Bad History: How We Got the Past Wrong

by Emma Marriott

So much of what we know about historical events is based on generally accepted 'facts': Roman gladiators fought to the death; the Wild West was full of danger; and, the Wall Street Crash led to the Great Depression. But, history is, in fact, full of myths and misunderstandings that have become part of popular belief and wrongly coloured our understanding of historical figures and events. Each entry of this title will discuss the case for and against commonly accepted 'facts', and corrects what you thought you knew about history. Entries Was Captain Scott iconic or incompetent? Did Benito Mussolini make the trains run on time? Was the Suffragette movement responsible for securing votes for women in Britain? Was Caligula an insane tyrant and sexual pervert? "Bad History" provides a rigorously researched and entertaining read, perfect for any history enthusiast who wants to get their facts straight.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Historical

198 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 1, 2011

Reviews

[Wolf · Rating 2 out of 5]

‘Bad History: How We Got the Past Wrong’ is clearly supposed to be an entertaining canter through famous false ‘facts’, assumptions and misapprehensions about our past, putting them to the sword as it goes. It doesn’t quite work, however.

As entertainment, the writing is a little too flat. The apparent examples of Bad History sometimes relatively obscure (did the USA liberate Vietnam in the Second World War or was it largely local forces?), which does not help, others frankly far too well known for the well informed to be surprised by (Dumas’ Man in the Iron Mask in reality was not a member of the French Royalty; the conspiracy theory that Roosevelt engineered the attack of Pearl Harbour by the Japanese is wrong). The addition of some uninspired cartoons does not assist.

In overturning false beliefs about history the book does not quite live up to its promise either. Particularly poor examples are the chapters ‘Roman Gladiators Fought to the Death’ (it turns out that, yes, they did fight to the death, just not always, which seems to prove the contention the author seeks to disprove) and ‘Britain Was Once a Fully Integrated Province of the Roman Empire’ (which turns on interpreting this as being entirely culturally dominated by, even though the areas they conquered were politically integrated, the province prosperous and important and the Romans routinely let their provinces retain much of their distinctive cultures).

Some of the chapters do make good on their promise – the sections on the American contribution in the First World War and Vichy France’s attitude towards the Jews, for example. But too many are either too well known facts (some of which I was taught at school) or rely on a particularly slanted view of the evidence.

This book looks like it was inspired by the success of QI. The television series and its written spin offs (like the Book of General Ignorance) work well because they are entertaining and informative. They combine a degree of wit and humour with genuinely interesting and surprising facts. This book lacks the same degree of either amusement or compelling fact or overturned assumption.

For free as a review copy it was fine, if I’d had to pay for it I would have been disappointed.

[Koray · Rating 3 out of 5]

Biraz yüzeysel kalmakla beraber yeni birkaç bilgi edinmeme sebep olması açısından faydalı bulduğum çalışma. Örnek Frengi! Kitaba göre son araştırmalar Avrupa'daki Frengi yayılımının Milattan önceki çağlara dek uzandığını ortaya koyuyor. İlk izleri Pompei'den çıkan izlerde görülmektedir. Kolomb'tan sonra tahminen 5 milyon kişinin ölümüne neden olan Frengi Avrupa'yı adeta kırmış geçirmiştir. Önceleri zührevi olmayan bir türe sahip olan Frengi mikrobu, 15. yüzyılda cinsel yolla bulaşma yeteneği kazanmıştır. Bu yüzyılda salgın haline gelmesinde yerel mikroplarla karışarak mutasyona uğrayan yeni bir mikrop türünün etken olduğu sanılmaktadır. Yani Kolomb suçsuzdur.

[Libbie · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5✨

Whilst on paper the title seems like a great idea, disproving historical "facts" and setting them straight, the execution leaves much to be desired.

Most of these facts are about trivial things that do not really matter in the grand scheme of things, or are technically untrue but only if you look at it a specific way that only 1% of the population will.

For example "Roman Gladiators fought to the death" was classed as a false belief. But it turns out yes they did..... Just not 100% of the time.

Good for a coffee table book but not much substance

[George Ilsley · Rating 2 out of 5]

A frothy concoction, marketed with more care than than it was written.

Tries too hard at times to overstate the "myth" so it can then prove that it is wrong. When I saw this was published by Readers Digest I understood: this is intended to be bathroom reading.

[Mehmet]

İsmi nedeniyle oldukça yüksek beklenti oluşturan kitap aslında pek çok kişinin bildiği bilgileri tekrar etmiş. Ezber bozan, çok ciddi şaşırtan bilgi içerdiğini söyleyemem. Bir de nedense, özellikle kaynakçasının zayıf olması da bir gerekçe, verdiği bilgiler açısından çok da güven vermiyor. Bu duyguyu özellikle New Deal konusunu tartıştığı bölümde yaşadım.

[Kees-Jan van Engelenburg · Rating 2 out of 5]

A little vague...

[Mark Rice · Rating 3 out of 5]

'History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there.'
- George Santayana

A slightly different perspective to the one above is that history is written by those who win wars and live to tell the tale. It stands to reason that such survivors will paint themselves into history as the 'good guys' while slandering the slain 'baddies', condemning them to be forever thought of as evil tyrants. Emma Marriott's quest to quosh historical lies and correct long-believed misconceptions is admirable. I opened the book with interest, hoping to discover some mind-blowing revelations. Did I find them? Not really. Many of the lies that Marriott seeks to overturn were first exposed long ago. Examples of this: Native Americans suffered genocide at the hands of European settlers; Christopher Columbus wasn't the first non-native to discover the Americas. Marriott does give some shocking figures to showcase the horrific scale of the slaughter of Native Americans (and their food sources): between 1830 and 1895, the number of living Native Americans was reduced from 2 million to 90,000, while 70 million buffalo (the natives' main food source) were slaughtered by invaders. These numbers show the extent of the inhuman treatment which the Native Americans and indigenous wildlife received, but it is common knowledge that European settlers perpetrated these shameful acts. With regards to Columbus, it is widely known that he was not the first non-native to land on the Americas, as the Vikings had been visiting those shores and trading peacefully with the natives for centuries before 1492. The entire chapter on Columbus is impotent, as it imparts no new information to the reader.

Some chapters did provide surprising information. For example, the Wild West has long been portrayed as a lawless place where gunfights were commonplace and life was cheap. It turns out that in comparison to today's America, the Wild West was an extremely safe place where the vast majority of people were hard-working, law-abiding citizens. Gunfights were rare; in Dodge City - which was considered the most dangerous city in the Wild West - the largest number of people ever killed in gunfights during a single year was five. The gunfight at the OK Corral, which went down in history as the bloodiest gun battle in the West, lasted one minute and resulted in only three deaths. I was surprised to find out that most cowboys of the time were Hispanic, African-American or Mexican.

Other revelations include: America's founding fathers were against democracy, considering it anarchy; the main killing sites of the Holocaust were not Auschwitz and other German concentration camps (although hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered in these), but extermination camps (where millions were killed); Captain Scott of the Antarctic was a poorly prepared, inept explorer; the mysterious Man in the Iron Mask's true identity; China's great 'famine' under Chairman Mao saw the deliberate killing of 45 million citizens through forced starvation and other means; James Watt didn't invent the steam engine; Galileo wasn't persecuted and imprisoned by the Catholic church, but lived under loose house arrest in his luxurious home, where he continued to work on scientific discoveries and writings; St Patrick wasn't born in Ireland; Roman gladiators rarely fought to the death.

Several other subjects are tackled too. While most of these make interesting reading, they don't go into any real detail. Each chapter follows the same blueprint: it points out that an established piece of history is incorrect, then presents a small amount of (sometimes spurious) evidence to back up the argument. I'd have liked the chapters to be twice as long, presenting more in-depth evidence which would have given the book more historical credibility. As is, the bite-size chapters are little more than factoids. History buffs may learn nothing new from the book. Those with a passing interest in history, or a desire to boost their general knowledge, will enjoy the book and find it an easy read.

[Neroli · Rating 3 out of 5]

As an Australian reader I found Emma's examples focused too much on US history and, as other reviewers commented, some examples were rather obscure and not particularly interesting. Three starts was generous! I was expecting examples of history 'we got wrong' that had ultimately shaped the economic or political landscape we live in, today.

[Michele Clarke · Rating 2 out of 5]

Kind of a contradictory book, almost every passage starts out with, “This did happen and is true, but...”, it’s an okay read but would not recommend.

[Norma · Rating 3 out of 5]

( Format : hardback )
Vaguely thought provoking...
But does it live up to it's ambitious title, debunking 'accepted' truths? Given that so much of history has to be supposition and interpretation by the historian, it would be very surprising if much of what we 'know' was not incorrect. Perhaps if Ms.Marriott had concentrated on fewer topics taken in more detail, this could have been more persuasive. Many of the chapter titled were spurious, such as 'Gladiators fought to the death', which, of course, they did, just not all of them. And 'Henry V : The Greatest Man that Ever Ruled England'. Well, I had personally never encountered this title, after all, Henry spent most of his short reign abroad, but his triumph at the Battle of Agincourt has been acclaimed England's greatest victory fought at a time when kings and princes were there with their armies on the battlefield. And Henry's troops were heavily outnumbered, he it by two to one or seven to one, on foreign soil, and the achievement cannot be denied because of help from the weather or the subsequent slaughter of prisoners.

Good index and short bibliography.

Sadly, not only are the many of the subject titles themselves misinformed and the 'evidence' insufficiently detailed, the writing also failed in the probable intention to entertain. But it is a quick and easy read which can be thought providing if only to raise doubts in the reader about our present day perception of historical 'truths', these always being subject to 'the eye of the beholder'.

[Arda Alkkåskøgen · Rating 2 out of 5]

özellikle son 10 yılda kendine büyük bir piyasa yaratan popüler bilim kitapları birkaç gerçekten kalitesiz örneği dışında karşı olmadığım bir tür. bu kitapla ilgili en büyük eleştirim popüler tarih janrının "popüler" kısmına daha fazla ağırlık vermiş olmasıdır.

günlük sohbetlerde, sohbete çeşitlilik katmanızı sağlayabilecek bir kitaptır ancak hepsi bu kadar. yazarının yerinde olsam, böyle bir kitap yazarken seçeceğim tarihi olayların sayısını daha sınırlı tutar ve kitabın geneline bir bağlam oturtmaya çalışırdım. daha anlaşılır bir dille söylemek gerekirse birbiriyle benzeşebilen, benzer nedenlere ve sonuçlara sahip olayları kitabımın konusu olarak belirlerdim. açıkcası avrupa'daki frengi salgınına kolomb'un neden olup olmadığını okuyup takip eden sayfalarda aziz patrick'in irlandalı olmadığını öğrenmek pek de mantıklı bir çerçeve sunmuyor ve bu da kitaptan elde edilecek tatmini haliyle azaltıyor.

akıllarda yer edebilecek bir kitap olduğunu düşünmüyorum. en azından kolomb ve frengi ilişkisinde yanlışlamak istediği iddiası ile açıklaması arasındaki alakasızlık dışında benim aklımda çok yer etmeyecektir. evet, avrupa'daki büyük frengi salgınına, gittiği yerlerdeki bitimsiz seks partileri ve yanında getirdiği birkaç yerli sayesinde kolomb neden olmuştur. hastalığın avrupa'da çok daha önce görülüp görülmemesi ise yanlışlanmak istenen iddianın konusu değildir.

[Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Paid $12 for this book and it is pretty good for that price. Has some interesting facts about history that most people today think differently about. One chapter covers Abraham Lincoln and if he really did at first want racial equality. Another one covers the wild west and how life really was like at the time compared to how movies portray it. Four stars I feel is good for this book since the price for the book is good for what content is inside it.

I would say this book is ideal for people who just want to read each day for fun, one fact about history we got wrong or if you want something to read in the bathroom. Would also be good read even on your commute to work or school. In all, it's a pretty fun read and each chapter range from 4-6 pages. One other thing I liked was that the book provided some illustrators like maps and silly comics (though the comics don't really make you laugh maybe a chuckle). Not really a huge plus but just nice to have.

[Mehmet Eroğlu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tarih bilgisine bakış açısını değiştirecek örnek olaylar aktarılmış. Bazı olaylar her ne kadar tarafsızmış gibi iki taraflı belirtse de tam taraflı olduğu söylenemez. Zaten yazarın anlatmak istediği bu durum. Tarihin aktaranların hiç birisi tarih ortaya çıkarken etkileyen veya etkilenen taraf değildir. Tamamen 3. tarafların bakış açısına göre şekillenmiş aktarımlardır. Dolayısıyla tarihin hatalı olduğu hep tartışma konusudur. Kahramanlık ile hainlik o kadar iç içedir ki, iki zıt kavram sarayda da cephede de yan yana hareket ederken bir anda aralarında öldüresiye kavganın başladığı çok görülmüştür. Aynı zamanda o kadar değişkendir ki, bir gün hain olan bir ay sonra kahraman veya tam tersi olduğu sıradan bir vakıadır. Hatalı tarih derken aslında güçlülerin tarihini zayıflar güçlendiği zaman fark edilir.

[Adam Thomas · Rating 1 out of 5]

This sadly turned out to be a good example of a great idea, poorly executed. Emma Marriott seeks to expose how a long list of historical "facts" are in fact "myths". It's interesting to think about how non-facts can become so widely accepted as true, and to reflect on how history is written. But there are a few things that made this book hard to enjoy. Some of the myths aren't actually that interesting, and others aren't that interestingly written. And there is no real sourcing (and regular instances of "research has shown"), which isn't great in a book challenging myths. I also would have preferred fewer myths, with more time spent on each and a bit more reflection of how the myths developed. But I suppose that would have been a different book. My £1 YMCA charity shop purchase let me down this time.

[Zoe]

I am pretty confident I’ve owned this since 2017 so it’s great to have been able to cross it off my ‘TBR vet’ list. With chapters averaging between 4 and 6 pages, it was also the perfect ‘bedtime book’, offering small chunks of information righting well-known historical wrongs that were easily digestible as I was settling down for the night.

I do think it was quite heavily focused on the US, and I’d have liked to have seen more from other areas of the world. It also could have perhaps been a bit more engaging, but as I was only reading one chapter a day, this wasn’t the end of the world for me.

A nice idea but it just didn’t quite give me what I was hoping it would.

Leaving unrated as it’s non-fiction.

[Deb Lancaster · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting sweep across various historical stories we think we know. Learned some stuff. I don't understand the need for the horrible history-esque cartoons. And the writing is strangely repetitious in manner of a student padding out their essay to reach the required wordcount. Would have liked more stories told more succinctly.

[Loki · Rating 3 out of 5]

Always interesting to read a history book about how unreliable history is that is, in itself, unreliable. Well-researched, but still rather cursory, and neither as funny or as authoritative as it thinks it is.

[Spurnlad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting read, but nothing really new for me.

[Zekiozdogan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Filling the gaps

[Richard Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some interesting little tid bits

[berin · Rating 3 out of 5]

bilgilendirici. hiçbiri aklımda kalmadı.

[Randal Felbrigg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite shallow and, as no doubt mentioned by others, much of what’s written about probably isn’t news to those interested in the subject. Nevertheless it’s a quick and easy read and might serve to arouse the curiosity in the casual reader to seek out more.

[Victoria · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a bit of a history buff, I love little bits of miscellany picked up from history. So when this came up in a Kindle sale, I picked it up hoping it would be interesting.

I was expecting something a little bit comic from this. But this is quite a serious book and written in that style. That, in itself is no bad thing. I do read a lot of serious, semi-academic history books and as long as they are well-written the style is not so important.

However Ms Marriott has a rather annoying habbit of repeating herself. A lot. Each segment has strats with a brief summery of the myth and the fact that it is wrong, usually in one or two paragraphs. Then she goes into a lot of detail about the facts and why the myths have come to be commonly believed. And then she summarises the myth and why it is wrong again. It is a pattern I recognise from reading scientific papers for my degree: Abstract, main body of the paper, summary/conclusion. And it is much less useful than in a proper academic paper and gets very boring when each segment is only a 10-12 pages long rather than 30+ dense pages.

Otherwise, most of the book is very informative and engaging. The small box-outs in most chapters add interesting side-notes that enhance the text. Having these, rather than foot or endnotes is much easier to navigate on a kindle. The illustrations that appear in most sections are funny and definitely add to the text. And the sections are small enough for a quick pick up and put down if you are short on time.

On the whole, it is an informative and interesting book, if you can get past the repititions.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Wild West wasn't really all that dangerous. The church was not the main opponent of Galileo. The US government didn't ignore the looming attack on Pearl Harbor. Gladiators didn't fight to the death.

I love history's granularity. There is always something more to discover, which is why books like Bad History appeal to me. They tend to be easy to read, but come packed with facts and trivia worth absorbing.

Some critics of this book have pointed out that some of its revelations are quite well known. That is true, though I still found each chapter had something new to offer. Others complained about its lack of comedy or depth respectively. Again, both fair criticisms, but also not entirely on the mark. It is both a serious yet easy read, but that's what appeals to its potential audience. You could finish this in a sitting or two - and this is a good gift for people who aren't that into reading. The short chapters are to the point and quick to absorb. A good book for next to the loo.

I would definitely recommend this to anyone new to history reading or just yearning for some interesting facts.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

How do some many people get the wrong ends of so many historical sticks...& proceed to beat-up us real historians when we point out the error of their views? Marriott covers two thousand years of history & more lightly,but manages to land some hefty blows at some hefty historical & historic personalities.Did you know that St Patrick was really named Maewyn Succat? Or that the Wild West was no wilder than the wild east of Hackney on a week-end? A stimulus to take all history with a large dose of scepticism;and,being a Modern History graduate,I am, by nature,a sceptic. I did learn some new facts about some famous people;& for that,this book scores a modest 3 stars.

[Bryn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting titbits in here, with the chapters on the truth about The Wild West (you were more likely to get shot in Victorian London), The Defeat of the Spanish Armada, The Suffragettes (they likely hindered women getting the vote more than helped) and the Founding of Australia (no, it wasn't regarded as a giant penal colony) being particular favourites. Having said that, the book is quite random in its selection of topics and never delves too deep, giving the impression it was put together quite hastily in order to cash-in on some event or momentary Zeitgeist. While it may not be on a par with Bryson's work, it is none-the-less a fun and quick read.

[Meenaz · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book makes for an interesting read. If one is not aware that history is often a matter of who gets to narrate the tale, this book might introduce them solidly to the idea. For people who are familiar with this idea, the book may not do much. The book elucidates several instances of how popularly believed historical understandings are more myth than fact, but in several cases, it does not go much into why, despite being far from the truth, the historical myth continues to be more durable. So, in my view, it certainly fails in explaining 'how' we got the past wrong. All it manages to say is that we get history wrong more often than what we may want to believe.

[Denise · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some more, some less interesting historical facts.

[Matas Petrikas · Rating 3 out of 5]

A nice little book on historical myths, could be a part series. Always remember, if there's a fact from the history that is often quoted in literature or in politics, it's most probably wrong :)

[Stephen King]

Only just started but reading the kindle version and finding the layout (with hyperlinks to very small font text) less than satisfactory.