History Main / ArtisticLicenseHistory

24th Jun '16 6:08:16 AM Doug86
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ''The Necronomicon: The Dee Translation'' by Lin Carter has a scene where Abdul Alhazred ingests Black Lotus in order to see visions of the past. Among other things, he sees scenes from UsefulNotes/TheCrusades where Saladin fights at Jerusalem. The problem? The text states clearly that Alhazred died in AD 738. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin Saladin]] was born in AD 1138. (Granted, TimeTravel is a part of the CthulhuMythos, so it is possible that the Black Lotus can show visions from the future as well as the past. But Alhazred describes the Crusades as a perfectly well-known event that the reader is expected to be familiar with. If he were seeing scenes from the far future, you'd think he would remark on it.)

to:

* ''The Necronomicon: The Dee Translation'' by Lin Carter has a scene where Abdul Alhazred ingests Black Lotus in order to see visions of the past. Among other things, he sees scenes from UsefulNotes/TheCrusades where Saladin fights at Jerusalem. The problem? The text states clearly that Alhazred died in AD 738. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin Saladin]] was born in AD 1138. (Granted, TimeTravel is a part of the CthulhuMythos, Franchise/CthulhuMythos, so it is possible that the Black Lotus can show visions from the future as well as the past. But Alhazred describes the Crusades as a perfectly well-known event that the reader is expected to be familiar with. If he were seeing scenes from the far future, you'd think he would remark on it.)
18th Jun '16 7:08:41 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** The South's interactions with states' rights were odd. The Confederate central government was weak, but in a way that was all downside and no upside; this could be called support for states' rights. (Alabama, for example, successfully insisted for years that its soldiers could only be used to defend the borders of Alabama -- where no battles were fought for the duration of the war.) The Confederate constitution, meanwhile, was almost identical to the US constitution (even including the Interstate Commerce Clause, [[LoopholeAbuse a loophole large enough to drive a centralized government through]]), except that it was more restrictive on slavery. (The Confederate constitution forbade banning slavery, but also forbade importing slaves.) This was absolutely ''not'' support for states' rights. In short, states' rights weren't much of a concern for the Confederacy one way or the other. The South actually was ''hostile'' to states' rights when it went against them. For instance, many free states passed laws saying slaves brought into their territory were automatically freed. This naturally pissed off visiting Southerners who wanted to bring their cook or driver along. Also, the free states obstructed the return of fugitive slaves to their owners by measures like requiring that a jury find they were indeed fugitive slaves before returning them (some were slave-catchers were known to misidentify free blacks). Juries often refused to do this. Due to this, the issue was federalized by the Fugitive Slave Act, with federal marshals hunting down escaped slaves hardly what a states' rights supporter would want (of course the free states loudly protested this, and it helped move civil war closer).
*** The political ideology of State's rights was rarely mentioned in the run up to the Civil War. As shown by the Articles of Secession and other documents of the time, the predominant Southern concern was the maintenance of their way of life, which was heavily reliant on slavery. The South actively embraced Federal power when it benefited them (i.e. the Dred Scot decision, the Fugitive Slave Act). Due to the infamous 3/5ths compromise, white southerners had a disproportionate influence in the Federal government, and it was only when the population of the North threatened this (the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 occurred without a single southern state voting for him) that secession picked up steam.

to:

*** The South's interactions with states' rights were odd. The Confederate central government was weak, but in a way that was all downside and no upside; this could be called support for states' rights. (Alabama, for example, successfully insisted for years that its soldiers could only be used to defend the borders of Alabama -- where no battles were fought for the duration of the war.) The Confederate constitution, meanwhile, was almost identical to the US constitution (even including the Interstate Commerce Clause, [[LoopholeAbuse a loophole large enough to drive a centralized government through]]), except that it was more restrictive on slavery. (The Confederate constitution forbade banning slavery, but also forbade importing slaves.) This was absolutely ''not'' support for states' rights. In short, states' rights weren't much of a concern for the Confederacy one way or the other. The South actually was ''hostile'' to states' rights when it went against them. For instance, many free states passed laws saying slaves brought into their territory were automatically freed. This naturally pissed off visiting Southerners who wanted to bring their cook or driver along. Also, the free states obstructed the return of fugitive slaves to their owners by measures like requiring that a jury find they were indeed fugitive slaves before returning them (some were slave-catchers were known to misidentify free blacks). Juries often refused to do this. Due to this, Because of such things, the issue was became federalized by the Fugitive Slave Act, with federal marshals hunting down escaped slaves hardly slaves-hardly what a states' rights supporter would want (of want. Of course the free states loudly protested this, and it helped move civil war closer).closer.
*** The political ideology of State's state's rights was rarely mentioned in the run up to the Civil War. As shown by the Articles of Secession and other documents of the time, the predominant Southern concern was the maintenance of their way of life, which was heavily reliant on slavery. The South actively embraced Federal federal power when it benefited them (i.e. the Dred Scot decision, the Fugitive Slave Act). Due to the infamous 3/5ths compromise, white southerners had a disproportionate influence in the Federal government, and it was only when the population of the North threatened this (the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 occurred without a single southern state voting for him) that secession picked up steam.
17th Jun '16 9:36:39 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Being "broken on the wheel" was a method of execution, not the means to extract confessions or information. The victim would be strapped to a cart wheel, then have their arms and legs broken with sledge hammers. They would then bleed to death slowly. It was reserved for people such as heretics whom even the ordinary painful death by burning or hanging was considered too good for. In the Austria-based [[UsefulNotes/TheSoundOfMartialMusic Empire of the Habsburgs]], it was the harshest punishment reserved for traitors and rebels against the State.

to:

** Being "broken on the wheel" was a method of execution, not the means to extract confessions or information. The victim would be strapped to a cart wheel, then have their arms and legs broken with sledge hammers. They would then bleed to death slowly. It was reserved for people such as heretics whom even the ordinary painful death by burning or hanging was considered too good for. In the Austria-based [[UsefulNotes/TheSoundOfMartialMusic Empire UsefulNotes/HolyRomanEmpire of the Habsburgs]], Habsburgs, it was the harshest punishment reserved for traitors and rebels against the State.



::Especially amusing, given that a "fight against global fascism" is not really the reason - in fact, had Germany not declared war on the USA, it is highly possible that the USA would not have intervened in Europe at all. Though the USA did give tons of supplies to both England and Russia in their fight against Hitler. FDR wanted war very badly with Germany. He just needed the American people to want war too. Use Miller's analogy backwards?

to:

::Especially amusing, given that a "fight against global fascism" is not really the reason - in fact, had Germany not declared war on the USA, it is highly possible that the USA would not have intervened in Europe at all. Though all, though the USA did give tons of supplies to both England and Russia in their fight against Hitler. FDR wanted war very badly with Germany. He Germany, he just needed the American people to want war too. Use Miller's analogy backwards?



* The claim that all or at least most women that were burnt as witches were wise women is completely false. It was made popular by one guy and accepted as truth by the public because, well, people being killed for being too badass for their time to handle is much more interesting than people being killed because their neighbors didn't like them and claimed that they were doing witchcraft. Also, death penalties were extremely rare among the peasants, because landlords needed any workforce they could have. And wise women were usually the only people around eligible for the role of local medic and midwife. More often than not anyone trying to denounce a 'witch' was considered a troublemaker and flogged for his or her troubles. Modern French researchers led by Jacques Le Goff (''The Medieval World'') had tried to prove how those who took the brunt of persecution in the Middle Ages were not "the poor" (peasant, petty laborer), but rather [[WrongSideOfTheTracks the marginals / outcasts]], those who lived outside the society norms: the supposed thief, the supposed unbeliever, the unwed mother, the strange old woman living outside the village and so on. Conversely, as so many people died from now easily treatable conditions, for instance complications of childbirth, the midwife-cum-medic often took the blame when they did.

to:

* The claim that all or at least most women that were burnt as witches were wise women is completely false. It was made popular by one guy and accepted as truth by the public because, well, people being killed for being too badass for their time to handle is much more interesting than people being killed because their neighbors didn't like them and claimed that they were doing witchcraft. Also, death penalties sentences were extremely rare among the peasants, because landlords needed any workforce they could have. And wise women were usually the only people around eligible for the role of local medic and midwife. More often than not anyone trying to denounce a 'witch' was considered a troublemaker and flogged for his or her troubles. Modern French researchers led by Jacques Le Goff (''The Medieval World'') had tried to prove how those who took the brunt of persecution in the Middle Ages were not "the poor" (peasant, petty laborer), but rather [[WrongSideOfTheTracks the marginals / outcasts]], those who lived outside the society norms: the supposed thief, the supposed unbeliever, the unwed mother, the strange old woman living outside the village and so on. Conversely, as so many people died from now easily treatable conditions, for instance complications of childbirth, the midwife-cum-medic often took the blame when they did.



* When it comes to persecution by the Church, people today tend to go a bit overboard. For instance, a lot of media portrays the historical Church as violently anti-science. This is simply not true. In fact, the Church sponsored a lot of scientific research, particularly medical research, and quite a few Catholic researchers have been credited as the fathers of many scientific fields-- including ''evolution.'' This makes more sense when you consider that in medieval times, there were generally only two institutions in a country that would have the money and resources to support large-scale research: the government and the Church.

to:

* When it comes to persecution by the Church, people today tend to go a bit overboard. For instance, a lot of media portrays the historical Church as violently anti-science. This is simply not true. In fact, the Church sponsored a lot of scientific research, particularly medical research, and quite a few Catholic researchers have been credited as the fathers of many scientific fields-- including ''evolution.'' This makes more sense when you consider that in medieval times, times there were generally only two institutions in a country that would have the money and resources to support large-scale research: the government and the Church.



* [[UsefulNotes/AmericanCivilWar The Lost Cause]] is not an accurate understanding of the {{UsefulNotes/AmericanCivilWar}}. [[note]]"The War of Southern Secession" is a more accurate name than "the American Civil War", since the South was fighting to leave the central government rather than take control of it; "The War Between the States" is a ''less'' accurate name, since it was a war between some of the states on the one hand, and the federal government on the other.[[/note]][[note]]("The Lost Cause" is the shorthand term for a reading of the American Civil War with the South as a pure, noble society crushed by the greedy, mercantile North. This was a Southern narrative primarily, but Film/BirthOfANation popularized it in the rest of the United States; Film/GoneWithTheWind popularized it worldwide -- especially in Japan, which had just gone through similar experiences.)[[/note]] In detail:

to:

* [[UsefulNotes/AmericanCivilWar The Lost Cause]] is not an accurate understanding of the {{UsefulNotes/AmericanCivilWar}}. [[note]]"The War of Southern Secession" is a more accurate name than "the American Civil War", since the South was fighting to leave the central government rather than take control of it; "The War Between the States" is a ''less'' accurate name, since it was a war between some of the states on the one hand, and the federal government on the other.[[/note]][[note]]("The Lost Cause" is the shorthand term for a reading of the American Civil War with the South as a pure, noble society crushed by the greedy, mercantile North. This was a Southern narrative primarily, but Film/BirthOfANation popularized it in the rest of the United States; Film/GoneWithTheWind popularized it worldwide -- especially in Japan, which had just gone through similar experiences.)[[/note]] In detail:



** Lee wasn't a wise, sagacious saint. He tried to invade the North twice, and met disaster both times (Antietam and Gettysburg), which proves that he could make military mistakes; at the battle of Cold Harbor, he callously stalled for several days before permitting the Union to evacuate its wounded from before the Confederate entrenchments -- during which time almost all of the wounded died of their wounds in the savage heat. (This would be a war crime today; the First Geneva Convention, signed among European powers in 1864 and joined by the US shortly after the war, requires all sides to allow speedy withdrawal of the wounded.)
** [[WeHaveReserves Superior manpower]] (ultimately even Irish and German recruits fresh off the docks, who barely spoke a word of English) played a role in the North's victory; but so did having an actually functioning economy; and so did Lincoln's excellent sense of strategy. His blockade of food to the South, like Lee's conduct at Cold Harbor, would be a war crime today; but his most important contribution to the war was his decision to transfer about half of the Army of the Potomac to the western theater (around the Mississippi), gambling -- correctly -- that if a Southern force could hold back 1 1/2 as many Northern troops, a Northern force could hold back 1 1/2 as many Southerners too. Meanwhile, the South continued to grow cotton for export despite the blockade, instead of planting food in its plantations, which might have actually allowed them to keep fighting -- and Davis made no attempt to move troops west to match Lincoln's move. Instead, Lee frittered away the Army of Northern Virginia on pointless offensives into Pennsylvania -- meeting disaster at Antietam and Gettysburg.

to:

** Lee wasn't a wise, sagacious saint. He tried to invade the North twice, and met disaster both times (Antietam and Gettysburg), which proves that he could make military mistakes; at the battle Battle of Cold Harbor, he callously stalled for several days before permitting the Union to evacuate its wounded from before the Confederate entrenchments -- during which time almost all of the wounded died of their wounds in the savage heat. (This would be a war crime today; the First Geneva Convention, signed among European powers in 1864 and joined by the US shortly after the war, requires all sides to allow speedy withdrawal of the wounded.)
** [[WeHaveReserves Superior manpower]] (ultimately even Irish and German recruits fresh off the docks, who barely spoke a word of English) played a role in the North's victory; victory, but so did having an actually functioning economy; economy, and so did Lincoln's excellent sense of strategy. His blockade of food to the South, like Lee's conduct at Cold Harbor, would be a war crime today; but his most important contribution to the war was his decision to transfer about half of the Army of the Potomac to the western theater (around the Mississippi), gambling -- correctly -- that if a Southern force could hold back 1 1/2 as many Northern troops, a Northern force could hold back 1 1/2 as many Southerners too. Meanwhile, the South continued to grow cotton for export despite the blockade, instead of planting food in its plantations, which might have actually allowed them to keep fighting -- and Davis made no attempt to move troops west to match Lincoln's move. Instead, Lee frittered away the Army of Northern Virginia on pointless offensives into Pennsylvania -- meeting disaster at Antietam and Gettysburg.



*** The South's interactions with states' rights were odd. The Confederate central government was weak, but in a way that was all downside and no upside; this could be called support for states' rights. (Alabama, for example, successfully insisted for years that its soldiers could only be used to defend the borders of Alabama -- where no battles were fought for the duration of the war.) The Confederate constitution, meanwhile, was almost identical to the US constitution (even including the Interstate Commerce Clause, [[LoopholeAbuse a loophole large enough to drive a centralized government through]]), except that it was more restrictive on slavery. (The Confederate constitution forbade banning slavery, but also forbade importing slaves.) This was absolutely ''not'' support for states' rights. In short, states' rights weren't much of a concern for the Confederacy one way or the other.

to:

*** The South's interactions with states' rights were odd. The Confederate central government was weak, but in a way that was all downside and no upside; this could be called support for states' rights. (Alabama, for example, successfully insisted for years that its soldiers could only be used to defend the borders of Alabama -- where no battles were fought for the duration of the war.) The Confederate constitution, meanwhile, was almost identical to the US constitution (even including the Interstate Commerce Clause, [[LoopholeAbuse a loophole large enough to drive a centralized government through]]), except that it was more restrictive on slavery. (The Confederate constitution forbade banning slavery, but also forbade importing slaves.) This was absolutely ''not'' support for states' rights. In short, states' rights weren't much of a concern for the Confederacy one way or the other. The South actually was ''hostile'' to states' rights when it went against them. For instance, many free states passed laws saying slaves brought into their territory were automatically freed. This naturally pissed off visiting Southerners who wanted to bring their cook or driver along. Also, the free states obstructed the return of fugitive slaves to their owners by measures like requiring that a jury find they were indeed fugitive slaves before returning them (some were slave-catchers were known to misidentify free blacks). Juries often refused to do this. Due to this, the issue was federalized by the Fugitive Slave Act, with federal marshals hunting down escaped slaves hardly what a states' rights supporter would want (of course the free states loudly protested this, and it helped move civil war closer).



*** A minority of slaveowners allowed their slaves to own property, and to buy their freedom; but most didn't, and this was at a master's discretion. A master was not obliged to accept any price for a slave's freedom, and he could seize a slave's savings if he wanted to.

to:

*** A minority of slaveowners slave owners allowed their slaves to own property, and to buy their freedom; but most didn't, and this was at a master's discretion. A master was not obliged to accept any price for a slave's freedom, and he could seize a slave's savings if he wanted to.



*** Few masters mistreated their slaves if they stayed as slaves and made a show of being content with their lot; but all slaves knew that plotting to revolt meant torture (to reveal any co-conspirators) and death, and that attempts to escape meant severe beatings. After the war, it got worse: lynch mobs (originally a Scotch-Irish "custom" that mostly targeted whites; almost exclusively white-on-black in the lowland South after the war) could and did kill blacks cruelly (sometimes even burning them to death), based on nothing more than rumors.
*** Few or no laws regulated masters' conduct. Custom did, to an extent, but custom is not as powerful as law -- and such laws as did exist were very laxly enforced. Physically abusive slaveowners were rare, but not by any means non-existent; and slaves had no legal recourse if mistreated.
*** Many or most slaveowners were guilty of breaking up slave families by selling one member of a family, but not the others with them.

to:

*** Few masters mistreated their slaves if they stayed as slaves and made a show of being content with their lot; but all slaves knew that plotting to revolt meant torture (to reveal any co-conspirators) and death, and that attempts to escape meant severe beatings. After the war, it got worse: lynch mobs (originally a Scotch-Irish "custom" that mostly targeted whites; almost whites-almost exclusively white-on-black in the lowland South after the war) could and did kill blacks cruelly (sometimes even burning them to death), based on nothing more than rumors.
*** Few or no laws regulated masters' conduct. Custom did, to an extent, but custom is not as powerful as law -- and such laws as did exist were very laxly enforced. Physically abusive slaveowners slave owners were rare, but not by any means non-existent; and slaves had no legal recourse if mistreated.
*** Many or most slaveowners slave owners were guilty of breaking up slave families by selling one member of a family, but not the others with them.



*** In Virginia in 1860, it was illegal to teach slaves to read and write. Stonewall Jackson defied this law -- and the Lost Cause celebrates him for doing so -- but most masters didn't. Recall how Christianization of the slaves was an argument in favor of slavery; that the South was overwhelmingly Protestant; and that being a faithful Protestant more or less requires reading the Bible.

to:

*** In Virginia in 1860, it was illegal to teach slaves to read and write. Stonewall Jackson defied this law -- and the Lost Cause celebrates him for doing so -- but most masters didn't. Recall how Christianization of the slaves was an argument in favor of slavery; slavery, that the South was overwhelmingly Protestant; Protestant, and that being a faithful Protestant more or less requires reading the Bible.
17th Jun '16 8:18:45 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Donovan was also fully experienced in dealing with big, controversial cases: He became assistant to Justice Robert H. Jackson at the Nuremberg trials. While he prepared for the trials, he was also working as an advisor for the documentary feature ''The Nazi Plan''. Donovan was the presenter of visual evidence at the trial.

to:

** Donovan was also fully experienced in dealing with big, controversial cases: He he became assistant to Justice Robert H. Jackson at the Nuremberg trials. While he prepared for the trials, he was also working as an advisor adviser for the documentary feature ''The Nazi Plan''. Donovan was the presenter of visual evidence at the trial.



* ''Film/DancesWithWolves'': Although more accurate than previous films in its depiction of the West and native peoples, it still has innacurracies. First, the whites are shown as hunting buffalo solely to take skins. This was not yet the case in 1865, and would only begin in 1871. At that point buffalo were still hunted by the whites for meat. Secondly, the Lakota are portrayed as simply defending themselves, and the Pawnee are evil allies of the US government. However, it was actually the Lakota who had been the aggressors against the Pawnee, moving into the Plains in the late 1700s from the northeast. This is ''why'' tribes such as the Pawnee, Arikawa and Crow were allies of the US government against the Lakota (not that it helped them later, of course), since the Lakota had been pushing them out of their land. While the Pawnee could be brutal, they were no more so than the Lakota. Of course, this is simply to show the viewer who the good and bad guys are, without complicating matters.

to:

* ''Film/DancesWithWolves'': Although more accurate than previous films in its depiction of the West and native peoples, it still has innacurracies. First, the whites are shown as hunting buffalo solely to take skins. This was not yet the case in 1865, and would only begin in 1871. At that point buffalo were still hunted by the whites for meat. Secondly, the Lakota are portrayed as simply defending themselves, and the Pawnee are evil allies of the US government. However, it was actually the Lakota who had been the aggressors against the Pawnee, moving into the Plains in the late 1700s from the northeast. This is ''why'' tribes such as the Pawnee, Arikawa Arikara and Crow were allies of the US government against the Lakota (not that it helped them later, of course), since the Lakota had been pushing them out of their land. While the Pawnee could be brutal, they were no more so than the Lakota. Of course, this is simply to show the viewer who the good and bad guys are, without complicating matters.
17th Jun '16 8:16:12 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* No, the Jews were never enslaved as an entire people in Egypt, but are actually thought to be a [[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html breakaway group of Canaanites.]] Yes, we know Religion says otherwise. Even discounting the plagues and the parting of the Red Sea, there is simply no evidence that a large population of slaves (some sources will number them in the millions) migrated from Egypt to Israel. Mass migrations of this kind tend to leave a lot of archeaological evidence, plus people noticing and writing things down.

to:

* No, the Jews were never enslaved as an entire people in Egypt, but are actually thought to be a [[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html breakaway group of Canaanites.]] Yes, we know Religion the Bible says otherwise. Even discounting the plagues and the parting of the Red Sea, there is simply no evidence that a large population of slaves (some sources will number them in the millions) migrated from Egypt to Israel. Mass migrations of this kind tend to leave a lot of archeaological evidence, plus people noticing and writing things down.


Added DiffLines:

* ''Film/DancesWithWolves'': Although more accurate than previous films in its depiction of the West and native peoples, it still has innacurracies. First, the whites are shown as hunting buffalo solely to take skins. This was not yet the case in 1865, and would only begin in 1871. At that point buffalo were still hunted by the whites for meat. Secondly, the Lakota are portrayed as simply defending themselves, and the Pawnee are evil allies of the US government. However, it was actually the Lakota who had been the aggressors against the Pawnee, moving into the Plains in the late 1700s from the northeast. This is ''why'' tribes such as the Pawnee, Arikawa and Crow were allies of the US government against the Lakota (not that it helped them later, of course), since the Lakota had been pushing them out of their land. While the Pawnee could be brutal, they were no more so than the Lakota. Of course, this is simply to show the viewer who the good and bad guys are, without complicating matters.
12th Jun '16 9:20:05 PM PaulA
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Creator/ChristopherMarlowe, an Elizabethan dramatist who influenced Shakespeare, was also prone to this. In his ''Tamburlaine'' plays, the eponymous (anachronistic) Scythian conqueror ("Tamburlaine" was Turkic, not Scythian) takes control of the Persian Empire (which ceased to exist in 330 BCE, unless he meant the contemporary Safavid Empire, which did not exist in "Tamburlaine's" time) by capturing its capital, Persepolis (which was burned down by UsefulNotes/AlexanderTheGreat over a millennium ago), capturing the King of Turkey (which was a sultanate) and marrying the daughter of the Egyptian (Mamluk) Sultan, Zenocrate (who, aside from being invented, has a Greek name).

to:

* Creator/ChristopherMarlowe, an Elizabethan dramatist who influenced Shakespeare, was also prone to this. In his ''Tamburlaine'' ''Theatre/{{Tamburlaine}}'' plays, the eponymous (anachronistic) Scythian conqueror ("Tamburlaine" was Turkic, not Scythian) takes control of the Persian Empire (which ceased to exist in 330 BCE, unless he meant the contemporary Safavid Empire, which did not exist in "Tamburlaine's" time) by capturing its capital, Persepolis (which was burned down by UsefulNotes/AlexanderTheGreat over a millennium ago), capturing the King of Turkey (which was a sultanate) and marrying the daughter of the Egyptian (Mamluk) Sultan, Zenocrate (who, aside from being invented, has a Greek name).
7th Jun '16 6:06:25 AM Andyroid
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* PlayedForLaughs in "Purple Toupee" by Music/TheyMightBeGiants, which is about the narrator's fractured recollection of history during TheSixties.
-->''I remember the year I went to camp\\
Heard about a lady named Selma and some blacks\\
Somebody put their fingers in the president's ear\\
And it wasn't too much later they came out with Johnson's wax''
3rd Jun '16 3:39:39 AM TheOneWhoTropes
Is there an issue? Send a Message


'''Plastic Man:''' Did that stop UsefulNotes/AbrahamLincoln when he was outnumbered by the Redcoats on [[UsefulNotes/WorldWarII the D-Day?]] No. And when [[Music/LedZeppelin John Paul Jones]] and [[Music/TheBeatles Ringo]] ran out of [[BostonTeaParty tea in Boston, did that stop them from throwing their party?]] Of course not. Yes, my friends. I, like [[Series/TheJeffersons George Jefferson]] before me, [[UsefulNotes/GeorgeWashington cannot tell a lie.]] Help me, and together we shall let freedom ring.

to:

'''Plastic Man:''' Did that stop UsefulNotes/AbrahamLincoln when he was outnumbered by the Redcoats on [[UsefulNotes/WorldWarII the D-Day?]] No. And when [[Music/LedZeppelin John Paul Jones]] and [[Music/TheBeatles Ringo]] ran out of [[BostonTeaParty [[UsefulNotes/TheAmericanRevolution tea in Boston, did that stop them from throwing their party?]] Of course not. Yes, my friends. I, like [[Series/TheJeffersons George Jefferson]] before me, [[UsefulNotes/GeorgeWashington cannot tell a lie.]] Help me, and together we shall let freedom ring.
31st May '16 8:22:21 AM Doug86
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** On that ''Phantom'' bit: in addition to the glaring 1871 opera house date issue, the film has Christine [[spoiler: dying in 1918 as a victim of the Spanish Influenza]]. Thing is, 1918 France was not only besieged by the Influenza; it was also crawling out of the end of this little thing called UsefulNotes/WorldWarOne.

to:

** On that ''Phantom'' bit: in addition to the glaring 1871 opera house date issue, the film has Christine [[spoiler: dying in 1918 as a victim of the Spanish Influenza]]. Thing is, 1918 France was not only besieged by the Influenza; it was also crawling out of the end of this little thing called UsefulNotes/WorldWarOne.UsefulNotes/WorldWarI.



* The first line of "Sink the Bismarck" is "In May of 1941, the war had just begun." WorldWarTwo had actually been going on for about two years prior to that, and no country first started getting involved in the war in May of 1941. (Britain, for example, had been trading air strikes with Germany since the second half of 1940.)

to:

* The first line of "Sink the Bismarck" is "In May of 1941, the war had just begun." WorldWarTwo UsefulNotes/WorldWarII had actually been going on for about two years prior to that, and no country first started getting involved in the war in May of 1941. (Britain, for example, had been trading air strikes with Germany since the second half of 1940.)



* In ''Webcomic/{{Educomix}}'', UsefulNotes/WorldWarTwo was fought between Ireland and the South Pole, and one of the combatants was Jesus.

to:

* In ''Webcomic/{{Educomix}}'', UsefulNotes/WorldWarTwo UsefulNotes/WorldWarII was fought between Ireland and the South Pole, and one of the combatants was Jesus.
30th May '16 1:13:19 AM jormis29
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** King Edward I gets a HistoricalVillainUpgrade. The film portrays him almost as a CardCarryingVillain, whilst in reality his record was pretty mixed -- whilst a brutal conqueror abroad and an anti-Semite, he did not oppress his ''English'' subjects, and was in fact considered fairly radical in European circles. His laws established Parliament as a permanent institution, set up a working taxation system and ushered in an overall more progressive system for England (one of his nicknames was "the English Justinian"). Edward I did not kill his son's lover by throwing him out of a window. Nor did English barons invoke ''primae noctis'' (the supposed right of lords to take the virginity of their female subjects on their wedding nights). In fact, ''primae noctis'' likely did not exist (certainly it would not have been legal). It's a throwaway line but Edward is mentioned as being "a cruel pagan" -- no evidence that he was any less (or more) devout Christian than your average English king of his time.

to:

** King Edward I gets a HistoricalVillainUpgrade. The film portrays him almost as a CardCarryingVillain, whilst in reality his record was pretty mixed -- whilst a brutal conqueror abroad and an anti-Semite, he did not oppress his ''English'' subjects, and was in fact considered fairly radical in European circles. His laws established Parliament as a permanent institution, set up a working taxation system and ushered in an overall more progressive system for England (one of his nicknames was "the English Justinian"). Edward I did not kill his son's lover by throwing him out of a window. Nor did English barons invoke ''primae noctis'' ''[[JusPrimaeNoctis primae noctis]]'' (the supposed right of lords to take the virginity of their female subjects on their wedding nights). In fact, ''primae noctis'' likely did not exist (certainly it would not have been legal). It's a throwaway line but Edward is mentioned as being "a cruel pagan" -- no evidence that he was any less (or more) devout Christian than your average English king of his time.
This list shows the last 10 events of 712. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.ArtisticLicenseHistory