upwards of 12 different spices which give their food a mild, nutty flavour, rather than hot, spicy kicks.

As for Catherine, after her death, unfounded rumours spread that Catherine II (the Great) died during intercourse with a horse. Sorry for bringing that up again, MLE.

[EC2]

I've lived my whole life around Moroccan Jews and their cuisine really is very old and is very close to Spanish cuisine of the 16th and 15th centuries, especially in the use of spices. Very subtle blends of upwards of 12 different spices which give their food a mild, nutty flavour, rather than hot, spicy kicks.



Volgadon, that kind of confirms the extrapolate back route. I'm sure the Spanish cuisine of the 15thC is not unlike the medieval European cuisine of earlier centuries. Where I saw the North African link was in a write up about a cookbook which said that never mind tasting food from different countries now, there was a whole delicious cuisine that has been almost lost and forgotten - European medieval. It went on to say that North African dishes are its nearest living relative today. This is obviously talking of the classes who could afford the spices in the first place.

[Rowan]

As for Catherine, after her death, unfounded rumours spread that Catherine II (the Great) died during intercourse with a horse. Sorry for bringing that up again, MLE.

Thanks Volgadon. I was thinking I was being ignored. It's not a topic I wish to rehash, but I appreciate the answer.

[Volgadon]

My personal theory is that the huge influx of Muslim and Jewish refugees from Spain brought back a lot of the cuisine. Hard to prove conclusively, tho. The cuisine of the remote Berber mountains is rather different to that of the big cities, which is where all those refugees settled.

[Ash]

That people never bathed in the Middle Ages

What was their hygeine regimen? I always knew they had to have bathed sometime. Did they have soaps, shampoos? How did they clean their clothes? DId they really keep their furs in the guardrobe to keep insects away?

The law of droit du seignur on a bride's wedding night.

I was reading a HF (cant remember the name) where this is the start of the book. I started wondering if this really happened and looked. Glad to see it wasn't true. (and the book was rubbish and I didn't even finish it)

[Ash]

[QUOTE=Volgadon;7394]My personal theory is that the huge influx of Muslim and Jewish refugees from Spain brought back a lot of the cuisine. QUOTE]

That makes sense, esp when you figure how many Arabic words eventually made it into the European languages (tho that could also have been from the crusaders

(does anyone know if the terms Don and Dona in Spain are from the Hebrew Adonai meaning lord)

[Kveto from Prague]

i guess this thread is about historical myths that bother us?

ok, lets see:

that English was widely spoken earlier than 50 years ago.
(and English is more expressive than other languages)

that the crusades were any worse than anything else that occured at that time period.

that the wild west was at all "wild"

that the moors were sub-saharan african
(and well having sub-saharan africans in Europe or north africa any time before the 1450s) (even shakespere made this error in othello)

that knights could be left-handed (knights born left-handed had to be trained to fight right-handed, as the left was considered sinister.)

that christians were sacrificed to lions in the coloseum

vikings with horns

that people in the old days were considerably shorter than modern times.

just a few i thought of

[Margaret]

that the crusades were any worse than anything else that occured at that time period

Good one. The Crusades were pretty bad. I've read, though, that one of the reasons they got started was because there was so much awful warfare within Europe that the rulers there and the pope were both eager to get the military-age men out of the way fighting somewhere else. I think the idea of the Crusades being so horrible comes from (a) the hypocrisy, because supposedly these were pious Christian warriors fighting to free Jerusalem from Moslem rule, and actually they killed a lot of Christians as well, and (b) modern sensibilities that correctly oppose unprovoked aggression against other nations, not that it doesn't happen today. Also, it's a reaction against 19th century novels that romanticized the Crusaders.

The Wild West could be pretty wild, though. A lot of people moved west to avoid being put in jail, so the percentage of the population that were thugs was rather higher than in the east. Plus, with Indians who had been displaced from their land making war on the settlers, and the settlers retaliating by making war on Indians in general, whether or not they belonged to a group that had made war on them ... things could get bloody.

Weird but true: Did you know there were alligators in Texas and Louisiana well into the 19th century?

[Alaric]

that people in the old days were considerably shorter than modern times.

There's some truth to this one though. For example, during the second half of the 18th century/early 19th century the most common height of the British soldier was 5'6. The current average height in Britain for males aged 18-30 is 5'10, comparable because soldiers would have been in the same age bracket.

[Volgadon]

People being shorter was mostly true! Maybe a better way to put it was that there weren't as many tall people. This can be backed up by many items of clothing and photos as well as architectural details. It varies, of course, according to time and location.

As for the Crusades, the only event comparable to the First was the reign of the Fatimid Al-Haqim in the early part of the century. I'm not claiming that the Muslim world was all peaceful, it wasn't, but the First Crusade was shocking in it's level of violence and barbarity.

Shakespeare did not write Othello as being Sub-Saharan, he is a moor, not a blackamoor. I did read an interesting theory, in Jan Morris's book about the Venetian Empire, that the historical prototype might have been a Moorean mercenary in Venetian service.

[Volgadon]

[QUOTE=Volgadon;7394]My personal theory is that the huge influx of Muslim and Jewish refugees from Spain brought back a lot of the cuisine. QUOTE]
(does anyone know if the terms Don and Dona in Spain are from the Hebrew Adonai meaning lord)

Quite possibly, but not from Adonai, which means roughly translated means THE LORD (only used as a substitute for Jehova). Adon is lord, adoni- milord.

[Kveto from Prague]

People being shorter was mostly true! Maybe a better way to put it was that there weren't as many tall people. This can be backed up by many items of clothing and photos as well as architectural details. It varies, of course, according to time and location.

I think it had more to do with nutrition than anything. many medevil leaders (Edward I, Charles IV, etc. stood well over 6 feet) would be considered tall. like you say, perhaps fewer tall people, would have been a better way to put it.

As for the Crusades, the only event comparable to the First was the reign of the Fatimid Al-Haqim in the early part of the century. I'm not claiming that the Muslim world was all peaceful, it wasn't, but the First Crusade was shocking in it's level of violence and barbarity.

i dont want to get into a cruelty debate nor defend the actions of the first crusaders. The wholesale slaughter of jerusalum was excessive but also exagerated for propaganda purposes (an entire suburb of damascus was founded by jerusalum refugees so clearly not everyone was killed). there are any number of examples of wholesale slaughter at those times in any part of the world. 40 years after the first crusade an estimated quarter million armenians were exteminated in southern asia minor. Timur the lame built a mountain- A MOUNTAIN- of skulls from all of the men, women and children he'd slaughtered in Asia. there are countless other examples. it was a horrible age all around.

I think as Margaret said, it was the hypocrisy of the crusades that people dislike. however there are many examples of religous tolerance shown by both the franks and muslims during the period of oultremer. For instance, King Aleric of jerusalum (father of the leper king) went so far as to question the superiority of christinaity over islam and claimed that saracens had souls (an idea unheard of in Europe until the renasaince).

in short the crusades were bad for all but also a product of their times and a great deal of good came from them as well (exposure to other cultures, increased trade, access to literature, and increased tolerance). Anyway, i wont say anymore about it. most people have their ideas about how bad the crusades were so its pointless to try to point out the positives.

Shakespeare did not write Othello as being Sub-Saharan, he is a moor, not a blackamoor. I did read an interesting theory, in Jan Morris's book about the Venetian Empire, that the historical prototype might have been a Moorean mercenary in Venetian service.

several times othello refers to his "face black as pitch" or something along those lines so who knows how dark shakespere imagined othello. In susequent performances hes usually potrayed as sub-saharan when ive always thought north african would be more likely. but its fiction so i guess he could be whatever shakespere wanted. theres a good chance that shakespere had never actually met anyone with darker skin than himself.

take care

[Kveto from Prague]

Good one. The Crusades were pretty bad. I've read, though, that one of the reasons they got started was because there was so much awful warfare within Europe that the rulers there and the pope were both eager to get the military-age men out of the way fighting somewhere else. I think the idea of the Crusades being so horrible comes from (a) the hypocrisy, because supposedly these were pious Christian warriors fighting to free Jerusalem from Moslem rule, and actually they killed a lot of Christians as well, and (b) modern sensibilities that correctly oppose unprovoked aggression against other nations, not that it doesn't happen today. Also, it's a reaction against 19th century novels that romanticized the Crusaders.


agreed. Urban the second's brainchild of the crusades solved his most pressing problem, getting the unlanded nobles out of Europe.


The Wild West could be pretty wild, though. A lot of people moved west to avoid being put in jail, so the percentage of the population that were thugs was rather higher than in the east. Plus, with Indians who had been displaced from their land making war on the settlers, and the settlers retaliating by making war on Indians in general, whether or not they belonged to a group that had made war on them ... things could get bloody.

In one of Bill Brysons books, he does a pretty good job of deflating all of the myths about the old west showing that the gunfights were pretty uncommon. The OK coral is famous because it was so unusual. im not sayting hes got the last word on it, but he had some good statistics to back up his claims. the wild.wild west was more a romantic idea of hollywood than anything.



Weird but true: Did you know there were alligators in Texas and Louisiana well into the 19th century?

so what happened to them? hunted to extinction or something else?

[Kveto from Prague]

to the people i wrote to above. sorry i mixed my comments with your comments so it might be tough to read.

[Kveto from Prague]

I think it had more to do with nutrition than anything. many medevil leaders (Edward I, Charles IV, etc. stood well over 6 feet) would be considered tall. like you say, perhaps fewer tall people, would have been a better way to put it.



i dont want to get into a cruelty debate nor defend the actions of the first crusaders. The wholesale slaughter of jerusalum was excessive but also exagerated for propaganda purposes (an entire suburb of damascus was founded by jerusalum refugees so clearly not everyone was killed). there are any number of examples of wholesale slaughter at those times in any part of the world. 40 years after the first crusade an estimated quarter million armenians were exteminated in southern asia minor. Timur the lame built a mountain- A MOUNTAIN- of skulls from all of the men, women and children he'd slaughtered in Asia. there are countless other examples. it was a horrible age all around.

I think as Margaret said, it was the hypocrisy of the crusades that people dislike. however there are many examples of religous tolerance shown by both the franks and muslims during the period of oultremer. For instance, King Aleric of jerusalum (father of the leper king) went so far as to question the superiority of christinaity over islam and claimed that saracens had souls (an idea unheard of in Europe until the renasaince).

in short the crusades were bad for all but also a product of their times and a great deal of good came from them as well (exposure to other cultures, increased trade, access to literature, and increased tolerance). Anyway, i wont say anymore about it. most people have their ideas about how bad the crusades were so its pointless to try to point out the positives.



several times othello refers to his "face black as pitch" or something along those lines so who knows how dark shakespere imagined othello. In susequent performances hes usually potrayed as sub-saharan when ive always thought north african would be more likely. but its fiction so i guess he could be whatever shakespere wanted. theres a good chance that shakespere had never actually met anyone with darker skin than himself.

take care

here are my comments without the quotes, voldagon. sorry for the confusion

[Volgadon]

Kenny, I'm from Israel and with the Crusades being of particular interest to my parents, have been to going to Crusader sites since childhood. I wasn't saying that the Crusades were all bad and so on, but I did point out that the First Crusade was considered quite shocking at the time, a step up in violence.

The line 'face black as pitch' does not appear in Othello. Black appears only 5 times in relation to Othello, and one of them reffers to virtue (or lack thereof), when Emilia says 'and you the blacker devil.' Black was used at the time interchangeably with dark and swarthy. An example from later times is a bothy ballad 'the scranky black farmer'.

People in Elizabethan and Jacobean times probably saw more North-Africans and Muslims than is popularly thought. There were several visits by Muslim ambassadors which caused great excitements, and there were accounts of soldiers, sailors and traders.

At the tap o' the Garioch, in the lands o' Leith-hall,
A scranky black farmer in Earlsfield did dwall;
Wi' him I engaged a servant to be,
Which makes me lament I went far frae the sea.

[Alaric]

Suleiman the Magnificent would have surely sent envoys to England and France when he was at war with the Holy Roman Empire, probably as an assurance they wouldn't come to the Empire's assistance. There were plenty of visits from Muscovite ambassadors in the same century so it's reasonable to assume the Ottoman's made contact with western Europe as well.

[Volgadon]

There is a good book precisely about such contacts, but the title escapes me.

[Kveto from Prague]

Kenny, I'm from Israel and with the Crusades being of particular interest to my parents, have been to going to Crusader sites since childhood. I wasn't saying that the Crusades were all bad and so on, but I did point out that the First Crusade was considered quite shocking at the time, a step up in violence.

The line 'face black as pitch' does not appear in Othello. Black appears only 5 times in relation to Othello, and one of them reffers to virtue (or lack thereof), when Emilia says 'and you the blacker devil.' Black was used at the time interchangeably with dark and swarthy. An example from later times is a bothy ballad 'the scranky black farmer'.

People in Elizabethan and Jacobean times probably saw more North-Africans and Muslims than is popularly thought. There were several visits by Muslim ambassadors which caused great excitements, and there were accounts of soldiers, sailors and traders.

Sorry if it came off that i was implying you didnt know about the crusades. im just used to talking to people who see them as a colossal waste of time (which in many ways they were) and unworthy of study (which ill definitly disagree with). I was just trying to show relatable acts of unbelievable violence in those ages.

Ive been so obsessed with them that I took several months to hike across Asia minor retracing crusader routes in my youth.

by the way, what is your favourite oultremer site? I really enjoyed Castle Pilgrim near tortosa and the stunning Chastel Blanc. Modern Antioch is an unbelievable disappointment.

As for the Otello, I couldve sworn he refered to his "black face" at some point but i havent read it in 15 years or so. im sure you know more than me on it. and i know we dont know to what degree of swarthyness he was refering. i do know that most presenters of the play in modern times make othello sub-saharan which i find much less likely than southern mediteranian.

[Volgadon]

I can see the Horns of Hattin from my window, so I'm rather partial to it, even went camping there once, but my favourite place is Qalat el-Nimrud (Nimrod's Castle). It was actually built as a Muslim fortress, then used for a while by the Assasins, then the Crusaders, and so on. I've always wanted to see Crac de Chevaliers, so close yet so far!

[Volgadon]

I was going to add that what seems to have been most shocking to Muslim observers was that the Crusaders massacred other Christians, IE, their own people.

[Volgadon]

Another favourite historical myth is that Follow the Drinking Gourd was somehow sung by slaves telling them how to escape and find the Underground Railroad. Their masters would have had to have been UNBELIEVABLEY thick not to figure it out.

[Rowan]

Weird but true: Did you know there were alligators in Texas and Louisiana well into the 19th century?

I'm not sure I understand that statement...:confused:

[AuntiePam]

Did Marie Antoinette really say "Let them eat cake", when told that the peasants had no bread? Cecil Adams of The Straight Dope books says no, but do historians agree?

[Susan]

Did Marie Antoinette really say "Let them eat cake", when told that the peasants had no bread? Cecil Adams of The Straight Dope books says no, but do historians agree?

Catherine Delors, author of Mistress of the Revolution, who posts here, addressed this question on her blog: http://blog.catherinedelors.com/2008/03/19/let-them-eat-cake.aspx

[Margaret]

Literally true. There were alligators swimming around in Texas and Louisiana rivers until well into the 19th century. There's no myth around it - it's just a factoid that popped into my head at some earlier point in this thread.

Thanks for the link to Catheriine Delors' post about the "Let them eat cake" myth. Madame Victorine's heartfelt comment about the paté crusts is much funnier - and undoubtedly outraged the populace. One is reminded of the first President Bush's amazement at the concept of scanners in grocery stores.

[gyrehead]

I'm going to be real pedantic here. And really in many ways this is actually an anti-myth myth. Namely that Cleopatra was blonde. Now, I'll allow that she could have been blonde. But it seems like the new trend is for authors to trot out their Wiki knowledge to prove that they know she wasn't black. While her ancestry was Macedonian (Alexander's hair color is mentioned in records in a way that might suggest blonde was not the norm in Macedonia and might have sprung from Olympias's possible Illyrian forebears or at least a more recent wave of northern tribal settlers in Epiros); it was also Persian through Apama, Cappadocian through Cleopatra I and both her mother and her paternal grandmother's provenance are still unknown. But could easily allow Pontic, Nabatean and Parthian blood into the mix.

I know it is silly but it just irks me when authors seem to smugly state how she is blonde because of her Macedonia roots without once looking at the rest of them. At least McCullough took the Pontic bride approach (even if her portrayal of Cleopatra really descended into the realm of ridiculous in Antony and Cleopatra for me).

[Margaret]

I always assumed Cleopatra shaved her head, like other Egyptian royalty, and wore the standard black wig (with the drippy cone of perfumed wax underneath). In that case, I would think her real hair color would be moot!

[Rowan]

Literally true. There were alligators swimming around in Texas and Louisiana rivers until well into the 19th century. There's no myth around it - it's just a factoid that popped into my head at some earlier point in this thread.

But there are still a fair amount around. Not in the big rivers such as the Mississippi or Atchafalaya or Red River, but certainly in the smaller ones even now.

[annis]

This was a while back ,Ash, but I just noticed it
does anyone know if the terms Don and Dona in Spain are from the Hebrew Adonai meaning lord?

Spanish is one of the Romance languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_language), derived from the Latin of the Romans. (For more information on Iberian Romance language variations see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibero-Romance)) Hence don and dona derive from the Latin dominus (male) domina (female)
meaning, lord, master, mistress etc.
Whether there is a semantic root linking the Latin dominus with the Hebrew adonai I don't know, though someone else with a lingustics background might be able to enlighten us.

As a Hebrew speaker, Volgadon might know the answer, though I have a vague thought that the word adonai might have been adapted from the Greek.

[MLE]

I always assumed Cleopatra shaved her head, like other Egyptian royalty, and wore the standard black wig (with the drippy cone of perfumed wax underneath). In that case, I would think her real hair color would be moot!

Were the wig and the wax customs used by the Ptolemies? I was under the impression that they were rather proud of their Greek heritage, and that the Egyptians, as a conquered people, had better get used to it. I've always wondered if all those black-wig depictions of Cleopatra weren't modern interpretations based on paintings from the pre-Ptolomaic era.

There must be contemporary (to her century, that is) depictions of Cleopatra. What do they look like?

[Volgadon]

I thought I addressed it earlier, but adonai is only used to refer to the Lord. Adon means lord or master, there is no feminine equivalent. I don't think that there is a connection between that and don.

Light hair was actually not that unusual in the Near East. Not straw blond but light, sandy hair, with a reddish tint. Moab and Edom were famous for their reddish hair, many ancient Iranians had reddish hair, as did the Turks (not the Mongols) and Armenians say that the ancient hair color was predominantly reddish, black coming in later. The Kurds are also giner-ish.
Lybians had light hair. You would however stick out like a sore thumb in Egypt or Arabia.

[annis]

Sorry, Volgadon, I missed your earlier comment on the subject of adonai .

Another historical myth:

That Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan circumnavigated the world in the sixteenth century.
Problem- during this historic trip, he was killed by natives in the Philippines, therefore he only made it half-way around the world, leaving it to his second-in-command, Juan Sebastian Elcano, to complete the circumnavigation.

True: When Victoria, the expedition's one surviving ship, returned to the harbor of departure after completing the first circumnavigation of the Earth, only 18 men out of the original 237 men were on board.

Re Cleopatra's hair colour- I have seen references to Cleopatra having red or reddish hair, but I haven't actually seen ancient sources which confirm that. It would fit in with Volgadon's comments. The other possiblity is that she might have used henna, as the custom of using henna to redden the hair was already in practice at that time.

[AuntiePam]

Was henna used to change the color or for another reason? Henna adds body and makes hair thicker-looking and easier to control. Maybe the color was a side effect.

Have I started a new myth? Nah. Probably not. :)

[Ash]

I'm going to be real pedantic here. And really in many ways this is actually an anti-myth myth. Namely that Cleopatra was blonde. ).

Thats funny, because I never imagined her as blond.

Thanks for the infor on don, dona. I had heard it from a lecture on Moorish influence on language, and that was an exampler the speaker used. It sounded possible, but my gut was telling me that no, probably not.

[Volgadon]

Considering that the Arabic for lord is different, that would be quite a feat.....

Henna strengthens the roots I think, or something of the sort. More striking too.
Whatever Cleopatra's hair colour, she sure had a pretty nose! =))

[annis]

Yes, that's another mystery - was Cleopatra beautiful or not?
Contemporary descriptions of Cleopatra describe her as being short, slightly overweight, and with a hawk-nose.

Plutarch says her main charm was in her personality and intelligence:
"For her beauty, as we are told, was in itself not altogether incomparable, nor such as to strike those who saw her; but converse with her had an irresistible charm, and her presence, combined with the persuasiveness of her discourse and the character which was somehow diffused about her behaviour towards others, had something stimulating about it. There was sweetness also in the tones of her voice; and her tongue, like an instrument of many strings, she could readily turn to whatever language she pleased..."
Plutarch, Life of Antony (XXVII)

But Cassio Dio says:
"For she was a woman of surpassing beauty, and at that time, when she was in the prime of her youth, she was most striking; she also possessed a most charming voice and a knowledge of how to make herself agreeable to every one. Being brilliant to look upon and to listen to, with the power to subjugate every one, even a love-sated man already past his prime, she thought that it would be in keeping with her rôle to meet Caesar, and she reposed in her beauty all her claims to the throne--" (XLII.34)

Perhaps she was one of those women who have the power of making people believe that they are beautiful, even if they aren't really?

[Volgadon]

It sounds like she wasn't a bad looker at 16 but as she got a bit older her face took on a little too much character to be considered pretty. Short wasn't an issue back then, especially not for Romans (or Egyptians). The Romans weren't ones to talk when it came to the nose department either. I would say that Cleopatra more than made up for a lack of classical beauty with her charm.

[Andromeda_Organa]

It sounds like she wasn't a bad looker at 16 but as she got a bit older her face took on a little too much character to be considered pretty. Short wasn't an issue back then, especially not for Romans (or Egyptians). The Romans weren't ones to talk when it came to the nose department either. I would say that Cleopatra more than made up for a lack of classical beauty with her charm.

I prefer to think of her as beautiful- I've been told I was her in a previous life and I believe it- it explains a lot of things about me!:D

[Margaret]

But there are still a fair amount around. Not in the big rivers such as the Mississippi or Atchafalaya or Red River, but certainly in the smaller ones even now.

Wow, didn't know that! Not in Texas, though, so far as I know - I guess those Wild West guys with their revolvers wiped them out.

Was henna used to change the color or for another reason? Henna adds body and makes hair thicker-looking and easier to control. Maybe the color was a side effect.

I've used henna. It comes in different shades, but the red is the classic shade, and that's what I always used. I did it for the color the first time. I have mouse-brown hair - or did until it started turning gray - but my grandmother had red hair, so I decided I was just bringing out a latent heritage. I've since used the "neutral" henna for its body and shine. Lovely stuff, even if it's messy to use!

There's a couple of pictures of sculptures of Cleopatra at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I rather like the basalt statue. That one looks to me like she's wearing a wig. The head clearly is not.

[annis]

This is an early Roman representation (http://books.google.com/books?id=8dI-XSUO-PcC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=contemporary+descriptions+cleopatra&source=bl&ots=EpgNN7AfQO&sig=Wo3NE9yPt00OgmJVY1uWJ0DsxTk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result) of Cleopatra. Scroll down to page 17. Despite the obvious nose she has an attractive appearance.


The average Roman was quite short- someone like Julius Caesar at around 6 ft was considered unusually tall.

[annis]

In the interesting if slightly off topic category- I only recently discovered that the use of henna was banned in Spain by the Spanish Inquisition . The Edict of Granada in 1526 sought by the strictest measures to eliminate all manifestations of local culture with Moorish overtones including dress, jewellery, Arabic language, medical practices etc.
Both Christians and Moors used and grew Henna from the 9th century AD to 1567 when the Spanish Inquisition banned its use.

[Margaret]

Boy, those Inquisitors had their noses into everything!

[Ash]

And everyone.

This is interesting - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1095043/Sorry-Liz-THIS-real-face-Cleopatra.html

The computer-generated 3D image has been pieced together from images on ancient artefacts

[Misfit]

Interesting Ash, but I have to say the shot of Liz Taylor as Cleo is priceless.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/12/15/article-1095043-015929620000044D-123_468x347.jpg

[annis]

Thanks, Ash and Misfit, I can see her there after looking at some of the images of her around. Liz looks as if she's off to a cocktail party on the Nile, doesnt she? The mixed ethnicity is a touchy subject. There have been relatively recent claims that Cleo might have been black or of mixed heritage, but given the fact that the Ptolemies were so fiercely protective of their bloodline, to the point of constant intermarriage amongst family members, it does seem very unlikely.

[gyrehead]

Were the wig and the wax customs used by the Ptolemies? I was under the impression that they were rather proud of their Greek heritage, and that the Egyptians, as a conquered people, had better get used to it. I've always wondered if all those black-wig depictions of Cleopatra weren't modern interpretations based on paintings from the pre-Ptolomaic era.

There must be contemporary (to her century, that is) depictions of Cleopatra. What do they look like?


One of the problems with the head shaving is that the Egyptians had a habit of portraying their rulers as Pharaoh whether that person actually ever donned the traditional Egyptian regalia. Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II the most striking example. So even if there are images on reliefs or coins that show Cleopatra VII in the double crown we simply do not know if she ever wore it on a regular basis. Or even if she ever wore it. Many authors and even historians like to ascribe a "going native" aspect to her simply because she was polticially savvy enough to ingratiate herself with the Egyptian natives. But how far this went in terms of dress or hair style is simply not known. Considering that Cleopatra clearly had a huge Macedonian court still and was dealing with the incredibly and arrogantly bigoted Romans, it is extremely improbable that she went around dressed in the traditional Egyptian garb to the extent that so many movies and books like to portray her as doing. And while it is clear that her father's mother was not of the royal family and was a mistress at best, it is a huge leap to go from a common Greek woman as mother of bastard children to an Egyptian woman or a woman of sub-Saharan Africa. The ethnocentrism in the Ptolemaic court was probably still rather too strong to allow any real mixing of bloodlines outside the accepted racist attitudes of the time.

[annis]

There's an interesting article here by Eugene A Stovall which gives his argument for a white Cleopatra of Macedonian bloodlines
http://www.authorsden.com/categories/story_top.asp?id=23075&catid=34

One of the more compelling arguments is that no contemporary sources, like Plutarch, mention that she is black. It surely would have been noted as worthy of comment, especially by those who disliked Cleopatra, fearing her influence on Caesar and desire for him to become a king.

[Kveto from Prague]

There's an interesting article here by Eugene A Stovall which gives his argument for a white Cleopatra of Macedonian bloodlines
http://www.authorsden.com/categories/story_top.asp?id=23075&catid=34

One of the more compelling arguments is that no contemporary sources, like Plutarch, mention that she is black. It surely would have been noted as worthy of comment, especially by those who disliked Cleopatra, fearing her influence on Caesar and desire for him to become a king.


nice article, annis. but i did find it interesting that the author uses Hannibal being black as part of his argument. much like cleopatra there is no plethora of evidence as to hannibal being sub-saharan black other than, like cleo, he was born on the continent of africa (of transplanted phonecian decent). In fact, considering the wealth of propaganda that the romans threw against hannibal, none mention that his skin is any different from their own mediteranian cast. you think thats one of the first things theyd sieze upon.

the romans certainly noticed that Hannibals shock troops, his Numidian cavalry, whom he sent on his most dangerous missions, were very dark of skin. but no mention of the man himself.

one wonders what the point of acertaining some ancient persons race is anyway.

[annis]

Hi keny- yes, that puzzled me as well - I haven't actually seen Hannibal described as black anywhere either. Some of these vague "contemporary sources" which get quoted are pretty dodgy. I've never come across those ones which describe Cleopatra as short, dumpy and red-haired for example. As far as I know none of the verifiable sources, like Plutarch, give any definite physical description of her at all.

David Anthony Durham (who wrote about Hannibal in his novel "Pride of Carthage") discusses the subject in his blog here:
http://www.davidanthonydurham.com/blog/2006/01/about-hannibals-race.html

It seems more likely that Hannibal might be of mixed race than Cleopatra.
One thing to remember is that the ancients weren't generally particularly hung up on the subject of skin colour, so in the case of Cleopatra it would be more about keeping the bloodlines Macedonian than any concern about dark skin colour.

[Margaret]

Durham makes a very good point about the American tendency to call a person black if he has any discernible black ancestors at all, vs. the likelihood that any Carthaginian had some black African ancestry as well as Phoenicean, even if their cultural and racial roots were mainly Phoenician.

I couldn't say about Cleopatra, but I know I've seen sculptures of pharaohs and pharaohs' wives in which some of their facial features had distinctly black African characteristics. I think it's very likely there was some mingled ancestry among the pharaonic families. While they did marry sisters, the pharaohs had multiple wives and made some diplomatic marriages to cement alliances, etc. Cleopatra may well have had some black ancestry, even if she was mostly Greek. Regardless of what her actual skin color might have been, that basalt statue of her is quite dark.

[annis]

one wonders what the point of acertaining some ancient persons race is anyway.

keny makes a good point here. Colour wasn't much of an issue for the ancients, it's a modern issue. As David Durham points out in his blog, the pale-skinned Germanic peoples seemed stranger to the Romans than someone with Numidian or Libyan heritage.

[Ash]

one wonders what the point of acertaining some ancient persons race is anyway.

I have wondered that myself.

[annis]

I think that it the fuss is caused by the fact that it would suit certain cultural agendas to identify various famous historical figures as either black or white- probably not a very PC comment to make, but there you are!

Meanwhile, back on the Ptolemies, does anyone remember a historical novel featuring Cleopatra's sister, Arsinoe? I keep having the nagging feeling that I've read one in the past, but can't remember a title or author.

[gyrehead]

I think that it the fuss is caused by the fact that it would suit certain cultural agendas to identify various famous historical figures as either black or white- probably not a very PC comment to make, but there you are!

Yes I can remember there was a lot of anger when the archaeological evidence was released by the Yale-Cambridge group on the strong possibility that North-of-the-Sahara pre-Roman Empire ethnic groups were more Aryan than they were African. There was a strong early eighties movement that insisted Cleopatra was black that was based on the idea to point out that Africa was a rich and strong and vibrant set of cultures and societies long before "white" colonization.

While the later is certainly irrefutable many of the proponents do not like separating Northern Africa from the rest of the continent as they see it diminishing the continent's accomplishments as a whole.

History and archaeology though tend to see Egypt and what was seen as a Gaetulian section of Africa as ethnically separate for some time and later melding much more with the various Asian groups as they expanded and immigrated. One of the best lectures I was privileged to attend at the Cairo Museum on the Hyksos and the Nubian "foreign" dynasties made what I thought was the most apt comparisons. Namely that Egypt and the Numidian regions were more like India in many regards. Isolated by geography they were ethnically a rather distinct peoples in a region (The Mediterreanan) that was very same-same. Which is why culturally there was sometimes seen as a greater remove between say Romans and Carthaginians, or Greeks or PErsians than an ethnic one. Appearance wise there was not a huge difference in skin tone. Records on the Nubians, particularly in how the Egyptians defined and viewed them though strongly suggest that they and the Greeks and later the Romans all did have strong skin tone prejudices. Going by both nineteenth and later twenty fifth dynasty records on, Egyptians clearly saw themselves more in line with the ethnic likes of the Hittities and the Babylonians and Assyrians than they did their sub-Saharan neighbors.

And looking at the reactions Romans and Greeks had towards the northern invasions, it seems equally clear that East versus West was actualy much more politics while North and South were more ethnic. Which is hardly what gets played out here. The Macedonians disdain for Persians seemed more favored status oriented and custom oriented than racial bigotry. Much more wariness and racial fears seem to arise whenever the Illyrians came storming down into the Greek Penisula and the Romans were even worse about the Cimbrii and such.

The lack of any real diatribes beyond Cleopatra not being Roman seems to indicate that her ancestry was identifable as being Greek or Aramaic in origin. We don't know who her mother was or who Auletes' mother was in terms of ethnicity but Cicero and the same patrician class that still viewed Latins as inferior certainly did. I strongly suspect that Cato would have had plenty to say if Cleopatra had black ancestry (in fact as her father is the most damning of her ancestors in her contemporary enemies' eyes, it seems that the rest of her provenance was not only known but also relatively respectable to staid Roman bigots). Simply because the purists of the time did draw distinctions at a time when marrying a Latin state native was allowed but a hurdle and even marrying a Greek was basically surrendering one's birthright. Marrying someone from Asia Minor or any the Eastern states was seen much the same as the Victorian English would have someone going "native". Heck just moving to Athens or to Bithynia was either a huge punishment or a huge social gaffe.

[Kveto from Prague]

I think that it the fuss is caused by the fact that it would suit certain cultural agendas to identify various famous historical figures as either black or white- probably not a very PC comment to make, but there you are!

Meanwhile, back on the Ptolemies, does anyone remember a historical novel featuring Cleopatra's sister, Arsinoe? I keep having the nagging feeling that I've read one in the past, but can't remember a title or author.

i think youve pretty much summed it up there, annis, pc or not. if people are shouting he/she was/wasnt white/black then they obviously have some political/cultural agenda that has little to do with facts or opinions.

the best judges were their contemporaries. if a swarthy skinned writer doesnt make mention of a persons skin colour we can assume their subject was equally swarthy. Romans certainly took note of the skin colours of pale germans and dark nubians.

considering what a hubbub the first sub-saharan african slaves caused in portugal in the 1400s, we can assume people would at least notice/mention skin tones significantly different from their own.

durham does make an interesting point in that "one drop rule" in america. ive seen a lot of black americans who are of much lighter skin tone than many of my Italian in-laws. ive never quite figured it out:-)

cant help you on the cleopatra book, tho. never really been a major area of interest to me. the caesar/cleo/antony angle always seemed overdone to me.

[Ash]

i think youve pretty much summed it up there, annis, pc or not. if people are shouting he/she was/wasnt white/black then they obviously have some political/cultural agenda that has little to do with facts or opinions. .

Heck, there are people now who think Obama is not black enough....Can we say 'more important issues?'

[Volgadon]

I think it is interesting to know what ethnicity someone was, but I don't attach a huge amount of importance to it. BTW excellent post gyrehead.

[Margaret]

I can relate to the desire among black Americans, with their history of slavery and second-class citizenship, to locate some outstanding historical figures who were black. Women like to read about great women rulers, war leaders, and pioneers in various fields of endeavor, because it helps us believe in ourselves. Those of us who grew up before women entered the workplace in large numbers were subtly or overtly indoctrinated to believe women were less capable and intelligent than men, and it's great to find role models who prove it false.

There were some incredible early cities in Africa, but they are poorly preserved because of the climate, and we don't know much about who lived there. Wasn't Jugurtha, the African king defeated by Sulla before he became Emperor of Rome, black? And as mentioned earlier in this thread, Hasdrubal and Hannibal might be mixed-race candidates.

[annis]

Even earlier came the Kushite Pharaohs of Egypt. National Geographic did an article on them some time ago- quite fascinating.
"Black Pharaohs"
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/02/black-pharaohs/robert-draper-text/1

Posted by Volgadon
BTW excellent post gyrehead.
Agreed, very interesting and knowledgeable.

[Andromeda_Organa]

In the interesting if slightly off topic category- I only recently discovered that the use of henna was banned in Spain by the Spanish Inquisition . The Edict of Granada in 1526 sought by the strictest measures to eliminate all manifestations of local culture with Moorish overtones including dress, jewellery, Arabic language, medical practices etc.
Both Christians and Moors used and grew Henna from the 9th century AD to 1567 when the Spanish Inquisition banned its use.
The Inquisition essentially kept Spain in the Middle Ages until the 19th century.

[Jack]

This was a popular topic on the old forum so I thought I would bring it back, especially after this news:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i55z9vq47vnFMeo1MGW-6uT2ZoegD93C4O9O0

LONDON (AP) — The first excavation of Stonehenge in more than 40 years has uncovered evidence that the stone circle drew ailing pilgrims from around Europe for what they believed to be its healing properties, archaeologists said Monday.

"People were in a state of distress, if I can put it as politely as that, when they came to the Stonehenge monument," Darvill told journalists assembled at London's Society of Antiquaries.

He pointed out that experts near Stonehenge have found two skulls that showed evidence of primitive surgery, some of just a few known cases of operations in prehistoric Britain.

"Even today, that's the pretty serious end of medicine," he said. Also found near Stonehenge was the body of a man known as the Amesbury Archer, who had a damaged skull and badly hurt knee and died around the time the stones were being installed. Analysis of the Archer's bones showed he was from the Alps.

The archaeologists managed to date the construction of the stone monument to about 2,300 B.C., a couple of centuries younger than was previously thought.

-------------------------------------

So it's roughly 2,508 years old then. :)

You mean 4,300 years old, right?

[Jack]

Sorry, Volgadon, I missed your earlier comment on the subject of adonai .

Another historical myth:

That Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan circumnavigated the world in the sixteenth century.
Problem- during this historic trip, he was killed by natives in the Philippines, therefore he only made it half-way around the world, leaving it to his second-in-command, Juan Sebastian Elcano, to complete the circumnavigation.

True: When Victoria, the expedition's one surviving ship, returned to the harbor of departure after completing the first circumnavigation of the Earth, only 18 men out of the original 237 men were on board.

Re Cleopatra's hair colour- I have seen references to Cleopatra having red or reddish hair, but I haven't actually seen ancient sources which confirm that. It would fit in with Volgadon's comments. The other possiblity is that she might have used henna, as the custom of using henna to redden the hair was already in practice at that time.



Also true is that one of the 18 who made it was a passenger-as opposed to a sailor or soldier. Antonio Piggafetta went along for the adventure-and fortunately wrote about it. It is the most complete account we have of the voyage.

[Chatterbox]

Volgadon, if you can possibly get to Krak des Chevaliers, do it! It's amazing, you can instantly see exactly why it was so strategic and why it was never taken back, even by Saladin -- it was ultimately abandoned by the Templars. You can probably see for 50 miles or more in any direction.

Re Othello & Africans in London: I'm just now reading Christie Dickason's book about the daughter of James I (Elizabeth of Bohemia); her author's note mentions that Queen Elizabeth had her own blackamoor and that the queen decided to expel black africans in 1596, deciding that there were too many of them around! So Shakespeare could well have seen some, esp. living in London.

Re skin color generally, it seems that what was most striking was the difference to what was known/accepted, rather than ascribing personality traits or intelligence levels to a particular skin color, especially in those early days that were really pre-colonial. No one was going to sneer at an Ottoman ambassador because of his skin color. (Just his religion!) There is a new book by James Reston about the 1521 to 1526 wars between Charles V and Suleiman that I'm about to read, as soon as I finish Andrew Wheatcroft's book about the 17th c siege of Vienna; he seems to deal with Ottomans at the Western courts.

[SarahWoodbury]

On the height issue (way back in one of the earlier posts), my understanding is that it is Victorian era/city dwellers who were so short. Meat protein makes for tall people (just one of those things). There was a study done after WWII, for example, for Japanese people who immigrated to the US. Their children ended up being the same 'average' height as the norm (5' 9"/5' 10"), regardless of the height of the parents. There is obviously a genetic component here, but the nutrition was much poorer during the Industrial Revolution for much of the population.

Thus, in the Middle Ages, wealthy people were taller, given their better nutrition. William the Conqueror was apparently huge. (While his wife was apparently tiny)

Here's just one article I found:
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm

[Kveto from Prague]

I'll throw in the "Napoleon was short" myth. He stood at 5'7'-5'8' which while not giant was cetainly average for the times. the short myth arose from mistranslations of the french system, the fact that he was often seen with his royal gaurd (who were often chosen to look intimidating) and good old fashioned British propaganda

[parthianbow]

That the Romans salted the fields around Carthage after they sacked it.(This was invented by a scholar who wanted to dramatise his account of it.)

That the Ninth Legion 'disappeared' in Scotland. (It disappears from the historical record ca. AD 117, but officers who are known to have served in it keep popping up in later records, giving the lie to its annihilation in Scotland. More likely is that it was annihilated later, about AD 132, in Judaea, I think it was.)

That Roman gladii are all short - until in/around the time of the Civil War, the standard issue sword, the gladius hispaniensis, was much longer than the one seen on virtually every film or TV programme.


Absolutely fantastic thread - gods I love this forum!

[parthianbow]

On the height issue (way back in one of the earlier posts), my understanding is that it is Victorian era/city dwellers who were so short. Meat protein makes for tall people (just one of those things).

Not always meat protein - the Irish peasants of the 19th Century were commonly about 5' 10" - 5' 11" in height. This has been proved from analysis of many skeletons, and is part of the information on display in the fantastic, and moving, Famine Museum in Strokestown, Co. Roscommon, Ireland. If any of you are ever in Ireland, please make the time to visit it - it's amazing.

The peasants' good stature was thanks to their diet of potatoes, butter and milk, which gives carbs, fat and protein. Animal in origin, I know, but not meat! :D

On this line, have any of you read The Law of Dreams by Peter Behrens? It's a stunningly well-written account of the life of a peasant boy in the Irish Famine, and moved me to tears on multiple occasions throughout. I'd rate it as one of the best books I've ever read. (I know, I'm biased because I'm Irish, but it's still a wonderful read.)

[chuck]

My Viking ancestors were not a giant race.....Archaeologist have taken numerous measurements of Viking Grave sites...Average height Viking women 5'2" male 5'7.5" ...I know there were there were exceptions to the rule....But now I know why a short Tony Curtis"The Vikings" and Russ Tamblyn in "The Long Ships" were closer to reality....but they so miscast.....This makes my skin crawl when I read about the Vikings and their very cruel and violent act of the "Blood Eagle" when performed a live victim..... Google "Blood Eagle" ....for a vivid description....

[Volgadon]

Volgadon, if you can possibly get to Krak des Chevaliers, do it! It's amazing, you can instantly see exactly why it was so strategic and why it was never taken back, even by Saladin -- it was ultimately abandoned by the Templars. You can probably see for 50 miles or more in any direction.

Re Othello & Africans in London: I'm just now reading Christie Dickason's book about the daughter of James I (Elizabeth of Bohemia); her author's note mentions that Queen Elizabeth had her own blackamoor and that the queen decided to expel black africans in 1596, deciding that there were too many of them around! So Shakespeare could well have seen some, esp. living in London.

Re skin color generally, it seems that what was most striking was the difference to what was known/accepted, rather than ascribing personality traits or intelligence levels to a particular skin color, especially in those early days that were really pre-colonial. No one was going to sneer at an Ottoman ambassador because of his skin color. (Just his religion!) There is a new book by James Reston about the 1521 to 1526 wars between Charles V and Suleiman that I'm about to read, as soon as I finish Andrew Wheatcroft's book about the 17th c siege of Vienna; he seems to deal with Ottomans at the Western courts.

Visiting Krak des Chevaliers is a childhood dream of mine, unfortunately, it lies in Syria. I'm Israeli, so that is out of the question.

[Volgadon]

That the Romans salted the fields around Carthage after they sacked it.(This was invented by a scholar who wanted to dramatise his account of it.)

That the Ninth Legion 'disappeared' in Scotland. (It disappears from the historical record ca. AD 117, but officers who are known to have served in it keep popping up in later records, giving the lie to its annihilation in Scotland. More likely is that it was annihilated later, about AD 132, in Judaea, I think it was.)

That Roman gladii are all short - until in/around the time of the Civil War, the standard issue sword, the gladius hispaniensis, was much longer than the one seen on virtually every film or TV programme.


Absolutely fantastic thread - gods I love this forum!

I have an article in a collection of essays with some relevance to the Bar Kokhba revolt which mentions the 9th. The article is based on inscriptions found in Syria, Jordan and Israel.

Gladii are rather similar to the caucasian kinjal (or should that be the other way round) they are pretty long for a 'dagger'.

[Miss Moppet]

I'll throw in the "Napoleon was short" myth. He stood at 5'7'-5'8' which while not giant was cetainly average for the times. the short myth arose from mistranslations of the french system, the fact that he was often seen with his royal gaurd (who were often chosen to look intimidating) and good old fashioned British propaganda

And I'll throw in the "Louis XIV was short" myth. The primary sources describe him as medium height or tall. The story may have started with some apocryphal memoirs supposedly by one of his mistresses, Madame de Montespan, which appeared in the early C19. They were actually very well written and some scholars are still fooled by them. Anyway, it says in there that he started the fashion of wearing high heels to look taller, which isn't true - all men wore high heels at this time, and nobles wore red heels. Francoise Chandernagor addresses the question in her notes to her novel [I]The King's Way[I] but AFAIK no one else has.

Not possible to measure him unfortunately, as the royal tombs at Saint-Denis were desecrated during the Revolution and all the dead royals thrown into a pit. They were reburied later, but all mixed up together so no one knows whose bones are whose. So ironically among the few members of the royal family to have their own graves at Saint Denis are Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.

[chuck]

Not a historical myth question.... While watching the new "Mad Men" series on AMC....a character from the UK was discussing the "London Fog" raincoat account,and he mention it was odd term for a coat label because there is no such London fog....He said 'It's the coal burning pollution".....Anyway it got me to thinking about Dickens and Doyle's foggy London towne?????

[parthianbow]

Hi Chuck
Interesting post. I immediately thought of the 1952 'fog' which killed thousands of people, and was caused by coal pollution 'fog'. I then thought that the 19th Century 'fog' had to be the same thing. Looks like it was:

http://www.icons.org.uk/nom/nominations/london-fog

[Miss Moppet]

Hi Chuck
Interesting post. I immediately thought of the 1952 'fog' which killed thousands of people, and was caused by coal pollution 'fog'. I then thought that the 19th Century 'fog' had to be the same thing. Looks like it was:

http://www.icons.org.uk/nom/nominations/london-fog

Yes it was. It was called 'smog' because it was a combination of smoke and fog and was a post-Industrial Revolution phenomenon. So many people died of respiratory problems due to the smog in 1952 that they had to do something and so introduced the Clean Air Act in 1956, which solved the problem. There are lots of descriptions of smog in fiction and occasionally it gets used as a plot device - sometimes anachronistically like in Agatha Christie's At Bertram's Hotel, which was published in 1965, yet includes a smog episode.