#1

TLDR - Puritans settled New England so they could carry on persecuting people.
#2

This misconception arises because of an automatic and incorrect assumption people make when they hear the statistic 'the average life expectancy was 35 in the middle ages'.
In reality there have always been lots of people who live to 70+ years old in all societies. The difference was that in the middle ages there were many childhood diseases that caused a much higher childhood mortality rate which skews the numbers much lower. If you survived childhood there was a very good chance you would make it into your 60s+.
#3

"*Oh, they see the Germans at the their border and throw in the towel, hehe.*"
giantzoo:
It gets old after the first dozen times, especially if you actually look into Frances military history. It's really just a regurgitated joke that turned myth at this point I think.
A paradox that all historians should keep in mind is that just because a source has some inaccuracies or errors doesn’t automatically make it entirely unreliable.
Everyone is human, and we all make mistakes, whether intentionally (disinformation and manipulation) or by accident (misinformation, misinterpretations, and unconscious biases).
In a nutshell, what you’re looking for are ways to gauge the degree of potential accuracy of a source or claim, not look for ‘perfectly’ reliable sources.
#4

The truth: He was actually average height, or even a little bit above average height.
How did it come about?: The archaic French measurement used stated he was around 5'3, when in actuality that translates to about 5'7 in today's measurements, which was average for the time.
#5

Cellusu:
Her actual quote, for the record:
"It is quite certain that in seeing the people who treat us so well despite their own misfortune, we are more obliged than ever to work hard for their happiness. The King seems to understand this truth."
You can see how the two get mixed up...
#6

According to ‘History Skills,’ you should consider whether the information is corroborated by other reliable sources, look for clues about potential biases, and evaluate whether the claims are plausible. A historical claim’s accuracy falls if it is contradicted in other (more reliable!) sources, and if the information fails to consider different perspectives on events and figures.
Basically, the more (un)intentional biases you uncover, the lower the accuracy. Try to think about the goals and agendas the source behind the claims might have had, and what their audience was.
#7

John Adams said that in no way was the formation of the nation based off of Christian values, or any other religion. "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." --John Adams
Also, "in god we trust" was added to our money in 1957. Also, the "under god" portion of the pledge of allegiance was added later as well. On phone, but a quick google search can give the details. If I remember right it was several years after it was written when it was added.
Here we go: It was originally published in 1892, several changes were made periodically, but "under god" was added in 1954.
I think the notion of the US being created based on Christian values was promoted mostly by politicians running for office, and the overwhelmingly Christian voter base back in the day loved that sentiment.
#8

#9

NoceboHadal:
In the British museum they have a horned helmet that they found in the river Thames, at the time they figured it was viking age. Now though it's believed to be ancient British. It's all metal and it's pretty big.
After you’ve read through the posts in this list and upvoted the ones that you think are the most important ones, share your thoughts in the comments below.
How do you stay constantly curious about the world, no matter your age or responsibilities? What do you think your most extensive knowledge blind spots are, and what are you doing to rectify the situation?
Meanwhile, from your perspective, what’s the biggest historical misconception that you think everyone in the world should be aware of? Tell us all about it.
#10

Constantinople was still secure as the capital of the Eastern Empire, and had been the capital of a UNIFIED empire before the empire was split into Eastern and Western halves anyway. And in fact, at the date of 476, Rome itself was not even the capital of the Western Empire.
Since the Renaissance, many historians have incorrectly referred to the Eastern Empire as the Byzantine Empire, but no citizen of that empire ever referred to themselves as anything other than Roman. The citizens of the former Western empire also considered themselves Roman, and up until hundreds of years after the "official" fall of Rome, believed that their true government was in Constantinople and would shortly reconquer them to free them from their barbarian oppressors. This turned out to be true, as the Eastern Emperor Justinian did in fact take back all of North Africa and the entire peninsula of Italy. The point that all contemporaries considered the Eastern Empire to be well and truly The Roman Empire is further illustrated by the fact that when Sultan Mehmed II finally sacked Constantinople in 1453, he named the province "The Sultanate of Rum [Rome]." That's ONE THOUSAND YEARS AFTER the traditional date of the fall of the Roman Empire that a foreign army considered themselves to have finally conquered Rome.
#11

#12

anon:
To elaborate not only did they believe it was a sphere, but most believed the earth to be about 24,000 miles in circumference based on several calculations throughout the ages.
What Columbus argued was that the earth was closer to 12,000 miles in circumference. The reason for this significance was that many people believed there to be nothing but water from Western Europe east Asia and no one could make the journey. Since Columbus believed the world to be smaller he argued that it was possible to reach the coast of India by taking a westward course.
Of course he reached america, but by his calculations he believed he had reached India which is why he was so convinced that the place was India and not s new world.
#13

#14

Except that native Easter Islanders didn't go extinct. They're still there. The collapse of their society was precipitated by slavers, who took most of the population - anybody who could read, basically, in the written language they had invented - to work on the west coast of South America. Also, a lot of those heads are full bodies that have sunk into the sandy soil.
#15

Even now the very term conjures up images of a period in history where our knowledge is very limited.
But you don't have to research that hard today to see its total nonsense, and it was actually an era very rich in science, art, development, trade etc.
#16

Proof #1: Native Americans are people.... (duh).....they exist, and have lived continuously in the Americas for at least the past 18,000 years, presumably having crossed over a land bridge connecting Asia and modern day Alaska during the last ice age.
Proof #2: The Vikings beat him to it by about 400 years, and can be proven to have traveled at least as far south as the mouth of the St. Lawrence. Norse sagas refer to a place (Vinland) populated by grape vines, and areas further south where it doesn't snow during winter months. This would have put 12th century Norse exploration about as far south as North Carolina. and See: L'anse Aux Meadows, butternut seeds.
Proof #3: The bones of Pre-Columbian chickens in south America are genetically linked to ones introduced by Polynesians, not Spaniards.
#17

#18

#19

Wambobaer:
The misconception has to do with the way exams are graded in Switzerland, where Einstein went to high school. In Germany the highest grade is 1, the lowest 6. In Switzerland on the other hand the grading system ranges from 1 (worst) to 6 (best).
Therefore people seeing Einstein's high school diploma could easily mistaken his mostly excellent grades (let's ignore French) for really bad ones.
I think the myth survived for so long because of what Einstein stands for today. The idea of the personification of intelligence being a bad student might give some people the ecouragement to keep going. Others may just find the irony behind this story so fantastic, they simply don't want to question it.
#20

Anon:
How do people not understand these simple little parables as such obvious propaganda? At this point, I'm starting to wonder how many "dog drops his steak in the river" type fairy tales we also need to specifically point out as being allegorical.


