Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

history is written by the victors?

Scroll to see replies

Of course. You only have to mention that perhaps Hiroshima was a bad thing and you'll see the extent to which people still cling to wartime anti-japanese propaganda (and that Hiroshima gets so much attention in of itself is very western - the war in China was the most brutal in history, killing more civilians than the holocaust, yet i doubt 10% of the population have heard of the Rape of Naking).

Reply 21

BroNathanael

Yes like how WW2 only focuses on crimes of the Nazi's and never the other side.Or how the deadliest war in history has become a phony episode of Jewish suffrage with the Holohoax.

Reply 22

DaniilKaya

Original post by HolocaustHogwash

WW2 would be a great example after all Nazi's were unfairly found guilty of crimes that later were found out to be committed by the Soviet Jewnion.Poltiical corectness can play a huge roll on spinning history. History has a very Jewish narrative, that is apart from what we see Jews in Israel doing the Jews don't have a crime to their name do they? that's because it's "anti-semetic" to say Jews were hugely involved in the slave trade, or even ask an important question what did Jews do to the Germans?

Bourgeoisie

Reply 23

TheHistorian19

In general, popular and public history is written and largely shaped by victors. However academically this statement would be wrong and revisionists love to go against a popular strand of thought. For example up untill the 19th and 20th centuries the popular view of Mary I of England and Charles I (to name but two examples) is to suggest they were - basically - crap monarchs. However revisionism in the 1960s and onwards often looks through the perception which clouds reality and proves otherwise; for instance Charles' 'personal reign' was very successful untill he meddled and became indecisive in Scotland - for this his 'personal rule' has been termed the "eleven years tyranny", but it wasn't.

Reply 24

the bear

Original post by the north

to what extent is this true?

it is very true. for example all we know of the British Druids is the reports of how the Romans beat them in battle and eventually exterminated them in Anglesey.

Reply 25

Ttank

Original post by the north

to what extent is this true?

It's 100% true. It defies common sense for it not to be true.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 26

TheHistorian19

Original post by the bear

it is very true. for example all we know of the British Druids is the reports of how the Romans beat them in battle and eventually exterminated them in Anglesey.

This doesn't prove that history is written by the victors it just proves that their are a limited number of sources for this topic that have survived, and the ones that we have remaining are limited and biased. Who knows in 20 years historians might stumble upon documents by the Druids which shed new light on the topic

Reply 27

TheHistorian19

Original post by Ttank

It's 100% true. It defies common sense for it not to be true.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Debatable. If history is written by the victors why do we have such a positive and wealth of Information regarding the Roman Empire for example, despite that the Visigoths were victorious over Rome.

Reply 28

the bear

Original post by TheHistorian19

well you could say that for any example... Who knows in 20 years historians might stumble upon documents by the Coal Miners which shed new light on the Battle of Orgreave.

Reply 29

TheHistorian19

Original post by the bear

well you could say that for any example... Who knows in 20 years historians might stumble upon documents by the Coal Miners which shed new light on the Battle of Orgreave.

True. But the point that I'm trying to cross is that history isn't written by the victors but by the range of sources available. It could be that it is both unfortunate and a convienance that the only material for the Druids are written by the Romans - it doesn't necessarily mean that it is victor history though. For example for Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus of the Roman Republic I belive the only source material comes from Appian of Alexandria, and without Appian we wouldn't know about them - this no matter of victory is involved. We would have a very skewed and propaganda based view of Augustus if it wasn't for his critic Tacitus and other surviving 3rd century chroniclers such as Cassius Dio. Topics which are often more closer to our time, and thus often have a range of material are significantly more likely to have a balanced view involving no victor element.

Reply 30

moment of truth

How objective is history if it is all written from one perspective?

Reply 31

username931319

Relatively. Or should I say, it's not as diaphanous as a simple yes or no. Most things have since past the 16th century been quantified and substantiated by multiple sources, and the actors involved in said documentary at least tempted objectivity. Earlier sources have to be given more attention for if they inserted apothogem or slander, though from what we know of most chroniclers and "historians" they were strict adherents to objectivity for the sake of knowledge rather than gain. Also a lot of the earlier and ancient material is illuminated via archeology, historical ledger etc etc - all in all, it's not a perfect craft nor anywhere near as bad as detractors claim.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 32

Kallisto

Entertainment Forum Helper

Original post by the north

to what extent is this true?

Without a doubt the great battles and wars in history are written by victors, but there are some other parts of human history which are written by people themselves.

Reply 33

TheHistorian19

Original post by Kallisto

Without a doubt the great battles and wars in history are written by victors, but there are some other parts of human history which are written by people themselves.

Incorrect. For the battle of Agincourt the most used primary accounts were written by Monstrelet and Le Fevre - both French men, i.e not victors. This is to name one example, I could name countless others for you though.

Reply 34

hamix.forllz

Original post by TheHistorian19

Debatable. If history is written by the victors why do we have such a positive and wealth of Information regarding the Roman Empire for example, despite that the Visigoths were victorious over Rome.

Because Trajan, Augustus, Marcus Aurelius and Hadrian did good things for the Empire?

Reply 35

TheHistorian19

Original post by hamix.forllz

Because Trajan, Augustus, Marcus Aurelius and Hadrian did good things for the Empire?

They also did bad things. I don't see you point? History exists without a 'victor dimension' and to a very significant extent.

Reply 36

hamix.forllz

Original post by TheHistorian19

They also did bad things. I don't see you point? History exists without a 'victor dimension' and to a very significant extent.

Bad things like what? You had said that the barbarians would have discredited them. Kind of hard when they made monuments that still exist, books millions have read after they died, or made the Empire the largest ever in its history, so they'd have no incentive to do so.

Reply 37

hamix.forllz

Original post by MrAngel

Of course just look how they cover up all the rapes/murders of the British empire...

Expect the genocide of Australian Aboriginies is common knowledge, as are famine in India and Ireland.....and even bad stuff against white colonists in the American colonies...

Reply 38

Josb

Original post by TheHistorian19

Debatable. If history is written by the victors why do we have such a positive and wealth of Information regarding the Roman Empire for example, despite that the Visigoths were victorious over Rome.