History Myths & Myth-Conceptions

There is this legend about Spartans disposing of the "ill-born babies" by throwing them off some cliff in the Taygetus mountain range. And the legend itself comes from Plutarch and his “Life of Lycurgus”. That's a myth. But this is not really what we are discussing here. We’re discussing infanticide in Sparta and in Ancient Greece in general. Did they kill ill-born and deformed babies? You know, without involvement of a cliff, through some other methods of killing people?

Many people these days spread the idea that Aristotle “supported”, “defended”, “approved” slavery. And therefore he was a terrible person. He was worse than us, nice and advanced people. It is a terrible thing to promote the idea that the greatest minds of Antiquity were... bad and stupid people. The subject of slavery, different types of slavery throughout the history, slavery in Ancient Greece, definitions of slavery, etc - this is a complex subject that can’t be covered in one short video. But there are several things to address here in regards to Aristotle and in general. Like, this the wild habit transporting modern concepts and ideas into the distant past for the sake of judging people there.

That’s the popular saying and most probably you’ve heard it a hundred times. Which basically means that it doesn’t matter how you made money, it is still money. But while the initial meaning is quite close to the modern one, this is not exactly what the originator of this saying actually meant. The originator of the saying is the Roman Emperor Vespasian. Or - to be more precise - the primary sources on his reign that we have: ancient historians Suetonius and Cassius Dio.

Everybody knows that “Pyrrhic victory” means a victory that came at too great a cost. A victory not really worth winning. Almost everybody also knows the origin of the phrase. It comes from the story of Pyrrhus of Epirus, who fought with the Romans at the Battle of Asculum. Everything is fine with the phrase, everyone understands the meaning correctly. The misconception here is of another kind. While many people know the origins of the phrase and they heard of Pyrrhus, they somehow assume that his losses were incredibly heavy and Pyrrhus himself wasn’t a good general. And that’s not true.

If you read historical books, once in a while you stumble upon stories about some “mad kings” or “mad emperors” or whatever. They do some crazy stuff because they are insane. They give crazy orders and everyone follows them because, well, it’s an order. That’s a myth. It is usually a lazy explanation or a direct disinformation by the historians and nothing more. It is just easier to say that a certain person is insane than to actually try to objectively explain his or her actions.

There is a famous gladiatorial “catchphrase”, which is constantly used in popular culture: "Those who are about to die salute you". Supposedly it was widely used by the gladiators when they were greeting the patron of the games. Well, it was not a common “gladiator’s salute” and it was quite probably used, like, once. Or even never. It can be an invention of the ancient historians. This phrase is quoted by Suetonius and Cassius Dio and refers to one episode during the reign of the emperor Claudius.

This is the modern myth that is surprisingly getting more and more traction. Most of the people who have some knowledge about the history of Ancient Rome openly laugh at the idea of Septimius Severus being black, but the idea is still out there. And it started to produce such wild works of fiction like the book “Severus: The Black Caesar”. The whole thing about the “black emperor” quite probably evolved from the fact that Septimius Severus was from Africa. And, to be precise, he was not only from the continent of Africa, but from the Roman province called Africa.

The famous Cynic philosopher Diogenes and what we know about him from “Lives of the Eminent Philosophers” by Diogenes Laertius… Well, we can’t be sure how many of the anecdotes from this book are actually based on reality. Diogenes - in a way - became a myth himself. Diogenes can be considered if not the inventor, but at least the original advocate of the “tiny house” movement. But he lived in... Well, it wasn't exactly a barrel.

Niccolò Machiavelli is considered one of the most important political thinkers of all time and more or less a father of realpolitik - a realistic and pragmatic approach to politics. Machiavelli is often associated with total disregard of morality, total endorsement of tyranny, deceit and general cruelty. Which is incredibly far from being true. One of the main problems for this kind of misunderstanding lies in his most famous work - “The Prince”. Usually it is the only work by Machiavelli that people read. And most of the time they don’t even read “The Prince”, they read quotes taken out of context.

Like pretty much any Hellenistic school, Epicureanism is about happiness. Happiness is the ultimate goal. Epicurus taught that happiness is easily achievable. And the road to happiness lies through... pleasure. Because pleasure is, like, the best thing in life... according to Epicurus. So far so good, Epicureanism remains quite Epicurean. But that's when it all becomes tricky.

Caligula is a prominent subject of character assassination. Indeed, quite probably he was a relatively incompetent ruler and not a very nice human being, but the main problem here is that we have only two primary sources describing his rule: ancient historians Suetonius and Cassius Dio. Both are extremely, horrifyingly biased. When a historian accuses someone of incest it is basically a headshot in his assassination attempt.

More and more people read the story of the Roman Emperor Elagabalus and raise the question about the “Transgender Emperor” and stuff like that. It is not surprising that most of the discussions about the so-called “Transgender Emperor” are inherently flawed and just simply wrong. This is not really an issue, there is almost no substance for a meaningful dialogue. Let’s quickly analyze what is fundamentally wrong with this question.

Saying that “Caligula made his horse a consul” is practically the same as saying that “Donald Trump made his horse a vice-president”. It is absolutely impossible. It can’t be done. It is a joke. People have serious misconceptions about certain historical periods or - sometimes - selective misconceptions. Ancient Rome gave us many things. Including the basis for the system of law. Or foundations of certain political systems. But somehow people read wild anecdotes by the ancient historians forget that there was a certain political system in place. And this system was complex.

This weird legend comes from the ancient authors, who were notoriously biased against Nero. There are three main sources on Nero: sensationalistic and not very reliable Suetonius and his work “The Twelve Ceasars”, the history written by Cassius Dio, who lived almost two centuries after Nero, and Tacitus. Nero, just like Caligula for example, was almost certainly a subject of character assassination. Nero was considered a “bad emperor” and almost everything he did was interpreted in a negative light. To a point that some of the stories told by the ancient historians make almost no sense whatsoever.

Gladiatorial combat is one of the most misunderstood topics in the history of Ancient Rome. For centuries it was interpreted as a total bloodbath with literature and films producing incredibly inaccurate images of this Roman sport. Today we're trying to analyze what it really was.

"Commodus killed Marcus Aurelius" is a wild rumor that’s been picked up by screenwriters. For example Commodus participates in the death of Marcus Aurelius in “The Fall of the Roman Empire”. And since Ridley Scott’s “Gladiator” in many ways was inspired by “The Fall of the Roman Empire”, this interesting plot twist traveled to his movie as well. Let's find out how this idea sits with the original sources and common sense.