Contradiction History

[Spoofs3]

This is for all the matters of History that have contradictions, That DO have relevant sides to fight for, And CAN be argued against anf For (So this means no topics like Holocaust did not happen... Not really an Option)

But I believe I started this because in the Kings, Queens thread, Fared and I got really more into a discussion on Ireland and its History with Britain.

Thread can change onto other options but lets just let the first come first served come in with the History of whatever, See what peoples views and stances are on it because of the books created where they are from


CURRENT TOPICS:
1.

[Fat1Fared]

Spoofs, I like this as thread, and will be interesting to see some of things which come up

and will answer this here:-

ACTUALLY now, you got some reasons, right, The main reason was the War with Germany and they needed Ireland to stay within their power. And no, They NEVER gave homerule, This is not a mistake because as soon as the bill was passed, World War I broke out, They couldn't afford to give homerule.
And the Army mutiny?
non existant...
The Army within Ireland was British, Mostly British.
The Irish really weren't part of the army.
I believe what you MEAN is the protests against home Rule.
Which were organized by... Unionists...
And the Irish were not offered up in World War I and Conscription which was forced on all Britisha reas was not on ireland... Due to...
Unionists,
Unionists hated Home Rule, And defied it with a passion. We had no mutiny at any time until 1916 :P

(Ok, This is becoming useless, so NEW THREAD)


Also, Yeah, Kings are not that great, From all the history, They were gotten rid of, And amazingly, That does not say much about them :P

NO, spoofs, everything in there is right, I can assure you. The bill was passed and then ignored basically, lol (The British didn't mind losing Ireland, as new Ireland would stay as Ally, and they knew about war with Germany, for years, infact they were pushing for it, lot more than German's)

Yes, I know it was british army, and that is the army I was on about. This was army which refused to leave Ireland, the officers in charge, believed that allowing Ireland to leave, was wrong, and against Britain, so they refused to obey their orders, this meant, that A Britain, which was facing biggest war of its history (though didn't realise this fully at time,) was in a differcult position, and had threes choices, try appease both its army and Ireland, allow wishes of Ireland and force its own army out (losing men they couldn't afford to lose) or allow wishes of its Army, and force Ireland to stay (meaning probably, have rebellion on their hands)

It went with first one, and sadly, it ended failing for numbers reasons, I stated eariler:-The reason, you probably don't know about the Army being the reason (as Ireland, agreed to help Britain, in war with Germany, if it was allowed home rule and so that wasn't reason, like most think) is because basically is was ambushing moment for Britain, who tried to cover it up (They couldn't allow Germans to know, our OFFICERS were disobeying orders)

Another one, is that many think WW1 was cause of woman getting vote, it wasn't, infact WW1 delayed that getting passed, but the bill was already written up and ready, to go, just had to wait till after war, before got offically passed

[Fat1Fared]

Even if that happened,we've been developing whatever a couple of centuries earlier,and you have to admit it.Greeks are not Romans,and we've never destroyed other's history and culture.Even with the Alexander the Great,we didn't cause any cultural or history distruction.

-Well the Greeks were ahead of most in terms of histircal social deveoplement, but then we could say they were still behind the Chinese and in terms of global movement, the Dutch (yes the Dutch, were great tavels and half the world the british claimed to have found, was found many years before by dutch, just we moved there, they traded)

-And sadly this is wrong, you have may wish to defend your countries actions, but fact is every county, changes it own history and histories of others, in order to justife their own actions and destroy others, a briliant example, being one I made with Romans, making the English and walsh, out to be mindless savages, when infact they had very advanced soicety, but Romans, wanted to take over land so made out us out to be barbircans, which needed to be civilised:-We did same thing to Irish, many years later:-(The irony, we learnt from them really well it seems)

-Now, the Greek's are strange one, as they were not a country, par-say for many years and so lot of their, history involves city states, however when likes of Alexandra the Great took over another country, their would have been changes and even lies, in it, (based on interpretation and justifican of different actions)
=Now I don't know enough Greek History to say what was what, so won't bother, but one thing do know, is that there is differences even in their inturnal stories like the one where Atherns defeated the Pussria's (not 300 story lol) where Spartians claim,they were asked for help and Athan's claim didn't ask for help, now this is merely small change and mostly to do with Pride, but it shows even here, there is Differential facts in your history, it cannot, be helped as people who write history have own bais and so change it to suite that bais

-As for Cultural destruction, well that when you enter a country and take control, whether mean to or not, you change their culture, I'm sorry to say, as they now follow your rules, not their own

[Tourniquet]

-Well the Greeks were ahead of most in terms of histircal social deveoplement, but then we could say they were still behind the Chinese and in terms of global movement, the Dutch (yes the Dutch, were great tavels and half the world the british claimed to have found, was found many years before by dutch, just we moved there, they traded)

-And sadly this is wrong, you have may wish to defend your countries actions, but fact is every county, changes it own history and histories of others, in order to justife their own actions and destroy others, a briliant example, being one I made with Romans, making the English and walsh, out to be mindless savages, when infact they had very advanced soicety, but Romans, wanted to take over land so made out us out to be barbircans, which needed to be civilised:-We did same thing to Irish, many years later:-(The irony, we learnt from them really well it seems)

-Now, the Greek's are strange one, as they were not a country, par-say for many years and so lot of their, history involves city states, however when likes of Alexandra the Great took over another country, their would have been changes and even lies, in it, (based on interpretation and justifican of different actions)
=Now I don't know enough Greek History to say what was what, so won't bother, but one thing do know, is that there is differences even in their inturnal stories like the one where Atherns defeated the Pussria's (not 300 story lol) where Spartians claim,they were asked for help and Athan's claim didn't ask for help, now this is merely small change and mostly to do with Pride, but it shows even here, there is Differential facts in your history, it cannot, be helped as people who write history have own bais and so change it to suite that bais

-As for Cultural destruction, well that when you enter a country and take control, whether mean to or not, you change their culture, I'm sorry to say, as they now follow your rules, not their own
WELL,LEARN THAT WE'VE BEEN AHEAD OF ANY OTHER CULTURE AT TRAVELLING AND DISCOVERING THINGS,THE CHINEESE WERE LIMITED AND THE DUTCHES DIDN'T EVEN APPEAR WHEN WE'VE BEEN RULLING THE SEAS OF THE MEDITERANIAN!PLUS,THERE ARE SOURCES THAT SAY THAT WE'VE EVEN REACHED IN AMERICA.THE SURE THING IS,THAT WE'VE BEEN REACHED INDIA.
AS FOR WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES DO,I'M TELLING YOU WE'RE NOT LIKE THE OTHERS.WE'VE BEEN ALWAYS DEFENDING OURSELVES FROM BEING CONQUERED BY OTHERS.REMEMBER THAT HERODOTES,ZENOPHON AND THOUKIDIDIS NEVER LIED,AND WERE ALWAYS TRYING TO WRITE THE TRUE ABOUT WHATEVER HAPPENED.WE WEREN'T SO SELFISH TO WRITE ONLY HTE THINGS WE WANTED TO SHOW TO OTHERS,NEITHER NOT BEING REFERING TO THE OTHER'S BENEFITS AND GOOD POINTS.WE'VE BEEN ALWAYS OBJECTIVE.
THE GREAT ALEXANDER(NOT ALEXANDRA,HE WASN'T GAY,SOME PEOPLE WANT TO SAY HE WAS BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T STAND HOW GREAT HIS PERSONALITY AND DEED WAS) DID THE GREAT CAMPAING IN ORDER TO GET REVENGE OF THE PERSIAN KING.HE DID NOT DESTROY ANYTHING OF THEIR CULTURE OR HISTORY.HE SHOWED RESPECT TO THEM,HE DIDN'T FORCE THEM TO FOLLOW THE GREEK GODS OR WHATEVER ELSE.PLUS,HE'S BEEN TELLING HIS SOLDIERS TO MARRY PERSIAN WOMEN.WHATEVER HE DID WAS ONLY FOR PROVIDING THE GREEK CULTURE,NOTHING MORE,NOTHING LESS.
HE DIDN'T CHANGE THEIR CULTURE!AND YOU OR YOUR PEOPLE WHO TRANSLATE WHATEVER THEY WANT(VATICAN PAR EXAMPLE,WHO TOOK EVERYTHING FROM THE BYZANTIUM'S LIBRARY AFTER BEING DESTROYED)
DIDN'T WANT THE OTHERS TO LEARN ABOUT THE PAST OR WHATEVER.SO,THEY FORGED HISTORY STUFF IN ORDER TO PROVE THEY'RE THE ONES!

Now I don't know enough Greek History to say what was what, so won't bother, but one thing do know, is that there is differences even in their inturnal stories like the one where Atherns defeated the Pussria's (not 300 story lol) where Spartians claim,they were asked for help and Athan's claim didn't ask for help, now this is merely small change and mostly to do with Pride, but it shows even here, there is Differential facts in your history, it cannot, be helped as people who write history have own bais and so change it to suite that bais
THIS IS ENOUGH FOR NOT GETTING INVOLVED WITH IT.I'VE BEEN LEARNING THE GREEK HISTORY FOR 8 YEARS,SO,I KNOW MORE ABOUT IT.ATHENS DIDN'T HELPED SPARTA BECAUSE ,EARLIER,IN THE MARATHON'S FIGHT,ATHENS WAS THE FIRST TO ASK HELP FROM SPATA IN ORDER TO DEFEND AGAINST PERSIA.SPARTIANS DIDN'T HELP ATHENS.THEY REACHED AT THE MARATHON WHEN THE FIGHT HAS BEEN OVER AND ATHENS HAD BEATED THE PERSIANS.
SO,IN FACTS YOU DON'T KNOW,DO NOT GET INVOLVED.

[grimfang999]

tourniquet, this argument is ruled out by two reasons:

1. thats what they wanted people to think

2. the history is so ancient compared to englands most documents of evidence against the agreed writen history that wasnt burned have disappeared due to them never being copied or released. in the past thousend years its easier to find evidence of falsebound history, since the documents were written are younger and with more permenency, even if most were burned that still makes it easier to see the alternatives.

of course you know the facts of your history, and perhaps so those wre the basic outlines. behind that there might have been many complexions and accusations and losses which would have damaged greek pride, so they were erased.

take Alexander the Great as a possable alternative issue, while we all respect him greatly, from a different source aside from the books, a soldier working under his comand may have seen him as a bloodthirsty barbarian, not a wise, practical commander

[Tourniquet]

tourniquet, this argument is ruled out by two reasons:

1. thats what they wanted people to think

2. the history is so ancient compared to englands most documents of evidence against the agreed writen history that wasnt burned have disappeared due to them never being copied or released. in the past thousend years its easier to find evidence of falsebound history, since the documents were written are younger and with more permenency, even if most were burned that still makes it easier to see the alternatives.

of course you know the facts of your history, and perhaps so those wre the basic outlines. behind that there might have been many complexions and accusations and losses which would have damaged greek pride, so they were erased.

take Alexander the Great as a possable alternative issue, while we all respect him greatly, from a different source aside from the books, a soldier working under his comand may have seen him as a bloodthirsty barbarian, not a wise, practical commander
I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH YOU,BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS YOU DON'T KNOW,THAT I DO!STOP TRYING TO SAY THAT MY COUNTRIES HISTORY IS NOT TRUSTFULL.IT'S YOURS COUNTRY'S HISTORY WHO'S NOT TRUSTFULL,BECAUSE THE KING AND THE QUEEN WERE ALWAYS ERASING THEIR BAD MOMENTS.IN GREECE,THIS THING HAS NEVER HAPPENED.PLUS,THE ARCHEOLOGISTS THAT WORKED AND FOUND ALL OF GREEKS HISTORICAL MOMENTS,WEREN'T ALL GREEK.THEY'VE BEEN MORE OF BRITISH PEOPLE.SO,YOU HAVE TO ADMIT THAT WHATEVER HAPPENED,NO MATTER HOW ANCIENT GREEK'S HISTORY IS,IS TRUE,BECAUSE ALL THE ARCHEOLOGISTS AGREED AT THEIR DISCOVERIES!THIS IS WHY IT IS NOT WHAT THEY WANT PEOPLE TO THINK.AND,WHATEVER DAMAGED THE GREEK PRIDE,IF IT DID,IT'S BEEN WRITTEN.WE NEVER HIDE THE TRUTH!AND YOU CANNOT TAKE ALEXANDER THE GREAT AS A BARBARIC MAN,BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW HOW HIS BEHAVIOUR WAS WITH HIS SOLDIERS.YOU CANNOT GUESS,YOU WEREN'T ALIVE THEN TO WITNESS IT.AND,FOR THE LAST TIME,STOP BEING INVOLVED TO THINGS YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT!

[grimfang999]

i was only saying about Alexander hypotheticly, since i have no actual sources. please stop shouting as well, its hard to read.

i have never denied that britains history is flawed. the archeologists can agree on something yes, but beause they were not there at the time, they do not know what it was like except from their limited sources.

i do admit i admire your patriotism, i sometimes become like that myself. but put it aside in this, it clouds your judgement. ill leave you to figure it out, think it over tonight and tomorrow and come back once your mind has been cleared from your patriocy and have considered it over

[Fat1Fared]

I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH YOU,BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS YOU DON'T KNOW,THAT I DO!STOP TRYING TO SAY THAT MY COUNTRIES HISTORY IS NOT TRUSTFULL.IT'S YOURS COUNTRY'S HISTORY WHO'S NOT TRUSTFULL,BECAUSE THE KING AND THE QUEEN WERE ALWAYS ERASING THEIR BAD MOMENTS.IN GREECE,THIS THING HAS NEVER HAPPENED.PLUS,THE ARCHEOLOGISTS THAT WORKED AND FOUND ALL OF GREEKS HISTORICAL MOMENTS,WEREN'T ALL GREEK.THEY'VE BEEN MORE OF BRITISH PEOPLE.SO,YOU HAVE TO ADMIT THAT WHATEVER HAPPENED,NO MATTER HOW ANCIENT GREEK'S HISTORY IS,IS TRUE,BECAUSE ALL THE ARCHEOLOGISTS AGREED AT THEIR DISCOVERIES!THIS IS WHY IT IS NOT WHAT THEY WANT PEOPLE TO THINK.AND,WHATEVER DAMAGED THE GREEK PRIDE,IF IT DID,IT'S BEEN WRITTEN.WE NEVER HIDE THE TRUTH!AND YOU CANNOT TAKE ALEXANDER THE GREAT AS A BARBARIC MAN,BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW HOW HIS BEHAVIOUR WAS WITH HIS SOLDIERS.YOU CANNOT GUESS,YOU WEREN'T ALIVE THEN TO WITNESS IT.AND,FOR THE LAST TIME,STOP BEING INVOLVED TO THINGS YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT!

Now I have already said my problems with history, I just wanted to show you that you have proved my point here, you have been tort that England is place of Mindless Kingship, when infact, we got rid of our Royal Familes power before 90% of rest of world and we have had the 4th oldest Parliement in European history, behind only Greeks, Romans and one other I cannot remember, but this shows it, everyone lies about us and our royal family, who get blamed for lot of things they never even had power to do, let actually do it in reality, after 1670, our royal family, couldn't even take wee without Parliement saying could:-Here is lie in history, which everyone but those who learn about it, think is fact, and now if someothing which is so clearly wrong can be made out to be right, surely this proves how easy it is to change

-Now, you have been tort in Greek Schools by Greek Sources that this is true, however I suspect that the countries you controlled would have felt differently and as for Achologicaly, well like I said before, according to that, we were invaded by Anglo-Saxsons, that has now been proven to be scienfically and Achologically false, (genetic's show that less than 1 in 9 of us, have Anglo-Saxson genetic's and the from this looking at Achological evidence was looked at again and now seems to say agree with this,

And now like Grim, I will let you think on it

[Tourniquet]

Now I have already said my problems with history, I just wanted to show you that you have proved my point here, you have been tort that England is place of Mindless Kingship, when infact, we got rid of our Royal Familes power before 90% of rest of world and we have had the 4th oldest Parliement in European history, behind only Greeks, Romans and one other I cannot remember, but this shows it, everyone lies about us and our royal family, who get blamed for lot of things they never even had power to do, let actually do it in reality, after 1670, our royal family, couldn't even take wee without Parliement saying could:-Here is lie in history, which everyone but those who learn about it, think is fact, and now if someothing which is so clearly wrong can be made out to be right, surely this proves how easy it is to change

-Now, you have been tort in Greek Schools by Greek Sources that this is true, however I suspect that the countries you controlled would have felt differently and as for Achologicaly, well like I said before, according to that, we were invaded by Anglo-Saxsons, that has now been proven to be scienfically and Achologically false, (genetic's show that less than 1 in 9 of us, have Anglo-Saxson genetic's and the from this looking at Achological evidence was looked at again and now seems to say agree with this,

And now like Grim, I will let you think on it
NO,IT DIDN'T HAPPENED.YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ANCIENT HISTORY AND PARLIAMENT,WE'VE BEEN EXCISTING BEFORE 4000 B.C.THAT'S WHAT RECENT SOURCES AND DISCOVERIES HAS PROVED.AND IT'S NOT ARCHOLOGICAL FAULT.IT'S JUST THAT YOUR PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO LET THE OTHERS SEE THE TRUTH BECAUSE IT HURTS THE ENGLISH PEOPLE.AND WE'VE NEVER CONTROLLED ANY COUNTRIES WITH ANTI-HUMAN METHODS.
everyone lies about us and our royal family
I DON'T THINK SO.
genetic's show that less than 1 in 9 of us, have Anglo-Saxson genetic's and the from this looking at Achological evidence was looked at again
THAT'S DUE TO ANAMIXIS STUFF THAT'S BEEN THE LATEST YEARS IN BRITAIN.
PLUS,I DON'T THINK THAT EVERYONE WOULD DOUBT REAL FACTS THAT HAPPENED IN ENGLAND.
AND,TELL ME,IF ALL THESE ARE REAL,WHY DID THE ENGLISH ONE STOLE THE PARTHENON'S STATUES,AND REFUSE TO GIVE THEM BACK?????
THAT'S BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PROVE THAT THE WRONG IS THE RIGHT.THAT'S WHY!

[Tourniquet]

i was only saying about Alexander hypotheticly, since i have no actual sources. please stop shouting as well, its hard to read.

i have never denied that britains history is flawed. the archeologists can agree on something yes, but beause they were not there at the time, they do not know what it was like except from their limited sources.

i do admit i admire your patriotism, i sometimes become like that myself. but put it aside in this, it clouds your judgement. ill leave you to figure it out, think it over tonight and tomorrow and come back once your mind has been cleared from your patriocy and have considered it over
IT'S NOT CLOUDING MY JUDGEMENTIT'S NOT MY PATRIOTISM EITHER.THE FACT THAT I'M SHOUTING PROVES I'M RIGHT.BECAUSE,IF YOU HAVE NOTICED,THE ONES THAT ARE RIGHT ARE SHOUTING.SAME THING AT COURTS TOO,BECAUSE I'VE HEARD THAT YOU'LL BECOME A LAWYER.AND,GREEK SOURCES ARE NOT LIMITED.THEY'RE SOM MANY YOU CANNOT IMAGINE!

[grimfang999]

no more have i thought to be a lawyer, since they lie too much, and i do not lie. if you shout, then you just prove that when people shout loud when they want to act smart, talk normal and you will find it easier to argue if you remain calm rather than getting angry. im a philosopher more than a lawyer believe it or not (ironic since greece has many ancient philosophers). even at court, those who maintain a calm mind can channel their arguments into a more fluent and convincing explanation, one who becomes angry will not be convincing

numbers indeed increase reliability, but most are from greece themselves. the public were only given the basic details and the ones with power covered what they didnt want people to know, leaving a couple of mishaps open to make it less obvious that it was bias. like i said before also, if anybody were to make a source contradicting the story that the government had planned to make history, it was burned and the person arrested or executed, publicly or privately

[Tourniquet]

I keep telling you that the ones that are right are shouting,because they are right.If you talk calmy when they have killed your kid,nobody will believe that that kid was yours.As for the smart act,I didn't shout to show if I'm smart or not.
You think you're a philosopher and that it's ironic for Greece.But bare that in mind.Greece has still an amount of philosophers.Plus,at some points you're wrong,because you're missing some parts in the excitement that you have think of something great.And this is a huge mistake you're making.You keep avoiding the circumstances.You think only of the theory part of something and you're not moving to action.Ancient Greek philosophers moved to action,they've been making real their thoughts and theories.And,I know this is going to sound racist,but I can't accept you of being a philosopher,no matter how smart you are.You're missing the expierence,that's the most useful part.Being a philosopher doesn't contains only mind skills and high leveled IQ.(It's been proved that EQ is the right one.)It contains experience in most of it.

[grimfang999]

well actually i was saying its ironic that im arguing against greece here and yet most of the greatest philosophers actually were greek.

i dont take it as racist dont worry, but if you want to see a couple of my little ideas i figured out myself to show the existence of a supreme being. i have alredy told my religious education teacher about them.when i talked to her about if i take it for A level (thats the course after the compulsory GCSEs that we must take) if philosophy is done, which it was. when she handed me the final paper for that A level exam and the did go exist question was there, i said two of my little theorys and i could easily tell she was impressed.

with the killed little kid, its the lawyer thats defending the parents that needs to remain calm, while he is most likely in this occurence telling the truth or the truth as he knows it, since if you dont know the truth because you have been lied to then it is not lieing if you yourself say it, just an act out of being ignorent. my point is while the layer needs to show sympathy he also needs to stay level headed to get the point accross, the parents and family need to sow their sorrow to be believed, otherwise they may be accused of being neglectful parents and may be accussed of that offense regardless of whether the accused is found guilty and arrested or not.

[Tourniquet]

well actually i was saying its ironic that im arguing against greece here and yet most of the greatest philosophers actually were greek.

i dont take it as racist dont worry, but if you want to see a couple of my little ideas i figured out myself to show the existence of a supreme being. i have alredy told my religious education teacher about them.when i talked to her about if i take it for A level (thats the course after the compulsory GCSEs that we must take) if philosophy is done, which it was. when she handed me the final paper for that A level exam and the did go exist question was there, i said two of my little theorys and i could easily tell she was impressed.

with the killed little kid, its the lawyer thats defending the parents that needs to remain calm, while he is most likely in this occurence telling the truth or the truth as he knows it, since if you dont know the truth because you have been lied to then it is not lieing if you yourself say it, just an act out of being ignorent. my point is while the layer needs to show sympathy he also needs to stay level headed to get the point accross, the parents and family need to sow their sorrow to be believed, otherwise they may be accused of being neglectful parents and may be accussed of that offense regardless of whether the accused is found guilty and arrested or not.
Well,I believe that there are a couple of theories about God.But,I believe most of them the one that the Bible has.And I find it right and logical as well.And,for the lawyer and the kid,the parents cannot be calm,because they've lost their child and that fact alone makes them aggressive and depressingly sad.

[grimfang999]

and with the child and the parents, thats exactly my point

and in my debate i used a part from the bible as evidence that god could have created the universe. my theorys of god point to him as the creator and guide, as does the bible, but at the same time there might be a few differnces.

anyways this is getting off topic

[Tourniquet]

and with the child and the parents, thats exactly my point

and in my debate i used a part from the bible as evidence that god could have created the universe. my theorys of god point to him as the creator and guide, as does the bible, but at the same time there might be a few differnces.

anyways this is getting off topic
You're right,and you'll be surprised by the result on that Tournament!^.^

[Fat1Fared]

NO,IT DIDN'T HAPPENED.YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ANCIENT HISTORY AND PARLIAMENT,WE'VE BEEN EXCISTING BEFORE 4000 B.C.THAT'S WHAT RECENT SOURCES AND DISCOVERIES HAS PROVED.AND IT'S NOT ARCHOLOGICAL FAULT.IT'S JUST THAT YOUR PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO LET THE OTHERS SEE THE TRUTH BECAUSE IT HURTS THE ENGLISH PEOPLE.AND WE'VE NEVER CONTROLLED ANY COUNTRIES WITH ANTI-HUMAN METHODS.


Now, on the first, part, it shows a foolish arrogence to believe that just because we we're not as "advanced" as you, we had no history and again proves my point, that the history you will be tort will be bais in your favor, in same way I was tort history which is bais in my cultures favor.

-As for Parliment, I said we wer behind you, but our parliment, started in 1200 and though I have no problem admiting that lot of it would be based on ideals formed in your county, I'm not quite sure if your saying that somehow your history being good has negative effect on us, it doesn't, we have lots of problems in our history and to be honest, the fact, you got to be "advanced" soecity before us, in no way bothers us, as we are more bothered about what we did, (good and bad)


I DON'T THINK SO.

THAT'S DUE TO ANAMIXIS STUFF THAT'S BEEN THE LATEST YEARS IN BRITAIN.
PLUS,I DON'T THINK THAT EVERYONE WOULD DOUBT REAL FACTS THAT HAPPENED IN ENGLAND.
AND,TELL ME,IF ALL THESE ARE REAL,WHY DID THE ENGLISH ONE STOLE THE PARTHENON'S STATUES,AND REFUSE TO GIVE THEM BACK?????
THAT'S BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PROVE THAT THE WRONG IS THE RIGHT.THAT'S WHY!
[/QUOTE]

-I'm not here to debate about my history of whether we were or we not, invaded by Anglo-Saxsons, it was merely an example of real historical debate which has come about, where ARCHOLOGICAL evidence, has been called questioned, not because evidence is wrong, but it can be misunderstood

-As for Statues, well all this seems to do is prove my, point, cutlures change their own history, and to believe that your cutlure hasn't done this, is navie i'm sorry to say, but think about, history will always be studied with a bais and that is why it cannot be trusted completely, the best example is the cold war (look at actions of starlin, he wrote Totykis out of history books, even though he was once second most powerful man in russia,) read some of revisonist history of this area, (watch the movie history boys, it interesting english comedy, but it looks at this area in serious way)

=This isn't me or grim, saying your bashing culture or saying it is bad or anything, it is just same as every other one, in that, its history won't be full proof

[OverMind]

The Greeks never conquered anyone. If you're talking about Alexander the Great; he was Macedonian, (Macedon, which was neighbouring the Greek city states) but was educated by a Greek philosopher (a well-renowned one). So, logically, when he started to build an Empire, who was his first target? Luckily, like the Romans in the future, Alexander the Great loved Hellenistic culture and spread it to the areas he conquered. So, really, the Greeks never pushed their culture onto anyone (in fact, they thought non-Greeks were barbaric (the actual term barbaros being a Greek word) and underserving of Greekness), it was their conquerers that fell in love with it (feeling it was superior to their own) who then adapted it and then forced it onto others.

(This was originally in DN:TFG thread, I've posted it here).

[Tourniquet]

Alexander the Great; he was Macedonian
Another point here.Macedonia is Greek.The ones that now claim to be Macedoniacs in FUROM have nothing to do with it,as long as they're coming and stay neihbouring Macedonia a lot of centuries after the Macedonian Empire had fallen.They're coming near the Roman's Empire fall and the begining of the Byzantium's Empire.They're mostly at the Byzantium's Empire.Plus,the name of the place they're going to live in has been called Dardania.

[OverMind]

Another point here.Macedonia is Greek.

It's debatable. Some scholars classify the Ancient Macedonians as Greek, others classify them as seperate.

I'm inclined to think that they are seperate simply because, in accordance with the other Greek city states at the time, the Macedonians were very different. For instance, the ancient Macedonian language was not Greek; however, Greek replaced this language after it became hellenized.

All other Greek city states shared a common religion, culture, and language.

[Tourniquet]

It's debatable. Some scholars classify the Ancient Macedonians as Greek, others classify them as seperate.

I'm inclined to think that they are seperate simply because, in accordance with the other Greek city states at the time, the Macedonians were very different. For instance, the ancient Macedonian language was not Greek; however, Greek replaced this language after it became hellenized.

All other Greek city states shared a common religion, culture, and language.
Εxcuse me,but it was greek!It wasn't different.It had some idiomatisms,just like every greek are had in the Ancient times.Greeks didn't replaced that language,because it never excisted.Macedonia was greek from the beggining.It just came in action later than Athens and Sparta.It's no longer debatable.Because when the Iones,Aioles and Dories came down,each one took some places to live in.They've been mixed with the native people.So,we're having Dories most in Sparta,Crette and the southern part of M.Asia,Iones in the middle and Athens,and Aioles at the northest part of Greece.In Macedonia,there were both Dories and Aioles.It's not different.It's the same.

[grimfang999]

here i side with tourni, let us call each greek division a fection, there were the greek cities, macedonians and the celeucids. the last of these three were apparently a by-product of when Alexander died and his empire became divided. but like overmind did say, it is debatable, so as with all other parts in history, we cannot be officially sure

[Spoofs3]

Εxcuse me,but it was greek!It wasn't different.It had some idiomatisms,just like every greek are had in the Ancient times.Greeks didn't replaced that language,because it never excisted.Macedonia was greek from the beggining.It just came in action later than Athens and Sparta.It's no longer debatable.Because when the Iones,Aioles and Dories came down,each one took some places to live in.They've been mixed with the native people.So,we're having Dories most in Sparta,Crette and the southern part of M.Asia,Iones in the middle and Athens,and Aioles at the northest part of Greece.In Macedonia,there were both Dories and Aioles.It's not different.It's the same.

I have to bring up points on both sides of the scales here
On Overminds side, Ancient Macadonia WAS a language which became extinct in 4th century BC
This has been proven by surviving examples of the language written on coins and other smaller artifacts (No proper surviving text actually exists so the evidence has to make do with the small amount of words found on the coins)
So although they DID have a seperate culture and language, I have to move onto Tourn
The Ancient Macadonians were allowed to part take in the Olympic games, An event only reserved for males of pure GREEK nationality,
Also the Ancinet Macadonian language was absorbed into a dialect of Greek. So although they had their culture and language origionally, They equally had the Greek people consider them enough Greek to allow them to part take in the games and allowed their lanuage to be abosrbed into Greek

[Tourniquet]

here i side with tourni, let us call each greek division a fection, there were the greek cities, macedonians and the celeucids. the last of these three were apparently a by-product of when Alexander died and his empire became divided. but like overmind did say, it is debatable, so as with all other parts in history, we cannot be officially sure
Well,you're supporting me but you've misunderstood something.
The three rages(Iones,Aioles,Dories) came in Greece a long time ago before Alexander the Great lived.The down of the Dories,to be excact,was in 1100 B.C.Alexander the Great lived for 33 years,from 359-323 B.C.So,you cannot tell something like that.It wasn't by-product.The Selucid Empire was after his death,so you cannot compare not a like things and facts.And,to be more trustfull,it was from 321-63 BC.

[Tourniquet]

Ancient Macadonia WAS a language which became extinct in 4th century BC

Nope.It was simillar to the Ancient Greek language with different idomatisms.Just like the Crete's ones and the M.Asia's ones.But,they were all part of the Greek Language.
So although they DID have a seperate culture and language, I have to move onto Tourn
Nope,I disagree with that because they had the same habits as the other Greeks had.They Believed in the same 12 gods,they had the same ethimotypic rituals for hospitality,for the funerals,for the marriages.You cannot say they had separate culture and language.If they did,then how did Aristotelis know to speak that language and teach Alexander the Great?It was greek language alone,only with some different idiomatics,nothing more,nothing less.Otherwise,how could Fillipos B' comunicate with the rest of the Greek generals in order to start the Great Exhibition that he never did because he died.And then comes Alexander the Great,that made his wish come true.
This is how the events go.

[Spoofs3]

You cannot say they had separate culture and language.If they did,then how did Aristotelis know to speak that language and teach Alexander the Great?It was greek language alone,only with some different idiomatics,nothing more,nothing less.Otherwise,how could Fillipos B' comunicate with the rest of the Greek generals in order to start the Great Exhibition that he never did because he died.And then comes Alexander the Great,that made his wish come true.
This is how the events go.

1. People CAN communicate even in different languages, So It is actually plausable that the greeks can learn the language and then speak it or Alexander learnt greek (Even more possible)
2. The Language was dying out and being absorbed during the 4th century, When Alexander the Great existed, Meaning? It could very well be extinct before Alexander
3. Alexanders mother was in fact a Greek...

[Tourniquet]

1. People CAN communicate even in different languages, So It is actually plausable that the greeks can learn the language and then speak it or Alexander learnt greek (Even more possible)
2. The Language was dying out and being absorbed during the 4th century, When Alexander the Great existed, Meaning? It could very well be extinct before Alexander
3. Alexanders mother was in fact a Greek...
I KEEP TELLING YOU THAT ALL THE MACEDONIANS WERE PUREBLOOD GREEK.THEIR LANGUAGE WAS GREEK,THEIR ETHIMOTYPICS WERE GREEK,WHATEVER THEY DID WAS GREEK,THEIR GODS WERE GREEK.WHATRELSE DO YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THAT THE MACEDONIANS WERE GREEK BY THEMSELVES???????????

[grimfang999]

well while i havent researched far into this, i only have proof enough to say the macedonians were a greek faction, pure or not. but considering tourni is greek herself, i mayt have to agree with her here. saying history is flawed is one thing, but history about a country and its seperate factions as it is written is another, unless they go together in the way of that the greek cities erased evidence of the macedonian language, but at the same time unless some evidence is shown then im siding with tourni here

[Fat1Fared]

well while i havent researched far into this, i only have proof enough to say the macedonians were a greek faction, pure or not. but considering tourni is greek herself, i mayt have to agree with her here. saying history is flawed is one thing, but history about a country and its seperate factions as it is written is another, unless they go together in the way of that the greek cities erased evidence of the macedonian language, but at the same time unless some evidence is shown then im siding with tourni here

Well like Grim, I am willing to accept that Tour, knows more about Greek/Merc land relations than me, and so though I "believed" they were separate states, I accept the chances are she is right and I simply don't know enough about it, to argue the point, as don't really have one, and the only thing which stops me believing she is right completely, is that her beliefs show a high passion/bias to greek side and so though she makes very strong point, the points say even spoofs (who is in middle) is making are strong as well, yet she completely dismisses them without regard, which seems to say she has only looked at it from one side!
So this means, I cannot comment that she is wrong or right and merely keep judgment that I should leave it to those who know this history, and say she knows more than me, and I would be willing to accept her view, if wasn't about fact, I have high reservations about accepting the view of something, when their is clearly high emotion involved (this isn't to say tour cannot be right because of emotion or that she is wrong to have these feelings, it just something I personally follow as a Rule.)

However what this still shows is that clearly the Greeks and Merc have both show their histories in different ways and so shows that despite Tour's strong defense of greek history being flawless and true completely, this shows, that it is still clearly flawed like very other history,
=History isn't fact, even if its name says it is:-History is more like fiction based fact lol, but that downgrades it too much, however what can say is that truth and truth in all history will always be little different and in some cases, can be very different things, depending on range of factors:
-the side which the info, looking at came it from;
-Political problems/views of time;
-How bad results of act were; (when you do something wrong, every easy to say other side made you do it)
-Is side strong power or weak power
-Is person against/for something (IE someone against the goverment time is hardly going to give them great review, but poeple for goverment, will give it one)
-What is race/sex/...etc of person
-What Class/Social Position
-Religious
-personal experience IE Lenin, had very bad exp with Russian leadership, which meant he was anti to it, meaning wrote history highlighting its bad points

These are just small range of things which cause Bias in History and stop it being completely fact, I would say it is more like the study of someones interpretation of fact, and the example I was tort to use (by proper historian) was that of Football Match, where the result of match will always be same, once finished, but both sets of fans will say very different things about how it came to be:-

[Spoofs3]

Ok, I am going to reveal some possible proof (Note that I said possible, THis cannot be proven as the same you cannot prove the language did not exist, but it however does supply enough proof for further debate on the subject)
1. Quintus Curtius Rufus, a Roman historian researched the History of Alexander the great. In many cases, The language of Macadonian is brought up as a separate language not as a part of greek
See Quotes and argument here (http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/greeklie6.html)
(also contains other quotes for proof but they are way too modern to be considered relevant points)
2. The Stone of Rosetta is written in 3 languages, Greek, Hieroglyphics (Egyptian) and one more unknown language. Two people have "Claimed" TO have translated the stone's middle language into Ancient Macedonian due to having similarities to modern day Macedonian-dialect words (Nowadays as I have said it is thought that it was absorbed into Greek as a dialect)
Article on the 2 Scientists who claim to have translated the text (http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/4808/2/)

The previous sources have not yet been proven but are part of a counter argument which are regularly placed into discussion on the Ancient Macedonian Language, Do not take them for fact if you have not done other research

[grimfang999]

well they are interesting sources of evidence, however the first was taken from written accounts and interpreted, in one term tourn i might be right and the macedonian speech may have been only slightly different to greek, it is onlt the last few sources though which point to a completely seperate language, the first may have been the inclusion of the greek colonies building up an army, many of which may not have spoken greek, and macedonian simply being another word for greek since macedonia is a greek faction.

that stone however is quite good proof.

rosetta stone... why does that ring familiar to me?

[Spoofs3]

well they are interesting sources of evidence, however the first was taken from written accounts and interpreted, in one term tourn i might be right and the macedonian speech may have been only slightly different to greek, it is onlt the last few sources though which point to a completely seperate language, the first may have been the inclusion of the greek colonies building up an army, many of which may not have spoken greek, and macedonian simply being another word for greek since macedonia is a greek faction.

that stone however is quite good proof.

rosetta stone... why does that ring familiar to me?

The first may be interpretation, But what else do we really have at this age with a dead language with barely any sources left?

Rosetta stone is not that quite good proof as you have to remember that it is a theory (The only theory on what the hell that damned language is on the stone, but still a theory)

And it sounds familiar because it was taken and used for the language company which helps you learn different languages :P

[grimfang999]

maybe thats so, im not sure still though but you might be right, yeah it is just a theory, as far as we know it could have been sythian or a completely dead civilisation which is long forgotten folling the language

[Tourniquet]

Ok, I am going to reveal some possible proof (Note that I said possible, THis cannot be proven as the same you cannot prove the language did not exist, but it however does supply enough proof for further debate on the subject)
1. Quintus Curtius Rufus, a Roman historian researched the History of Alexander the great. In many cases, The language of Macadonian is brought up as a separate language not as a part of greek
See Quotes and argument here (http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/greeklie6.html)
(also contains other quotes for proof but they are way too modern to be considered relevant points)
2. The Stone of Rosetta is written in 3 languages, Greek, Hieroglyphics (Egyptian) and one more unknown language. Two people have "Claimed" TO have translated the stone's middle language into Ancient Macedonian due to having similarities to modern day Macedonian-dialect words (Nowadays as I have said it is thought that it was absorbed into Greek as a dialect)
Article on the 2 Scientists who claim to have translated the text (http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/4808/2/)

The previous sources have not yet been proven but are part of a counter argument which are regularly placed into discussion on the Ancient Macedonian Language, Do not take them for fact if you have not done other research
In order to answer your question I'm telling you that Macedonia is Greek for the 50th time and it had Greek idiomatisms!
Secondly,about the Stone of Rozzeta,the 3rd "unkown" language is not Macedoniac,it's Grammic Writting A or B.And the "scientists who claim that it is the macedoniac one" are from Furom.That proves they're trying to prove something pointless,like saying that 2+2=5,that we all know it's wrong and the correct answer is 4.That means that you cannot show a pre-history language as an after-history language.Because,the Grammic Writting A was a Language used from the people who lives in Cyclades,that's way before any other culture appeared,because it's the first one in the Mediteranian Sea.Then comes the Minoic one that still uses Grammic Writting A and then,the Mykinaic,that uses Grammic Writting B.We have a lot of evidence that both the Minoic and the Mykinaic cultures had been in contact with Egypt.Because,they've been found 2 mummies in and Mykinaic grave and there are ancient Egyptian tablets that shows Minoic people giving offers to the Pharaoh.Athens,Sparta and Macedonia follows those cultures,as they appeared in pre-history,and then comes the history,and the whole thing goes to reach the down of the Dories etc(I have already posted them in a previous post).

[grimfang999]

that makes it all sense then.

i just wish that we started writing down history properly before 4000bc, it would clear so much more up

[Tourniquet]

So this means, I cannot comment that she is wrong or right and merely keep judgment that I should leave it to those who know this history, and say she knows more than me, and I would be willing to accept her view, if wasn't about fact, I have high reservations about accepting the view of something, when their is clearly high emotion involved (this isn't to say tour cannot be right because of emotion or that she is wrong to have these feelings, it just something I personally follow as a Rule.)

However what this still shows is that clearly the Greeks and Merc have both show their histories in different ways and so shows that despite Tour's strong defense of greek history being flawless and true completely, this shows, that it is still clearly flawed like very other history,
=History isn't fact, even if its name says it is:-History is more like fiction based fact lol, but that downgrades it too much, however what can say is that truth and truth in all history will always be little different and in some cases, can be very different things, depending on range of factors:
-the side which the info, looking at came it from;
-Political problems/views of time;
-How bad results of act were; (when you do something wrong, every easy to say other side made you do it)
-Is side strong power or weak power
-Is person against/for something (IE someone against the goverment time is hardly going to give them great review, but poeple for goverment, will give it one)
-What is race/sex/...etc of person
-What Class/Social Position
-Religious
-personal experience IE Lenin, had very bad exp with Russian leadership, which meant he was anti to it, meaning wrote history highlighting its bad points

I completely disagree with this point,because it's not the emotion in me so much.It's the fact!And History is an amound of facts that have been written down from the moment that the human rage discovered and started using the language that we write,not the one we're speaking,to the time we have reach now.You cannot say that it's someone's will to show he was great and stuff.It is a fact!And no political or other reactions have influenced history,because, the ones who's writing it,are the most objective.And,the first man that attemted to write history,was Herodotus.Then comes Thoukididis and Ksenophon,who keep up with the Thoukididis work.Those are the 3 Great historians of all time.

[grimfang999]

those three im assuming only wanted people to remember, they only bore good will as do all men who create or discover something, but like we keep saying, history is always twisted into a bias account to make it seem justified or impressive rather than the true facts. i know that historian bear no ill will, just the ones who get to write it

[Fat1Fared]

I completely disagree with this point,because it's not the emotion in me so much.It's the fact!And History is an amound of facts that have been written down from the moment that the human rage discovered and started using the language that we write,not the one we're speaking,to the time we have reach now.You cannot say that it's someone's will to show he was great and stuff.It is a fact!And no political or other reactions have influenced history,because, the ones who's writing it,are the most objective.And,the first man that attemted to write history,was Herodotus.Then comes Thoukididis and Ksenophon,who keep up with the Thoukididis work.Those are the 3 Great historians of all time.

Well with emotions, it seems what you write and way you write it would like to disagree with that statement, however maybe this internet misinterpretation, and I have misunderstood your use of words and things such as Capslock, so I will leave it there.

-With the second part I could agrue against that, (aspeically the political part), but it clear you have your positive view that history is full proof and I my more cynical view that it will fall pray to weakness of man, niether side can prove the other right or wrong, as neither side will accept the others view point, so I will humbly say, if that your belief, fair enough, I will accept it in the way, that I will no longer debate against it and leave you to your beliefs, as to say anything else would to repeat myself, as that will merely see us going round in circles for next few days, when we will only come to same conclusion anyway (that being that still think the other side is wrong:-)

But allow me to leave you with this quote from one of my fav poeple Stephen Fry

Just because something is written, doesn't make it true, just because something was never written, doesn't mean it never happened!

[Tourniquet]

Well,it seems that we have different points of view.But,let give you another quote that says:

"Many in the world have heard and read something.if something has been written,read or heard,we can accept it happened.If it has never been written,read or heard,then we can say that it never happened. Mo Tzu said: As we are to rely on what many have jointly written and what many have jointly read, the case of Tu Po is to be accepted."

[Fat1Fared]

Well,it seems that we have different points of view.But,let give you another quote that says:

resists massive want to use cases of Captian Cook or Alexander Graham Bell, to disprove this whole theory EDIT

Better explain this was meant as joke lol ^_^

[grimfang999]

and with that statement it is true enough, but alas once more there is bias and quite often avoided details, so we can settle on middle ground and say while we can agree that what is written down is likely to be true, behind it there may have been more to it and some prejudices put forthfrom the onesided account

[OverMind]

Okay, whether the Macedonians were Greek or not was not my original point. For the sake of argument, we'll say the Macedonians were ethnically Greek.

My original point was that the Greek city states themselves had no intention (EVER) of spreading their culture to anyone. As city states, they were never united enough to conquer anyone (but they did unite or call truces when others tried to conquer them; a la Persians). Nor did they show interest in conquering non-Greeks.

The Macedonians, on the other hand, had a united federation under a hereditary monarchy, and always intended to conquer others. They started by conquering the Greeks, then the Persians, and then kept moving eastward. Since Alexander the Great had a love of Greek culture, he preserved their culture (with exceptions, when he wiped out city states opposing him) and spread it to others he conquered. In this way, at the time, he had a very non-Greek viewpoint of a common brotherhood of humanity (i.e. the term Philadelphia) which the Greeks themselves did not hold, but eventually adopted.

Hellenism was the adaptation of Greek culture of others without any actual Greek interference or influence.

[Tourniquet]

The Macedonians, on the other hand, had a united federation under a hereditary monarchy, and always intended to conquer others. They started by conquering the Greeks, then the Persians, and then kept moving eastward. Since Alexander the Great had a love of Greek culture, he preserved their culture (with exceptions, when he wiped out city states opposing him) and spread it to others he conquered. In this way, at the time, he had a very non-Greek viewpoint of a common brotherhood of humanity (i.e. the term Philadelphia) which the Greeks themselves did not hold, but eventually adopted.

Well,I keep telling you that the Macedonians did an agreement with the Greek cities in order make a huge exhibition and take revenge of the Persians.This was Fillipos's B' idea,and because he died before he made it come true,his son,Alexander the Great,was the one that made it.It wasn't that they wantedf to conquer anyone,it was more the sence of a payback to the Persians.And he didn't wipe out any cities who were opposed to him.He's been asking first and if the answer was "no",then his army had a battle with the city's army(out of the city,he didn't destroyed anything cultural or whatever in the city),and,because he won them,they had to follow him.That is how it was.

[OverMind]

Well,I keep telling you that the Macedonians did an agreement with the Greek cities in order make a huge exhibition and take revenge of the Persians.

So, what started out as an alliance eventually turned into the Greek city states losing their independence and being integrated into the Macedonian Empire. With the exception of Sparta, of course.


This was Fillipos's B' idea,and because he died before he made it come true,his son,Alexander the Great,was the one that made it.It wasn't that they wantedf to conquer anyone,it was more the sence of a payback to the Persians.

Well, then why didn't they just conquer the Persians and leave it at that. Why did they continue to move Eastward and conquer most of Europe, Egypt and parts of present-day India/Pakistan? Surely, the ancient Indians did something awful to the Greeks/Macedonians which warranted them being conquered for revenge, right? Right?

Or, perhaps, the more logical explanation was that Alexander the Great's army kept moving, and conquering, and moving, and conquering as part of some overall plan.


And he didn't wipe out any cities who were opposed to him.He's been asking first and if the answer was "no",then his army had a battle with the city's army(out of the city,he didn't destroyed anything cultural or whatever in the city),and,because he won them,they had to follow him.That is how it was.

That doesn't explain why Alexander the Great razed Thebes to the ground, sold most of its citizens into slavery, and split the city among the neighbouring Boeotian cities (effectively wiping out its existence) when they tried rebelling against him during his Balkan campaigns.

In effect, he did this to make an example out of them.

[Fat1Fared]

Did Alexander say those things or did other people? Because from what I can tell, that's hearsay. And hearsay isn't usable in court.

If I became the president of the united states and was married, but harassed nsw on this site, would people go, "Oh, he's gay."? Yes. Yes, they would, IF I'm a good leader. If I'm a bad leader, they'll pretend it never happened even if it became public knowledge.

History always leans politically toward the person writing it. A gay person that writes history will make several great figures gay to support gay pride just like a homophobe will write it so that great people are all straight.

In short, you just can't trust sources like those, especially considering that they're hearsay.

though what you are saying is basically right (i wouldn't say it is hearsay, par-say) the problem is, just as you cannot prove them true, you cannot prove false as though maybe they were writing for political angles, so were the other side, so the other sides evidence has same problem, just that if one side is stronger politically, then their side will become the accepted view, whether right or wrong. So in the end it isn't the side with most truthful evidence that gets accepted, it is side with strongest power to have evidence accepted which wins. (and so that is the one thing in yours I disagree with, your saying that side with political angle will fudge history for own agenda, which is in my view correct, however you seem to underesimate how many actually have angles and that just because one side is of weaker position must be wrong, as you seem to assume that they are in weaker position, just because there angle must be less valid, when it is not always as simple as that)

In this case to bring it back to homosexuality, it maybe that our two writers who wrote he was gay where full of it and just trying to push through their own political angle, however it maybe just as likely (though seemingly lot scarier to poeple who care) that he was infact homosexual and enjoyed the bedtime company of men, however the political powers of the time, felt that this wasn't something they wanted known, as had an anti-gay feeling in their ranks, so they suppressed all the evidence of his homosexual side and made the official history books, say he was straight
=And before someone says such a thing is impossible, no it isn't whether it was Starlin writing Totsky out the history books, or Britian slowly removing the likes of Cecil Rhodes from theirs, it happens all time. Another one on more personal level is Lloyd George, I think he is an amazing man, but though probably won't tell you in history books, he was also one hell of love rat. (and these are ones just have evidence to show have been fudged.)

(ironically, tour just agreed with you, but when I put forward a similar point, on historical thread, I was told that Greeks never let political bias effect their history, not open can of worms, but meh already opened, doesn't this (and fact she agreed with you) prove that even their history is victem to human bias)

[Tourniquet]

So, what started out as an alliance eventually turned into the Greek city states losing their independence and being integrated into the Macedonian Empire. With the exception of Sparta, of course.



Well, then why didn't they just conquer the Persians and leave it at that. Why did they continue to move Eastward and conquer most of Europe, Egypt and parts of present-day India/Pakistan? Surely, the ancient Indians did something awful to the Greeks/Macedonians which warranted them being conquered for revenge, right? Right?

Or, perhaps, the more logical explanation was that Alexander the Great's army kept moving, and conquering, and moving, and conquering as part of some overall plan.



That doesn't explain why Alexander the Great razed Thebes to the ground, sold most of its citizens into slavery, and split the city among the neighbouring Boeotian cities (effectively wiping out its existence) when they tried rebelling against him during his Balkan campaigns.

In effect, he did this to make an example out of them.
I have nothing else to say!
Go study the Real Greek History and then come back to talk again if you wish!

Well, then why didn't they just conquer the Persians and leave it at that. Why did they continue to move Eastward and conquer most of Europe, Egypt and parts of present-day India/Pakistan? Surely, the ancient Indians did something awful to the Greeks/Macedonians which warranted them being conquered for revenge, right? Right?

Or, perhaps, the more logical explanation was that Alexander the Great's army kept moving, and conquering, and moving, and conquering as part of some overall plan
I don't thing that such a thing happened.At least it's not being recorded anywhere.Thereby,what's been recorded is that the river didn't allow them to move on.After all,the Empire thagt Alexander the Great had created was enormous.If he was about to move further,how could it be ruled?

[Tourniquet]

though what you are saying is basically right (i wouldn't say it is hearsay, par-say) the problem is, just as you cannot prove them true, you cannot prove false as though maybe they were writing for political angles, so were the other side, so the other sides evidence has same problem, just that if one side is stronger politically, then their side will become the accepted view, whether right or wrong. So in the end it isn't the side with most truthful evidence that gets accepted, it is side with strongest power to have evidence accepted which wins. (and so that is the one thing in yours I disagree with, your saying that side with political angle will fudge history for own agenda, which is in my view correct, however you seem to underesimate how many actually have angles and that just because one side is of weaker position must be wrong, as your assuming there angle must be less valid, when not always as simple as that)

In this case to bring it back to homosexuality, it maybe that our two writers who wrote he was gay where full of it and just trying to push through their own political angle, however it maybe just as likely (though seemingly lot scarier to poeple who care) that he was infact homosexual and enjoyed the bedtime company of men, however the political powers of the time, felt that this wasn't something they wanted known, as had an anti-gay feeling in their ranks, so they suppressed all the evidence of his homosexual side and made the official history books, say he was straight
=And before you say such a thing is impossible, no it isn't whether it was Starlin writing Totsky out the history books, or Britian slowly removing the likes of Cecil Rhodes from theirs, it happens all time. Another one on more personal level is Lloyd George, I think he is an amazing man, but though probably won't tell you in history books, he was also one hell of love rat

(ironically, tour just agreed with you, but when I put forward a similar point, on historical thread, I was told that Greeks never let political bias effect their history, not open can of worms, but meh already opened, doesn't this (and fact she agreed with you) prove that even their history is victem to human bias)
In that case, do you remember other people writing about Jesus and Moameth?
Their points were clearly to pass their own believes to the puplic and cause a fuss.That's what they tried to do with Alexander the Great too.
The fact that those things have been published nowadays and they weren't before,proves that it's some sort of provocasion,like other issues as well.

[grimfang999]

That doesn't explain why Alexander the Great razed Thebes to the ground, sold most of its citizens into slavery, and split the city among the neighbouring Boeotian cities (effectively wiping out its existence) when they tried rebelling against him during his Balkan campaigns.

well i found an answer to that and whether its true or not it was because just stopping a rebellion wasnt going to stop others, and his focus needed to be on the persians. he had to go to those extremes to stop the people from doing so so that they wont go against him when hes away. yes i know it does seem a bit cruel but that was perhaps the only option at the time. really i dont believe the city was completely erased, after all it was rebuilt


Well, then why didn't they just conquer the Persians and leave it at that. Why did they continue to move Eastward and conquer most of Europe, Egypt and parts of present-day India/Pakistan? Surely, the ancient Indians did something awful to the Greeks/Macedonians which warranted them being conquered for revenge, right? Right?

Or, perhaps, the more logical explanation was that Alexander the Great's army kept moving, and conquering, and moving, and conquering as part of some overall plan

this i actually agree with tourni, even though what i know is rather limited compared to you guys. alexander conquered the west indies because he persians were there, and maybe if he did start taking parts of egypt and india perhaps the persians had influence there and it was to avoid further conflict. also if i remember correctly the only other part of europe they took aside from greece were two civilisations which were at war with greece, once more it was likely because they didnt want another war happening while the majority of their army was in persia.


In that case, do you remember other people writing about Jesus and Moameth?
Their points were clearly to pass their own believes to the puplic and cause a fuss.That's what they tried to do with Alexander the Great too.
The fact that those things have been published nowadays and they weren't before,proves that it's some sort of provocasion,like other issues as well.

im not sure what the writing says, and perhaps they were to cause a fuss, it depends if the people were around at the time and actually knew jesus, but this cannot be proved, so it could be bias or it could be fact.

they have only been released nowadays because athiesm is rife and it will not be considered blasphemy and the publicators be punished for allowing those writtings to be released to the public.

[Fat1Fared]

In that case, do you remember other people writing about Jesus and Moameth?
Their points were clearly to pass their own believes to the puplic and cause a fuss.That's what they tried to do with Alexander the Great too.
The fact that those things have been published nowadays and they weren't before,proves that it's some sort of provocasion,like other issues as well.

=Well, first want to say, I don't disagree with you, I don't think he was gay ether, however using it as an example of where history is lot more gray than many think, and to say it is full gone fact is wrong:-

As grim said, all to do with political strenght or what poeple feel is worth studying/accepting, I mean a lot of modern history and all condictations it has with older offical histories, come from the revisnist revolution after cold war, where poeple began to realise that studying history was a lot more doubled sided, conflicting and subjective, than preivously believed, which means a lot of these historians are now looking at/for evidence, which was ether repressed or dismissed in past and reviewing its substantive value as evidence. This is also means, it may just simply be that the evidence wasn't found untill resantly and so only now able to study it.

And lot of time, yes they are trying to cause a "fuss" because believe it is something which needs looking at, what cannot do with anything, whether be science, literuture or history, is just say that because it was considered correct fact in past, we must accept it as right answer now, studying anything isn#t just about copying others answers, it is about finding your own and then checking others reseach, (not to try to prove it wrong, but to "see" if it is right (or as right as can be))