Which Historical Figure(s) does Pop Culture do the least credit?

[Captured Joe]

Also: Hastings.

 

[FrisianDude]

The French won the 100y war rather conclusively, peasant girl or not.

 

[AWdeV]

I'm sure there must be domestic Dutch war films,
If anyone could point me towards them, with English subtitles please, I'd be glad.

There are. They don't predominantly feature the actual fighting or uniforms though, as far as I won.

The mentioned "Soldaat van Oranje" (Soldier of Orange, should be a subtitled one around) is more about a Dutch chap who flees to the UK and from there goes on secret missions with the resistance back in the Netherlands.

You can find it here but it's maybe a bit expensive. Should be subtitled though.

It does contain a few *gasp!* naked boobies though. Made by Paul Verhoeven after all.

 

[Bohemond Chesne]

The French won the 100y war rather conclusively, peasant girl or not.

Pfft. France didn't win. The english just went home because the Burgundians changed sides and Henry popped it. 

Besides the "sucks" above arent assigned based on victors so much as media fandom. There are enough pro-english books, films and documentaries focused on Crecy and Agincourt, compared to very little on the other side except the Joan fandom, that I would strongly argue the pop-culture is pro-English except when Joan is about.

Also: Hastings.

Does this relate to anything?
1066 tends to be swings and round abouts in the media. Sometimes the "Brave Anglo Saxons" are cheated of their victory by being jumped on both the south and east coast, sometimes the foolish backwards saxons are outsmarted by the "more advanced ways of Normans with their continenetal culture". 
Which is dominant seams to change in a vague 10-20 year cycle (as does whether the Saxons should be thought of as English, of the Post conquest Anglo-Normans are the first English).

 

[FrisianDude]

The French won the 100y war rather conclusively, peasant girl or not.

Pfft. France didn't win. The english just went home because the Burgundians changed sides and Henry popped it. 

Don't, don't do this. I can't tell how serious you are, which disconcerts me given the French clearly did win, 100%. The only English holdings in France now are a small hotel along the Côte d'Azur.

 

[Untitled.]

And the Tolkien estate.

 

[Bohemond Chesne]

The French won the 100y war rather conclusively, peasant girl or not.

Pfft. France didn't win. The english just went home because the Burgundians changed sides and Henry popped it. 

Don't, don't do this. I can't tell how serious you are, which disconcerts me given the French clearly did win, 100%. The only English holdings in France now are a small hotel along the Côte d'Azur.

Sorry just trying to make light.
Yes the French deffinitivly won the '100 years war'. England lost the last of its continental terratories and France had actually developed a unifying national identity. 

 

[matmohair1]

No one talk about medieval India

 

[user1324865215]

I have to say that as a high school student in modern America, there is a huge backlash against "traditional views" almost to the point that important stuff is gleamed over for useless garbage. In my AP World History class, which essentially provides credit for high school students, we spent a grand total of 2 weeks on medieval Europe, with half of that being on the crusades. Not one mention of Charlemagne, or the Great Schism. Instead we're spending months on "nomad migrations" and "the flow of ideas". Not sure if its the College Board being its  usual self, or not. 

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

That would definitely be the definition of the politicization of education. Yes, there have been some incorrect views widely held about historical events in the past, but to teach history one cannot redact them. One needs to teach historiography in tandem with history, so that students can make their own decisions regarding historical evidence and acknowledge the biases and politics of the times at work.

 

[matmohair1]

too many opposing pressure groups these days,
even business is meddling with the whole affair
its like everything has to be marketed and everyone
talks history except the real historians themselves.
this definatly isn't the time to languish in ivory towers!
Even revisionism has been used to justify all kinds on negationism
and keeps on getting difficult to separate the two.

 

[Jhessail]

That would definitely be the definition of the politicization of education. Yes, there have been some incorrect views widely held about historical events in the past, but to teach history one cannot redact them. One needs to teach historiography in tandem with history, so that students can make their own decisions regarding historical evidence and acknowledge the biases and politics of the times at work.

That's university level stuff. Most high school students are not intellectually capable of making their own decisions regarding anything, no matter what they think themselves.

 

[matmohair1]

its also the so called "educational media" that's busted as well
these days, enough has been said about the downfall of the history
channel and other outlets.

隐藏

there is even a mass revival of racism in sword and sandals movies
and a spurge of nationalistic pride and victim-hood in every battle film.
Be they movies from Armenia, Egypt or Thailand,
every nation seems to have its own version of the 300 Spartans!
it's not just 300, take a look at the factions shown in the movie 1066...

隐藏

Saxons: poor, whimpering and unlucky peasants about to face mass genocide!
vikings: chaotic and whimpering idiots who are bad at trading or business !
(Harald Hardrada is given the impression of being pagan
even thou he was actually christian at the time)
Normans: sly, wretched, corrupted and cowardly French perverts who only fight dirty
and prefer to raid homes rather than arrive at battlefields on time!
(William the conqueror is so evil he cant be even shown)
Bretons: poor whimpering villagers forced by the Normans to fight their Saxon brothers ?!
in their stead. (one guy is even wearing a 12th century great-helm!)

talk about an urgent revenge fantasy!

 

[FrisianDude]

hm, I thought 1066 was decent. Never really approved of the way the Normans were portrayed, but the English seemd alright.

 

[Jhessail]

I saw that Turkish movie about Americans in Iraq few years ago and it was hilariously bad. Like, jewish doctors cutting up Iraqi prisoners and using their organs in Israel. Only the heroic actions of a Turkish special forces commando can bring down the corrupt American military operating at the border region. It was so bad that it was actually quite entertaining!

And hey, making good documentaries is expensive! Ridiculous "reality" crap is much cheaper to make.

 

[matmohair1]

even in Thai "historically inspired"movies,
it's often interesting to take a look at the classic
depictions of the eternal enemy!
especially when the producers take a break from bashing the Burmese,
and try their luck with ... the Han Chinese?!
and where the hell did this samurai dude come from?!

隐藏

"Edge Of The Empire" is based on a 1973 novel by Sanya Pholprasit. Set in southern Mongolia over 1,000 years ago, a small tribe called Tai was a colony under the power of the Great Han who enslaved them. Oppressed by the Han, the Tai unites to strike back for their freedom, justice, and country. This Thai historical epic revolves around heroes who sacrificed themselves to fight against the invasion of intruders and sought for the freedom of the country.
- Written by Vignesh

Hate speech never gets old apparently!

 

[Dodes]

I have to say that as a high school student in modern America, there is a huge backlash against "traditional views" almost to the point that important stuff is gleamed over for useless garbage. In my AP World History class, which essentially provides credit for high school students, we spent a grand total of 2 weeks on medieval Europe, with half of that being on the crusades. Not one mention of Charlemagne, or the Great Schism. Instead we're spending months on "nomad migrations" and "the flow of ideas". Not sure if its the College Board being its  usual self, or not.

AP World History is an overview class. It sounds like you wanted AP Modern Europe, which is from Charlemagne onwards to present. I took the class and the Great Schism was a very important topic and was on the final college board test taken offsite at a college.

AP World History should have focused on early law codes (Hanarabi, etc.) of Mesotopamia and the development of the Indus River Valley. AP World History actually moves its focus away from Europe given how it is already well-known and many other classes cover it.

 

[rapier17]

I wish I'd been allowed to study history at the secondary ('High') school I went to. We had wishy-washy history, geography & religious education lessons for 3 years* and then when we reached Year's 10 & 11 (aged 13-16 or so) we had 'humanities' instead. So I learnt plenty about tourism & it's effects in African countries, about terms like GDP, and about fairtrade & cash-crops. Sadly this led to enormous gaps in my knowledge of historical events and of things I should've been taught about but was not.

*Only sections that stayed with me were the Great War & Holocaust and a few individual scattered bits. Rest of it was rather 'meh'. Mind you at that age 'civil' history was 'dull' whilst 'military' history was a definite YEEEESSSS! I didn't want to know about the causes of the cholera epidemic during the 1850s, I wanted to know about the Roundheads & Cavaliers, about WW2, Nelson, Napoleon, Hastings, the Vikings - things I actually found interesting. Fortunately Early Modern History at College helped out a bit with that. Now -THAT- was interesting!

 

[nads]

The Normans have always had bad press not really because of Hastings which could have gone either way but  being responsible for ending Anglo-Saxon culture and way of life which most people have an overly romantic view of. If you look at Anglo-Saxon jewelry and design which is regarded as beautiful then add Beowulf and numerous general cultural influences right up to Lord of the Rings, it's seen as more romantically the British identity. Norman design and culture in comparison is viewed as big, militaristic and a bit boring, I've seen literally dozens of TV programmes on the Anglo-Saxons over the years and only remember one ever being done on the Normans (by Robert Bartlett) which was great, but it's for those reasons, they're always seen as dull compared to Anglo-Saxons, killing half the population of Northern England didn't help their case but that aside their achievements elsewhere always get overlooked and they inevitably end up as the bad guys.

 

[matmohair1]

it actually depends on the time frame,
the heyday of Scandinavian art and style
spans from the vendel period and up to the 8th century

隐藏

whereas by the 11th century, there wasn't any real difference between
Normans, Saxons and vikings, at-least during the battle of 1066.
that's probably why there is a lot of confusion when game designers
work on projects such as war of the vikings and others.

隐藏