Which Historical Figure(s) does Pop Culture do the least credit?
- 主题发起人 Dodes
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Samurai are well considered by pop culture and japanese stuff are generally "liked" by most people. I mean, they are cool dressed, honourable, faithful to their masters, helpful to the weak, incredibly skilled in the martial arts...this, at least, by pop culture standards.
I guess the European Middle Ages and its inhabitants are generally seen in way which is very distorted from how they actually were.
There's the negative tendency, which is as old as the renaissance: everything were as bad as the fourtheenth century (the century of economical crysis, hundred years' war, great plague and stuff), people were barbaric and ignorant and man, how cool the ancient times were. Then, the tendency went on up until today: and we tend to imagine medieval church as it was after the counter reformation - witch hunt, heretics hunt and so on - the wars super bloody (as they NOT really were until the last centuries), the culture so low (I guess I should not lose my time to explain why this is a wrong concept), the power of kings absolute (while often, depending on the centuries, they were just "primus inter pares") etc.
Then, there's the romantic tendency, which comes with the XIX century: fancy knights fighting for honour and love in fancy dresses and all the chivalresque stuff, and big castles; the political distortions and political exploitations: middle ages at the service of nationalism, which was an unknown concept back in the days; only in Italy there are tons of examples...the Sicilian Vespers against the French and the Battle of Legnano against Barbarossa are basically the same battle Italy was fighting in the XIX century to gain indipendence and unity from the Austro-Hungarians. Middle ages used after 9/11: "ahh, those days in which christians fought muslims for true faith!" or, on the other side, Ridley Scott's movie on the Third Crusade which was all about Bush and american politics (and so it was fulfilled with idiotic anachronism).
I can go on and be more specific, but I think we may be a winner already.
I guess the European Middle Ages and its inhabitants are generally seen in way which is very distorted from how they actually were.
There's the negative tendency, which is as old as the renaissance: everything were as bad as the fourtheenth century (the century of economical crysis, hundred years' war, great plague and stuff), people were barbaric and ignorant and man, how cool the ancient times were. Then, the tendency went on up until today: and we tend to imagine medieval church as it was after the counter reformation - witch hunt, heretics hunt and so on - the wars super bloody (as they NOT really were until the last centuries), the culture so low (I guess I should not lose my time to explain why this is a wrong concept), the power of kings absolute (while often, depending on the centuries, they were just "primus inter pares") etc.
Then, there's the romantic tendency, which comes with the XIX century: fancy knights fighting for honour and love in fancy dresses and all the chivalresque stuff, and big castles; the political distortions and political exploitations: middle ages at the service of nationalism, which was an unknown concept back in the days; only in Italy there are tons of examples...the Sicilian Vespers against the French and the Battle of Legnano against Barbarossa are basically the same battle Italy was fighting in the XIX century to gain indipendence and unity from the Austro-Hungarians. Middle ages used after 9/11: "ahh, those days in which christians fought muslims for true faith!" or, on the other side, Ridley Scott's movie on the Third Crusade which was all about Bush and american politics (and so it was fulfilled with idiotic anachronism).
I can go on and be more specific, but I think we may be a winner already.
In a medieval context, everything further east than the HRE (minus the Teutonic Order to some degree, and with some passing references to the Islamic world and Byzantium), with the more notable exceptions of Japan and to some degree China (and, of course, the Aztec and Maya even further east/west). At least if we're talking about the Western pop culture - the popular cultures of the other countries would naturally have more emphasis on their own region and/or a wider scope including their region (f.e. Russian pop-culture will focus more on its own region(s), Indian pop-culture would be more aware of Indian history etc).
Also, the ancient Middle East doesn't seem to be quite well-known, minus the Egyptians and the later Persian Empire.
Also, the ancient Middle East doesn't seem to be quite well-known, minus the Egyptians and the later Persian Empire.
Bohemond Chesne
Squire
King John? Villified and made out to be completely ineffectual as opposed to a man with some poor interpersonal skills. Also tending to be portrayed as the worst of his brothers which is really rather a stretch.
William: Poor little sod only lasted 2 years. (Not much to say about him really)
Henry: Spent most of his life in open rebelion. Decimated his fathers controll on the continent.
Richard: Rebelled alot, was a great warrior but not so great a general (seems to have had a habbit of widly charging his armies with himself at the fore, often ending up seperated from his troops and in danger of capture). Also got on the bad side of a lot of powerful people. During his absent reign the barons got massively powerful and the continental lands began to distance themselves from England.
Geofry: As Gerald of Wales said: "his sweet and persuasive eloquence has enabled him to dissolve the firmest alliances and his powers of language to throw two kingdoms into confusion." Basically he spent his adult life sat in Brittany playing France and England off against eachother.
John: Was a little too keen to persue a grudge, and got stuck with the political backlash caused by his brother's shoddy rule.
Geofry Fitzplantaginet: (Bastard) After becoming Archbishop of york the rest of his career is marked by serious power struggles and clashes with his own subordinates.
In this nest of vipers John is the villain?
William: Poor little sod only lasted 2 years. (Not much to say about him really)
Henry: Spent most of his life in open rebelion. Decimated his fathers controll on the continent.
Richard: Rebelled alot, was a great warrior but not so great a general (seems to have had a habbit of widly charging his armies with himself at the fore, often ending up seperated from his troops and in danger of capture). Also got on the bad side of a lot of powerful people. During his absent reign the barons got massively powerful and the continental lands began to distance themselves from England.
Geofry: As Gerald of Wales said: "his sweet and persuasive eloquence has enabled him to dissolve the firmest alliances and his powers of language to throw two kingdoms into confusion." Basically he spent his adult life sat in Brittany playing France and England off against eachother.
John: Was a little too keen to persue a grudge, and got stuck with the political backlash caused by his brother's shoddy rule.
Geofry Fitzplantaginet: (Bastard) After becoming Archbishop of york the rest of his career is marked by serious power struggles and clashes with his own subordinates.
In this nest of vipers John is the villain?
rapier17 说:
I always find them comical in the sense that they are probably the predominant ancestors of most English today, yet they are remembered as the villains by modern English due to their conflict with King Arthur of legend.
Persians I can agree with, but Native Americans have been almost deified with the "Noble Savage"-shtick, perfectly illustrated by the movie "Dances With Wolves". There are plenty of other examples, where the Native-American is wise, thoughtful and the whitey is stupid and wasteful. Sure, it's merely a counter-reaction to the decades of Hollywood portrayal of Native Americans as blood thirsty savages but I'd still say that their reputation has been salvaged.krik 说:
The Dutch and Romanians in WW2?
Their beautiful helmets deserve more love.
Their beautiful helmets deserve more love.
Good point. Movies and TV-shows have pretty much ignored both. Some Dutch civilians are shown in positive light in the movie "A Bridge Too Far" and the TV-show "Band of Brothers", but otherwise it's merely books that talk of them. They are usually portrayed as heroically resisting the Germans but succumbing fairly quickly, and that Rotterdam was terror-bombed. Romania has the "honour" of having, at least partially, caused the Stalingrad disaster for Germans, and for quickly switching sides when Red Army came knocking in 1944. I don't think even the German movie "Stalingrad" showed any Romanians, though. I'm sure there must be domestic Romanian and Dutch war films, I've just never come across them.
If anyone could point me towards them, with English subtitles please, I'd be glad.
If anyone could point me towards them, with English subtitles please, I'd be glad.
About the Dutch in 1940, theres a part of the Dutch movie Soldaat van Oranje about that. I don't know other movies with it.Jhessail 说:
In the German movie Hunde wollt Ihr ewig leben (about Stalingrad), the Romanians are shown routing before the Soviet attack after little resistance;
On most places on the Don front however, Romanian units managed to hold out for some days even though completely lacking in effective AT weapons. AFAIK, there is not a single movie (apart from Hunde wollt Irh etc.) that shows the Romanians at Stalingrad and the Don, or that does them justice in their fight against the Russians.
There are a couple of Romanian war movies, but those all show the fighting against the Germans and Hungarians after Romania swapped sides.
I think the Red Army has an exaggerated reputation in the west as an army of slaves that has to coerce its soldiers to even advance in the face of their enemies. Although naturally the Russian depictions tend exaggerate the more positive sides.
In the most recent Russian WW2 film Russian soldiers are seen charging (understandably) terrified Germans while on fire.
Benedict Arnold tends to be seen as some kind of callous bastard, when all he did was to change sides once in what was essentially a civil war, after being treated like crap by his own side despite being one of their most competent leaders.
In the most recent Russian WW2 film Russian soldiers are seen charging (understandably) terrified Germans while on fire.
Benedict Arnold tends to be seen as some kind of callous bastard, when all he did was to change sides once in what was essentially a civil war, after being treated like crap by his own side despite being one of their most competent leaders.
Bohemond Chesne
Squire
If you are going to include populations, rather than figures. 
The medieval scots. William Wallace's lot where not unwashed hairy barbarians. They were civilised, hosen wearing, french speaking, hair brushing, shield carrying people just like the rest of north western europe. Nor did they go about following random peasant folk into battle purely because they could shout the inspirational word of the day loudly.
You could more or less extend that to any small european populace. Welsh, Irish, Scottish, Cornish, Finn, Bretton, Belgian & manny others get treated rather badly by modern media.
The History of the Welsh, according to Pop-Culture:
(Views are not my own and are not supported or endorsed.)
?-? DRUIDS!
Circa 400- 600 Wales suddenly pops up as the derpy part of mainland Britain.
600-1415 Wales continues to be derpy. Rebelled a bit, ran away.
1415- Welsh soldiers briefly become crazed murderous killers who don't take captives and kill lots of Frenchmen with magic armour piercing bows.
1416-1484 Don’t exist.
1485- Opinion split: 1) Snuck one of their own onto throne. 2) The sneaky Lancastrians cheated and stuck a man [who may have been welsh] onto the throne. 3) England ran out of nobles so sent out for an English/French/Welsh bastard.
1486-1878 Derped about. Had a riot about expensive prostitutes, ran away.
1879 - Sang while killing hundreds of Zulus in a boring film which is on too often at Christmas.
1880-2013 Derped about. Drank tea. Provided token silly people for sitcoms. Complained when the mines got shut down.
The medieval scots. William Wallace's lot where not unwashed hairy barbarians. They were civilised, hosen wearing, french speaking, hair brushing, shield carrying people just like the rest of north western europe. Nor did they go about following random peasant folk into battle purely because they could shout the inspirational word of the day loudly.
You could more or less extend that to any small european populace. Welsh, Irish, Scottish, Cornish, Finn, Bretton, Belgian & manny others get treated rather badly by modern media.
The History of the Welsh, according to Pop-Culture:
(Views are not my own and are not supported or endorsed.)
?-? DRUIDS!
Circa 400- 600 Wales suddenly pops up as the derpy part of mainland Britain.
600-1415 Wales continues to be derpy. Rebelled a bit, ran away.
1415- Welsh soldiers briefly become crazed murderous killers who don't take captives and kill lots of Frenchmen with magic armour piercing bows.
1416-1484 Don’t exist.
1485- Opinion split: 1) Snuck one of their own onto throne. 2) The sneaky Lancastrians cheated and stuck a man [who may have been welsh] onto the throne. 3) England ran out of nobles so sent out for an English/French/Welsh bastard.
1486-1878 Derped about. Had a riot about expensive prostitutes, ran away.
1879 - Sang while killing hundreds of Zulus in a boring film which is on too often at Christmas.
1880-2013 Derped about. Drank tea. Provided token silly people for sitcoms. Complained when the mines got shut down.
You forget about the beastly Welsh glory of Bale and Ramsey.
It's easy to feel upstaged by the English, the French and the Germans, but what do you know, for example, about the Slovaks or the Kazakhs? Did they have druids or something? Are there ethnic stereotypes or famous historic anecdotes about them? Who knows? Who cares? That needs to change somehow.
It's easy to feel upstaged by the English, the French and the Germans, but what do you know, for example, about the Slovaks or the Kazakhs? Did they have druids or something? Are there ethnic stereotypes or famous historic anecdotes about them? Who knows? Who cares? That needs to change somehow.
FrisianDude
Archduke
what, that was an awesome movie.Bohemond Chesne 说:
No one talk about medieval India
