How accurate is the Historical Record?

How much reliance can be placed on historical facts especially those at the dawn of the age of writing? For that matter aren’t even current events recorded in a manner to represent and mirror the social milieu prevalent at the time?

Whilst reading an article on the earliest known writings on the nascent Scotland – it was then five disparate unrelated kingdoms – this fact struck me.

Calgacus is proudly proclaimed as the first authentic voice that Scotland produced. Apparently Calgacus was one of the Caledonian Chiefs who rose up against the invading Roman Army under Agricola in 80AD. His ignominious defeat by Agricola in a battle at Mons Graupius is recorded by Tacitus. Agricola’s son-in-law some 20 years later.

Tacitus proclaims that before the battle Calgacus bolstered his warriors’ spirits with these stirring words:

 

Agricola

Agricola

Battles against Rome have been lost and won before, but hope was never abandoned, since we were always here in reserve. We, the choicest flower of Britain’s manhood, were hidden away in her most secret places. Out of sight of subject shores, we kept even our eyes free from the defilement of tyranny. We, the most distant dwellers upon earth, the last of the free, have been shielded till today by our very remoteness and by the obscurity in which it has shrouded our name. Now, the farthest bounds of Britain lie open to our enemies; and what men know nothing about they always assume to be a valuable prize…. A rich enemy excites their cupidity; a poor one, their lust for power. East and West alike have failed to satisfy them. They are the only people on earth to whose covetousness both riches and poverty are equally tempting. To robbery, butchery and rapine, they give the lying name of ‘government’; they create a desolation and call it peace…..

I have some concerns about what Calgacus was supposed to have said. Did Tacitus actual interview Calgacus to obtain his version of the events? How did Tacitus obtain a copy of Calgacus’ speech? Of course he did not for the Caledonians were an admixture of illiterate pagan tribes.

Tacitus

Tacitus

What I suspect Tacitus was doing was to bolster the achievements of the Roman soldiers by attributing abilities to the Caledonians – as they were known – that did not even exist. In writing his history of this battle, Tacitus probably even relied upon third or even fourth hand accounts of the battle.

But this account has now been accorded mythical status as a true and proper account of this battle.

Why was Churchill one of the first of the senior commanders after WW2 to publish his memoirs? Apart from the fact that he had recently lost the General Election in July 1945 by a landslide against Clement Attlee and thus having plenty of time on his hands, he is alleged to have stated that he wanted his views to predominate.

Churchill's book: The History of World War Two

Churchill’s book: The History of World War Two

Which they duly did.

The current manner is which historical facts populate the popular imagination is by means of fictional accounts of historical events in books & movies. Even though these are fictional accounts when the same historical inaccuracy is depicted in a series of such books or movies, it becomes the accepted narrative of those events.

Mel Gibson playing William Wallace in the historically inaccurate movie Braveheart

Mel Gibson playing William Wallace in the historically inaccurate movie Braveheart

An example that has stuck in my mind is the movie Braveheart. Unlike most movies which I have watched only once, I made an exception in this case and have watched it three times. Every time I marvel at this movie as I have a fascination for history. Nonetheless there is one episode of this epic historical medieval war drama film where Mel Gibson who portrays the 13th Century Scottish Warrior William Wallace who rises up against the British in Scotland.

The cause of William Wallace’s anger was the British Lord’s insistence on his rights to Prima Nocte that is the right of the Lord to “deflower” the bride. To prevent this from occurring William Wallace and Murron MacClannough marry in secret so she will not have to spend the night with the local English lord.

As far as can be ascertained, the practice of Prima Nocte never existed. It is apocryphal yet it is gaining currency with continual usage.

 

A battle scene from the movie Braveheart

A battle scene from the movie Braveheart

The first reference to this practice according to an article in the BBC History Magazine was by an English author in the 1800’s. Generally this movie has been described as one of the most historically inaccurate modern films ever.

According to Wikipedia there is no evidence (even in France) that this ever existed in the feudal period. It does however regularly appear in Hollywood movies due to the “moral” issue it can then raise with audiences.

I have been a fan of the comic strip Hagar the Horrible by [Richard] Dik Browne since its inception. Over the years it has become a tad stale and requires another character such as Luck Eddie to enliven it again. Perched on Hagar’s head is a quintessential Viking Helmet with two large prominent horns. Not surprisingly this is our conception of a typical Viking helmet. According to a recent BBC History Magazine article on inaccuracies in history will is the most prominent one. Thus far, not one Viking helmet adorned with horns has been uncovered.

 

A fake Viiking helmet with horns

A fake Viiking helmet with horns

Marie Antoinette must be rated as the most loathed and despised French Queens ever. Despite King Louis XVI being known as a weak indecisive regent, being a chauvinist society her perceived frivolousness and the tangible evident of her extravagance together with their xenophobia – she was Austrian by birth – made her the scapegoat for France’s dire financial straits.

The final straw in their loathing of Marie Antoinette was the misattributing of the phrase “Let them eat Cake” when informed that the peasants in France being starving. While commonly attributed to her, the historical record of any evidence that Marie Antoinette ever uttered this phrase has never been tracked down. Instead it appears in the book Confessions, an autobiography by Jean-Jacques Rousseau written in 1765 when Marie was only nine years of age

 

 Marie Antoinette at age 12 - 6 years after she is supposed to have uttered those fateful words


Marie Antoinette at age 12 – 6 years after she is supposed to have uttered those fateful words

Per Wikipedia, the context of Rousseau’s account was his desire to have some bread to accompany some wine he had stolen; however, in feeling he was too elegantly dressed to go into an ordinary bakery, he thus recollected the words of a “great princess”

If historical events that occurred only 250 years in France can be so distorted, what about facts some 2000 years ago? By this I am referring to the Bible and the New Testament in particular. With four irreconcilable versions to choose from, how can they ever be combined into one seamless narrative? What was the exact date – day and year – of Christ’s birth? Is the chronicle of the supposed Three Wise Men and Jesus being born in a stable a reflection of reality? What about the bright star in the East?

The origin of these inaccuracies is the fact that the Books of the New Testament were written some 50 to 100 years after the fact based upon second, third and possibly even forth hand accounts of the events. Even first-hand recollections are based biased being based upon people’s misunderstandings, personal beliefs and generalisations.

Three wise men

So it was with the New Testament.

For me history is fascinating. It is a reflection of human frailties and foibles, vanities and fears.

One is tempted to become engrossed in the narrative without being judgmental, open-minded and skeptical about the facts.

Like the stirring words alleged uttered by Calgacus, the brave Caledonian warrior, they are fictitious, a fantasy. Perhaps instead of the courageous behaviour, Calgacus was a coward who trembled and then fled precipitously before the advancing Roman legion. Would the surviving Romans even have made mention of that fact. Of course not. They desired to be viewed as intrepid, unflinching and plucky pedes – Roman foot soldiers. Were the warriors Caledonians or Picts – painted people or Pictii in Latin?

Scottish Warriors
It would have been a conspiracy of silence which impeded all Tacitus’s attempts to obtain clarity and accuracy on this tale of derring-do.

This forewarning is also a cautionary advice to myself when assessing historical facts.

 

5/5 - (1 vote)

Leave a Comment.

*