Odd Parts of History

[The Great Nevada Overlord]

As the title suggests. This will be a thread to post odd historical subjects and discuss them.

Something like when Napoleon was fighting the Russians, he sent a small fighting force to make the Russians think that it was going to be an easy fight.

Napoleons troops retreated behind a hill and the Russians gave chase, when they reached the base of the hill the entire French army popped out from behind it and decimated the Russians.

Or how a group of Austrian troops killed each other because they mistook the other Austrains for Ottomans. The battle got even worse when one said "Halt!" In which all other troops thought that they said "Allah!" and were certain that it was the Ottomans.

[Jewish Underground State]

Ok a part of history I find Odd is how the knowledge of The New World's Existence was lost.

Even though The Vikings were never able to set up a permanent colony in The Americas, the knowledge of their existence should've been well known by Columbus's time.

Odd

[Big Bad Blue]

Stop me if you've heard this one before: a US soldier in WW2 captured a retreating German by shouting at him, Halt, oder ich scheisse! (Stop, or I'll shit!) The German collapsed laughing.

[New North Exeter]

That Chinese came to Zanzibar in around 1250 Our era, Yet they forgot about Africa until around 1800.

[Apocalyptic Haven]

The Saxons damn near won the Battle of Hastings. The shield wall had held for most of the battle on Senlac Hill, but when rumors spread that William had been killed, the Normans started to retreat. They were only able to fend a panicked rout because William lifted his head above his face and proved that he was still alive, even though his horse had been killed underneath him. They rallied, charged, and then began slaughtering the Saxons, who had abandoned the protection of their hitherto successful, undefeated shield wall. Imagine how history might have turned had William actually fallen or been unconscious and unable to prove his survival.

[Apocalyptic Haven]

That Chinese came to Zanzibar in around 1250 Our era, Yet they forgot about Africa until around 1800.

There are also claims that they reached America in 1421, seventy-one years before Christopher Columbus.

[Oateria]

Charles Guiteau, the guy who assassinated James Garfield, was part of a christian commune early in his life and was nicknamed "Charles Getout."

[Norse Inuit Union]

Finland, Estonia, and Hungary speak Uralic languages which are not apart of the Indo-European language family at least according to most scholars. They are their own separate language family. The Sami also speak a Uralic language.

[The Archregimancy]

That Chinese came to Zanzibar in around 1250 Our era, Yet they forgot about Africa until around 1800.

This is false or misleading on several points.

First of all, the Chinese were aware of Africa long before the 13th century. Trade routes between China and Africa through the Indian Ocean were in use as far back as the Han Dynasty. While this early trade was likely primarily indirect, an African embassy certainly reached China during the Song dynasty in the 11th century.

There is clear archaeological evidence in the form of coins and written records that there was ongoing trade contact between China and the east coast of Africa, including the area around Zanzibar, between the 11th and 13th centuries - but not necessarily that the 'Chinese came to Zanzibar'. What evidence exists suggests that the trade was carried out by Somali merchants travelling to China rather than Chinese merchants travelling to Africa.

The Chinese definitely reached the Swahili Coast of Africa in the 15th century, when the famous admiral Zheng He took one of his expeditions in that direction in the 1420s.

While direct contact between China and Africa was significantly reduced in the later Ming Dynasty (the precise reasons being a matter of dispute), the Chinese never 'forgot about Africa', and trade continued - albeit at a more reduced level for the next 300 years - until the end of the imperial period.

Evidence that the Chinese didn't 'forget' about Africa until 1800 can be provided simply via the foundation of the Portuguese colony of Macau in 1557. Hint: how do you think the Portuguese reached China?

There are also claims that they reached America in 1421, seventy-one years before Christopher Columbus.

This is also false.

These 'claims' stem from a series of popular pseudohistory books written by the British author Gavin Menzies, each of which made more spectacular claims than the last. He went from claiming that the Chinese discovered the Americas in 1421, to claiming that the Chinese reached Italy and 'ignited the Renaissance', to claiming that Atlantis was real and had an extensive maritime empire that reached the Americas and India from the central Mediterranean.

Menzies wasn't remotely a historian, functionally made things up while deliberately misrepresenting Zheng He's travels, and seems to have been something of a fantasist. His pseudohistorical publications are firmly rejected by all serious Chinese, European, and North American historians familiar with the period.

[The Holy Therns]

That Chinese came to Zanzibar in around 1250 Our era, Yet they forgot about Africa until around 1800.

This is false or misleading on several points.

First of all, the Chinese were aware of Africa long before the 13th century. Trade routes between China and Africa through the Indian Ocean were in use as far back as the Han Dynasty. While this early trade was likely primarily indirect, an African embassy certainly reached China during the Song dynasty in the 11th century.

There is clear archaeological evidence in the form of coins and written records that there was ongoing trade contact between China and the east coast of Africa, including the area around Zanzibar, between the 11th and 13th centuries - but not necessarily that the 'Chinese came to Zanzibar'. What evidence exists suggests that the trade was carried out by Somali merchants travelling to China rather than Chinese merchants travelling to Africa.

The Chinese definitely reached the Swahili Coast of Africa in the 15th century, when the famous admiral Zheng He took one of his expeditions in that direction in the 1420s.

While direct contact between China and Africa was significantly reduced in the later Ming Dynasty (the precise reasons being a matter of dispute), the Chinese never 'forgot about Africa', and trade continued - albeit at a more reduced level for the next 300 years - until the end of the imperial period.

Evidence that the Chinese didn't 'forget' about Africa until 1800 can be provided simply via the foundation of the Portuguese colony of Macau in 1557. Hint: how do you think the Portuguese reached China?

There are also claims that they reached America in 1421, seventy-one years before Christopher Columbus.

This is also false.

These 'claims' stem from a series of popular pseudohistory books written by the British author Gavin Menzies, each of which made more spectacular claims than the last. He went from claiming that the Chinese discovered the Americas in 1421, to claiming that the Chinese reached Italy and 'ignited the Renaissance', to claiming that Atlantis was real and had an extensive maritime empire that reached the Americas and India from the central Mediterranean.

Menzies wasn't remotely a historian, functionally made things up while deliberately misrepresenting Zheng He's travels, and seems to have been something of a fantasist. His pseudohistorical publications are firmly rejected by all serious Chinese, European, and North American historians familiar with the period.

I don't know what this site ever did to deserve you, but by golly, I'm glad it did it.

[Duvniask]

Ok a part of history I find Odd is how the knowledge of The New World's Existence was lost.

Even though The Vikings were never able to set up a permanent colony in The Americas, the knowledge of their existence should've been well known by Columbus's time.

Odd

The reason lies partly in the fact that writing and record-keeping were uncommon in Scandinavia and Iceland at the time the explorations of Vinland and Markland were made, so they only survived in the spoken word until they were eventually written down centuries later, at which point they would have seemed little more than a curious folk tale. Indeed, the only mention of the New World outside of the Norse sources is in the writings of the 14th century Milanese friar, Galvano Fiamma, and more specifically his Cronica Universalis, where Markland is described as a land of giants. At that point it's little different from legend, but interestingly the account does describe roughly how to get there:

Further northwards there is the Ocean, a sea with many islands where a great quantity of peregrine falcons and gyrfalcons live. These islands are located so far north that the Polar Star remains behind you, toward the south. Sailors who frequent the seas of Denmark and Norway say that northwards, beyond Norway, there is Iceland; further ahead there is an island named Grolandia, where the Polar Star remains behind you, toward the south. The governor of this island is a bishop. In this land, there is neither wheat nor wine nor fruit; people live on milk, meat, and fish. They dwell in subterranean houses and do not venture to speak loudly or to make any noise, for fear that wild animals hear and devour them. There live huge white bears, which swim in the sea and bring shipwrecked sailors to the shore. There live white falcons capable of great flights, which are sent to the emperor of Katai. Further westwards there is another land, named Marckalada, where giants live; in this land, there are buildings with such huge slabs of stone that nobody could build with them, except huge giants. There are also green trees, animals and a great quantity of birds. However, no sailor was ever able to know anything for sure about this land or about its features. From all these facts it is clear that there are settlements at the Arctic pole.

[Apocalyptic Haven]

That Chinese came to Zanzibar in around 1250 Our era, Yet they forgot about Africa until around 1800.

This is false or misleading on several points.

First of all, the Chinese were aware of Africa long before the 13th century. Trade routes between China and Africa through the Indian Ocean were in use as far back as the Han Dynasty. While this early trade was likely primarily indirect, an African embassy certainly reached China during the Song dynasty in the 11th century.

There is clear archaeological evidence in the form of coins and written records that there was ongoing trade contact between China and the east coast of Africa, including the area around Zanzibar, between the 11th and 13th centuries - but not necessarily that the 'Chinese came to Zanzibar'. What evidence exists suggests that the trade was carried out by Somali merchants travelling to China rather than Chinese merchants travelling to Africa.

The Chinese definitely reached the Swahili Coast of Africa in the 15th century, when the famous admiral Zheng He took one of his expeditions in that direction in the 1420s.

While direct contact between China and Africa was significantly reduced in the later Ming Dynasty (the precise reasons being a matter of dispute), the Chinese never 'forgot about Africa', and trade continued - albeit at a more reduced level for the next 300 years - until the end of the imperial period.

Evidence that the Chinese didn't 'forget' about Africa until 1800 can be provided simply via the foundation of the Portuguese colony of Macau in 1557. Hint: how do you think the Portuguese reached China?

There are also claims that they reached America in 1421, seventy-one years before Christopher Columbus.

This is also false.

These 'claims' stem from a series of popular pseudohistory books written by the British author Gavin Menzies, each of which made more spectacular claims than the last. He went from claiming that the Chinese discovered the Americas in 1421, to claiming that the Chinese reached Italy and 'ignited the Renaissance', to claiming that Atlantis was real and had an extensive maritime empire that reached the Americas and India from the central Mediterranean.

Menzies wasn't remotely a historian, functionally made things up while deliberately misrepresenting Zheng He's travels, and seems to have been something of a fantasist. His pseudohistorical publications are firmly rejected by all serious Chinese, European, and North American historians familiar with the period.

Well, that's why I called it "claims." I hadn't the chance to verify said claims yet.

[The Archregimancy]

The Saxons damn near won the Battle of Hastings. The shield wall had held for most of the battle on Senlac Hill, but when rumors spread that William had been killed, the Normans started to retreat. They were only able to fend a panicked rout because William lifted his head above his face and proved that he was still alive, even though his horse had been killed underneath him. They rallied, charged, and then began slaughtering the Saxons, who had abandoned the protection of their hitherto successful, undefeated shield wall. Imagine how history might have turned had William actually fallen or been unconscious and unable to prove his survival.

The first sentence is true, but the rest of the post is misleading.

The Battle of Hastings was highly unusual in lasting roughly 8 hours, when most battles of this period were over in an hour; this length alone shows the resilience of Harold's army during the battle, and demonstrates that it was by no means an easy victory for William.

The incident involving William's rumoured death happened relatively early on in the battle, not towards the end as implied above. William then led a successful counterattack against the English who had tried to take advantage of the momentary weakening of the Norman line.

It's at this point, having seen the impact of a temporary actual retreat of part the Norman line on the English line, and the success of his counterattack, that William seems to have adopted a tactic of multiple feigned retreats to draw out and disrupt the English shield wall. These feigned retreats seem to have been introduced in the early afternoon, following a lunch break (really).

These seem to have been successful in thinning out the shield wall, but the battle still continued for another 3-4 hours, and the Normans certainly didn't have things their own way; accounts differ on the specifics, but William seems to have had two or three horses killed under him during this period.

What finally broke the English defence was the death of Harold at dusk. At this point the hitherto robust English defence collapsed alongside the morale of the defenders - but it was ultimately a desperately close-run thing.

The ultimate causes of Harold's defeat were:

1) The need to defend against two near-simultaneous invasions - though that he crushed Harald Hardrada's army at Stamford Bridge just outside York on 25 September, and then managed to march his army south to Hastings before only narrowly losing a second battle against a different invader on 14 October shows a certain amount of military and logistical competence.

2) A lack of cavalry restricted Harold's tactical options on the day, forcing him to take a largely defensive position.

3) Harold's death.

Of these, while it may be stating the obvious, number 3 was critical. Had Harold managed to hold out until nightfall, it's entirely likely that he could have won a strategic victory even while suffering a narrow tactical defeat on the day, as William's ability to move from Pevensey and the coast through a hostile countryside would have been severely restricted. Harold's death turned a draw or narrow Norman tactical victory into a rout; but had he lived to fight another day, he might well have won the war. William would have been hard-pressed to bring in reinforcements across the Channel that late in the campaigning season while simultaneously having to campaign against an effective and hostile enemy who still controlled the country's levers of power, and could have recalled the fyrd to bring in some immediate reinforcements.

[The Archregimancy]

Well, that's why I called it "claims." I hadn't the chance to verify said claims yet.

Nor will you ever be able to verify said 'claims' since they're a great steaming pile of male bovine manure.

[Heloin]

Ok a part of history I find Odd is how the knowledge of The New World's Existence was lost.

Even though The Vikings were never able to set up a permanent colony in The Americas, the knowledge of their existence should've been well known by Columbus's time.

Odd

The reason lies partly in the fact that writing and record-keeping were uncommon in Scandinavia and Iceland at the time the explorations of Vinland and Markland were made, so they only survived in the spoken word until they were eventually written down centuries later, at which point they would have seemed little more than a curious folk tale. Indeed, the only mention of the New World outside of the Norse sources is in the writings of the 14th century Milanese friar, Galvano Fiamma, and more specifically his Cronica Universalis, where Markland is described as a land of giants. At that point it's little different from legend, but interestingly the account does describe roughly how to get there:

Further northwards there is the Ocean, a sea with many islands where a great quantity of peregrine falcons and gyrfalcons live. These islands are located so far north that the Polar Star remains behind you, toward the south. Sailors who frequent the seas of Denmark and Norway say that northwards, beyond Norway, there is Iceland; further ahead there is an island named Grolandia, where the Polar Star remains behind you, toward the south. The governor of this island is a bishop. In this land, there is neither wheat nor wine nor fruit; people live on milk, meat, and fish. They dwell in subterranean houses and do not venture to speak loudly or to make any noise, for fear that wild animals hear and devour them. There live huge white bears, which swim in the sea and bring shipwrecked sailors to the shore. There live white falcons capable of great flights, which are sent to the emperor of Katai. Further westwards there is another land, named Marckalada, where giants live; in this land, there are buildings with such huge slabs of stone that nobody could build with them, except huge giants. There are also green trees, animals and a great quantity of birds. However, no sailor was ever able to know anything for sure about this land or about its features. From all these facts it is clear that there are settlements at the Arctic pole.

I think it’s always important to remember that until the 1960 the Vinland sagas could have easily have been as wholly mythologic (probably) as Saint Brendan's Island or Hy-Brasil. The distance from Newfoundland to Greenland is about the same as Greenland to Iceland, it wasn’t unreasonable to assume the finally leg of that journey just never happened, it wouldn’t be the first time someone just made up an island for a good story.

[Apocalyptic Haven]

The Saxons damn near won the Battle of Hastings. The shield wall had held for most of the battle on Senlac Hill, but when rumors spread that William had been killed, the Normans started to retreat. They were only able to fend a panicked rout because William lifted his head above his face and proved that he was still alive, even though his horse had been killed underneath him. They rallied, charged, and then began slaughtering the Saxons, who had abandoned the protection of their hitherto successful, undefeated shield wall. Imagine how history might have turned had William actually fallen or been unconscious and unable to prove his survival.

The first sentence is true, but the rest of the post is misleading.

The Battle of Hastings was highly unusual in lasting roughly 8 hours, when most battles of this period were over in an hour; this length alone shows the resilience of Harold's army during the battle, and demonstrates that it was by no means an easy victory for William.

The incident involving William's rumoured death happened relatively early on in the battle, not towards the end as implied above. William then led a successful counterattack against the English who had tried to take advantage of the momentary weakening of the Norman line.

It's at this point, having seen the impact of a temporary actual retreat of part the Norman line on the English line, and the success of his counterattack, that William seems to have adopted a tactic of multiple feigned retreats to draw out and disrupt the English shield wall. These feigned retreats seem to have been introduced in the early afternoon, following a lunch break (really).

These seem to have been successful in thinning out the shield wall, but the battle still continued for another 3-4 hours, and the Normans certainly didn't have things their own way; accounts differ on the specifics, but William seems to have had two or three horses killed under him during this period.

What finally broke the English defence was the death of Harold at dusk. At this point the hitherto robust English defence collapsed alongside the morale of the defenders - but it was ultimately a desperately close-run thing.

The ultimate causes of Harold's defeat were:

1) The need to defend against two near-simultaneous invasions - though that he crushed Harald Hardrada's army at Stamford Bridge just outside York on 25 September, and then managed to march his army south to Hastings before only narrowly losing a second battle against a different invader on 14 October shows a certain amount of military and logistical competence.

2) A lack of cavalry restricted Harold's tactical options on the day, forcing him to take a largely defensive position.

3) Harold's death.

Of these, while it may be stating the obvious, number 3 was critical. Had Harold managed to hold out until nightfall, it's entirely likely that he could have won a strategic victory even while suffering a narrow tactical defeat on the day, as William's ability to move from Pevensey and the coast through a hostile countryside would have been severely restricted. Harold's death turned a draw or narrow Norman tactical victory into a rout; but had he lived to fight another day, he might well have won the war. William would have been hard-pressed to bring in reinforcements across the Channel that late in the campaigning season while simultaneously having to campaign against an effective and hostile enemy who still controlled the country's levers of power, and could have recalled the fyrd to bring in some immediate reinforcements.

Well, I am interested in your sources. They substantially disagree with the versions that I have read or heard, but that doesn't mean that I dispute them. I am fascinated by this more detailed account of the sequence of events leading to Harold's demise (and that of Saxon England). It is always interesting to get another perspective on an area of history where one has heard a different account.

[The Archregimancy]

Ok a part of history I find Odd is how the knowledge of The New World's Existence was lost.

Even though The Vikings were never able to set up a permanent colony in The Americas, the knowledge of their existence should've been well known by Columbus's time.

Odd

The reason lies partly in the fact that writing and record-keeping were uncommon in Scandinavia and Iceland at the time the explorations of Vinland and Markland were made, so they only survived in the spoken word until they were eventually written down centuries later, at which point they would have seemed little more than a curious folk tale. Indeed, the only mention of the New World outside of the Norse sources is in the writings of the 14th century Milanese friar, Galvano Fiamma, and more specifically his Cronica Universalis, where Markland is described as a land of giants. At that point it's little different from legend, but interestingly the account does describe roughly how to get there:

Further northwards there is the Ocean, a sea with many islands where a great quantity of peregrine falcons and gyrfalcons live. These islands are located so far north that the Polar Star remains behind you, toward the south. Sailors who frequent the seas of Denmark and Norway say that northwards, beyond Norway, there is Iceland; further ahead there is an island named Grolandia, where the Polar Star remains behind you, toward the south. The governor of this island is a bishop. In this land, there is neither wheat nor wine nor fruit; people live on milk, meat, and fish. They dwell in subterranean houses and do not venture to speak loudly or to make any noise, for fear that wild animals hear and devour them. There live huge white bears, which swim in the sea and bring shipwrecked sailors to the shore. There live white falcons capable of great flights, which are sent to the emperor of Katai. Further westwards there is another land, named Marckalada, where giants live; in this land, there are buildings with such huge slabs of stone that nobody could build with them, except huge giants. There are also green trees, animals and a great quantity of birds. However, no sailor was ever able to know anything for sure about this land or about its features. From all these facts it is clear that there are settlements at the Arctic pole.

I'd add a bit of additional nuance here.

While L'Anse aux Meadows - the Newfoundland archaeological site that's the only confirmed site of Norse settlement in the Americas - dates to c.990-c.1050 AD, contact between Europe and the Norse settlements in Greenland seems to have continued to c.1360 for the more northerly Western Settlement and c.1405 for the more southerly Eastern Settlement. Catholic bishops were being sent to Greenland to support the settlements as late as 1368. Shortly after these dates, the settlements seem to have become abandoned, though the fate of the last settlers remains a matter of some dispute (a friend of mine did some archaeology on the sites back in the late 1990s, and a range of theories were being suggested).

While the evidence is somewhat anecdotal and sometimes hard to parse, it seems unlikely that the Norse settlers totally ignored what we now know to be the Americas in the centuries that the Greenland settlements were active after the known Norse settlements in the Americas were abandoned. It's therefore not so much that knowledge of the New World was completely lost, as that no one seems to have realised the full significance of what was happening up in Greenland - and the settlements were then abandoned 85 years before Columbus set sail. But the Basques, at least, seem to have possibly retained some level of oral history knowledge of the region into Columbus's day, even if they were sketchy on the details and also didn't realise the significance of that knowledge; and that knowledge has also been subject to subsequent romanticisation and exaggeration that further obscures precisely how much was known by whom.

[Cookies]

I sure hope The Archregimancy doesn't own me for posting this and it somehow is wrong

Heroin was once deemed a perfectly acceptable medicine, Doctors there would prescribe it for stuff like coughs and headaches.

I'm not sure how that actually worked back then, and honestly, that sounds, kinda strange and too good to be true.

[The Archregimancy]

Well, I am interested in your sources.

Err... basic well-attested histories outlining the well-known details one of the key battles in European history? One for which there are unusually reliable (for the period) contemporary accounts?

Anyway, without even trying - and without any recourse to the internet - I walked 1 metre over to my closest bookshelf and picked up my copy of volume 1 of the abridged version of JFC Fuller's classic The Decisive Battles of the Western World in order to quickly doublecheck the details. It leans a bit more on the account of William of Poitiers than modern scholarship might, and leaves out the detail about the lunch break, but it's in line with the common account on all of the key details.

No doubt you have similarly unimpeachable sources that you can outline for us.

[Apocalyptic Haven]

Well, I am interested in your sources.

Err... basic well-attested histories outlining the well-known details one of the key battles in European history? One for which there are unusually reliable (for the period) contemporary accounts?

Anyway, without even trying - and without any recourse to the internet - I walked 1 metre over to my closest bookshelf and picked up my copy of volume 1 of the abridged version of JFC Fuller's classic The Decisive Battles of the Western World in order to quickly doublecheck the details. It leans a bit more on the account of William of Poitiers than modern scholarship might, and leaves out the detail about the lunch break, but it's in line with the common account on all of the key details.

No doubt you have similarly unimpeachable sources that you can outline for us.

I don't, that's why I asked.

[Duvniask]

The reason lies partly in the fact that writing and record-keeping were uncommon in Scandinavia and Iceland at the time the explorations of Vinland and Markland were made, so they only survived in the spoken word until they were eventually written down centuries later, at which point they would have seemed little more than a curious folk tale. Indeed, the only mention of the New World outside of the Norse sources is in the writings of the 14th century Milanese friar, Galvano Fiamma, and more specifically his Cronica Universalis, where Markland is described as a land of giants. At that point it's little different from legend, but interestingly the account does describe roughly how to get there:

Further northwards there is the Ocean, a sea with many islands where a great quantity of peregrine falcons and gyrfalcons live. These islands are located so far north that the Polar Star remains behind you, toward the south. Sailors who frequent the seas of Denmark and Norway say that northwards, beyond Norway, there is Iceland; further ahead there is an island named Grolandia, where the Polar Star remains behind you, toward the south. The governor of this island is a bishop. In this land, there is neither wheat nor wine nor fruit; people live on milk, meat, and fish. They dwell in subterranean houses and do not venture to speak loudly or to make any noise, for fear that wild animals hear and devour them. There live huge white bears, which swim in the sea and bring shipwrecked sailors to the shore. There live white falcons capable of great flights, which are sent to the emperor of Katai. Further westwards there is another land, named Marckalada, where giants live; in this land, there are buildings with such huge slabs of stone that nobody could build with them, except huge giants. There are also green trees, animals and a great quantity of birds. However, no sailor was ever able to know anything for sure about this land or about its features. From all these facts it is clear that there are settlements at the Arctic pole.

I'd add a bit of additional nuance here.

While L'Anse aux Meadows - the Newfoundland archaeological site that's the only confirmed site of Norse settlement in the Americas - dates to c.990-c.1050 AD, contact between Europe and the Norse settlements in Greenland seems to have continued to c.1360 for the more northerly Western Settlement and c.1405 for the more southerly Eastern Settlement. Catholic bishops were being sent to Greenland to support the settlements as late as 1368. Shortly after these dates, the settlements seem to have become abandoned, though the fate of the last settlers remains a matter of some dispute (a friend of mine did some archaeology on the sites back in the late 1990s, and a range of theories were being suggested).

While the evidence is somewhat anecdotal and sometimes hard to parse, it seems unlikely that the Norse settlers totally ignored what we now know to be the Americas in the centuries that the Greenland settlements were active after the known Norse settlements in the Americas were abandoned. It's therefore not so much that knowledge of the New World was completely lost, as that no one seems to have realised the full significance of what was happening up in Greenland - and the settlements were then abandoned 85 years before Columbus set sail. But the Basques, at least, some to have retained some level of oral history knowledge of the region into Columbus's day, even if they were sketchy on the details and also didn't realise the significance of that knowledge; and that knowledge has also been subject to subsequent romanticisation and exaggeration that further obscures precisely how much was known by whom.

I'm curious how the Basques fit into this picture, having oral traditions about it no less.

[Cuba 2022 RP]

Stop me if you've heard this one before: a US soldier in WW2 captured a retreating German by shouting at him, Halt, oder ich scheisse! (Stop, or I'll shit!) The German collapsed laughing.

Not that funny a joke, it’s probably due to the context (active warzone), that makes it enough to cause so much laughter

[The Archregimancy]

I sure hope The Archregimancy doesn't own me for posting this and it somehow is wrong

Heroin was once deemed a perfectly acceptable medicine, Doctors there would prescribe it for stuff like coughs and headaches.

I'm not sure how that actually worked back then, and honestly, that sounds, kinda strange and too good to be true.

As it happens, this is entirely correct - and genuinely interesting.

'Heroin' was in fact originally Bayer's late 19th-century trade name for a product that (or so the somewhat anecdotal story goes) their marketing department wanted to suggest made the recipients heroic and strong. Bayer didn't invent heroin, but they were the first to try and find a commercial use for it, and to make it in commercial quantities As you state, it was originally a perfectly respectable cough medicine - rather ironically marketed as a non-addictive alternative to morphine cough medicine. Unfortunately, it quickly turned out that heroin was even more addictive than morphine, and that the effect of making people feel heroic was rather short-lived.

Bayer had a habit of using the -in suffix for commercial products they were developing in the 1890s. They had rather more long-term success with their 'aspirin' brand.

Anyway, both 'heroin' and 'aspirin' were originally Bayer brand names that are now entirely generic.

[The Archregimancy]

No doubt you have similarly unimpeachable sources that you can outline for us.

I don't, that's why I asked.

So if you have no sources, when you wrote...

Well, I am interested in your sources. They substantially disagree with the versions that I have read or heard

...you were perhaps sharing what we might charitably characterise as alternative facts.

[Apocalyptic Haven]

I don't, that's why I asked.

So if you have no sources, when you wrote...

Well, I am interested in your sources. They substantially disagree with the versions that I have read or heard

...you were perhaps sharing what we might charitably characterise as alternative facts.

I was sharing what I had read or heard in the past from various textbooks and documentaries. It was what was true to the best of my knowledge. It is also possibly outdated, from the sound of it. Hence my interest in your sources, in the interests of better information. I was curious, not disputing your assertions. Perhaps you thought that I was doubting you, but that wasn't the point.