Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of World History

by Richard Shenkman, George J. McKeon (Illustrator)

Bestselling author of Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of American History now takes on the world! Skewering the nonsense we were all taught about the world's revolutions, religions, heroes, and inventors, Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of World History is a whirlwind tour of history from the Trojan War to World War II. Eclectic and fun, Richard Shenkman's well-documented revelations prove that muck of history is indeed "but a fable agreed upon."

Queen Victoria may have usually worn black, but she loved to drink and party.

During World War II the English were conned into believing it was Winston Churchill who broadcast the speech about this being their finest hour. But it wasn't Churchill, it was Norman Shelley, a radio actor hired as a stand-in.

Marie Antoinette did not say, "Let them eat cake," Churchill didn't coin the phrase "the Iron Curtain," and Caesar never said, "Et tu, Brute?"

Scandal in the English monarchy is nothing new: Fifteen kings fathered children out of wedlock. One queen helped depose her husband so her lover could take his place. Three English kings were gay.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Reference, World History, Humor, Historical, Audiobook

301 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1993

Reviews

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Book: Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of World History
Author: Richard Shenkman
Publisher: William Morrow Paperbacks; Reprint edition (29 November 2011)
Language: English
Paperback: 320 pages
Item Weight: 236 g
Dimensions: 20.62 x 13.56 x 1.93 cm
Price: 1247/-

The rapport between history and fiction is both vivacious and troubled. Historians maintain that what they write is not fiction, as it must retain dependability to the accessible historical sources, those residues from the past we have inherited in the form of documents, images, memories, stories, rituals, material objects, landscapes, and recorded sounds.

At the same time, they sometimes covet fiction writers’ abilities to envision and perchance restructure the emotional and intimate aspects of the past that historians find it so hard to recuperate in the archive.

In a series of lectures that he gave sometimes in the 1960s, EH Carr argued that interpreting the past, which indeed is what history writing is all about, is not the same as inventing a past. Interpretation is about making sense of the past from the concerns of the present.

In other words, Carr’s precept was that there is nothing called the history of an event or of a certain time. However, as important as it is to re-interpret the past and hence rewrite history, it is equally important to ensure that such attempts are based on facts.

Carr holds that the historian’s task is to cook the palate out of the fish available on the slab. His lectures that were published subsequently (titled ‘What is History?’) are till this day among the necessary texts for students of history.

This misgiving, this web of hesitant facts which have been accorded the status of popular History, has been questioned by the author of this book.

He asks:

1) Think Nero fiddled while Rome burned?

2) Think Catherine the Great was Russian?

3) Think King Arthur lived in a castle? (Think there really was a King Arthur?)

4) Think Cleopatra was beautiful?

5) Why is it thought to have been one of the lowest, meanest, most reprehensible forums of injustice in human history? Not because it was, but because English Protestants wrote the history books.

6) Why are the Dark Ages regarded as dark? Because the Renaissance humanists hoped to leave the impression that they had rescued the world from gross ignorance.

7) Why did historians for so long ignore sex and history? They didn’t use to, but Victorian historians took the sex out.

8) Why is Richard III depicted as a mean hunchback with a withered arm? Because Shakespeare wanted to make Richard’s Tudor successors look better by comparison.

As modern educated individuals we think all Historical facts to be accurate. But they aren’t. Unfortunately.

Take almost any celebrated event of world history, from the Trojan War to World War II. The version we learned in school or at the movies was often harebrained or counterfeit.

The plain fact is we have been flimflammed: We have been conned into believing that the pagan barbarians who overran the Roman Empire held civilization in contempt.

The modern reader of history has swallowed the old line that English liberty can be traced to the signing of Magna Carta. And they have been duped into believing that the English endured the Blitz with a stiff upper lip.

These are the facts: Most barbarian tribes converted to Christianity, intermarried with the Roman elite, and joined the imperial army to defend the empire from its enemies. Magna Carta gave new rights only to England’s powerful barons.

And during the Blitz the English complained and were bitter; and many turned to crime.

Richard Shenkman has divided his book into twelve parts.

Part 1: Way Back When (Or: This seemed like a good place to begin)

Part 2: The Dark Ages (Or: Why It’s not OK to call them that anymore)

Part 3: A New Day Dawns (Or: Science for history majors)

Part 4: The Facts of Life (Or: Why history’s not as dull as you think)

Part 5: God Save the King! (Or: Goings-on at Buckingham Palace)

Part 6: “This Scepter’d Isle” (Or: British history the way it should have been taught)

Part 7: Let them eat brioche! (Or: French history for beginners)

Part 8: Likeable (And Not-So-Likeable) Famous People (Or: If you learned it in school, it can’t be true)

Part 9: King Arthur and Such (Or: This part’s not for children)

Part 10: Religion (Or: We hope nobody’s offended)

Part 11: World Wars I And II (Or: Two wars we could have done without)

Part 12: Hollywood Does History (Or: Why they’re bound to get it right someday)

It would be going too far to say that our heads are completely filled with lies. It is simply that in many cases history is written by the victors and is filtered through the prism of their prejudices. Take the Spanish Inquisition.

The author poses a very pertinent question: If it isn’t a good thing that we have myths. ‘Sure it is’, he says.

The myths tell us who we are and what values we cherish, and every society has them. And if we didn’t have them, some critic somewhere would be sure to say there’s something wrong with us for not having myths like other people do.

But if everybody has parables, why worry debunking them? The answer is plain enough: we ought to know the truth about things.

The truth can be excruciating, but it must be faced.

We need to know that Winston Churchill initially wanted to appease Hitler and that Franklin Roosevelt appeased Mussolini.

We need to know that German P.O.W.s died by the thousands in American prisons at the end of World War II and that this information was concealed from the public.

We need to know that footage in the old newsreels was often faked.

The author further asks: ‘How do you know you can trust me to tell you the truth? Actually, you shouldn’t trust me. Indeed, you shouldn’t trust anybody who writes history.

Truth, in short, is relative. It is in the eye of the beholder. But in saying this I am not saying there are no facts in history.

Some may think it’s absurd to take on the history of the world. It is. But fortunately this book doesn’t really cover all of world history, just the world history with which readers are already familiar. Limiting the book in this way considerably narrows the areas that need to be dealt with.

That to me is the only low point of this book.

An interesting read overall.

[Heather · Rating 3 out of 5]

While the writing style is breezy and the topics interesting, Shenkman isn't as keen on his history either. He tends to choose the opinions of historians he agrees with and claims them as solid fact without offering other legitimate opinions (he's especially guilty of this when it comes to Biblical history as it's quite clear he feels it's all made up and chooses only historical opinions that support his). Also, the tone of the book is part academic and part flippant. For someone trying to debunk historical myths, he errs on the side of sounding either glib or condescending.

[Stryker]

There's some very interesting stuff in here, but the author's personal biases tend to interfere with things. I'm sorry, but making the claim that Alexander the Great's only significant contribution to history was being really good at killing people is a pretty vast oversimplification. Glossing history is one thing, but some of the claims he makes along these lines are damn near revisionist.

[Christina · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the introduction, the author writes that we should not trust him to tell the truth [about history], because "[t]ruth, in short, is relative." Okay. I agree. With any work on history, I believe at most we should trust, but verify.

I didn't read this entire book. As with all books of this nature, I read only the bits I found interesting. A lot of what I read was not new to me (drat!). Some of what I read was patently incorrect, like the bit about King Richard III.

Shenkman says "[t]hat he was a hunchback with a withered arm is poppycock." Here, I find that he should've added a note. How did he come to that conclusion? Because interestingly enough, about fourteen years after this book was published, Richard III's skeleton was discovered beneath a parking lot 20 miles from his place of death and it is clear that he had a severe deformity of the spine, scoliosis. Although he was not a hunchback, contemporaries described him as having "one shoulder higher than the right" (Vergil); and as "little of stature, ill-featured of limbs, crook-backed," (Thomas More). To say that he was not a hunchback is technically correct, but there is no way that Shenkman could've known this. Besides, with one shoulder higher than the other and a crooked back, for all intents and purposes Richard III probably did at least look like a hunchback with a withered arm. It was hardly artistic license for Shakespeare to call him one. Although hunchback today means hump backed, the etymology of the word also indicates a bent or crooked back.

[Joseph F. · Rating 4 out of 5]

With a good dose of humor that gave me a good chuckle now and then, this book shatters many of the things we were told concerning history. It has been criticized by some as getting some facts wrong. All I can say is that the author is right about many of the myths I already knew. Regarding areas of history that I am weak in, I cannot really say.
One area I do know about is the history of the witch persecutions. On page 52 the author says that several hundred thousand witches were put to death during the period of the Inquisition. Well, not really. Modern estimates by scholars place it now as around 50,000. But I can excuse him a bit considering that the number he gives is far better than the 9 million that was once estimated, with poor evidence. My edition is also 20 years old and might be in need of some tweaking.
Still a fun book for history lovers.

[Amy · Rating 1 out of 5]

Absurdly opinionated. A lot of the so called 'truths' aren't really legends - anyone who has read some history knows they are lies or myths. Also, some of the points are just to make a point - having an extramarital affair doesn't not make you a hero potentially. It just means you had an affair. Not being a hero means you didn't do whatever it was that made you a hero.

This is the kind of stuff you read on the internet these days. I especially hated his use of all caps to make a point (because apparently the reader is a moron and needs that) and his weird punctuation. This is like a book you read in the bathroom or in five minute snippets - don't expect to really learn much here. Read a real history book for that.

[m. · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fairly interesting collection of supposed facts (although quite a few are not seen as such outside of the USA), but it felt a bit rushed, as if a first draft had been quickly knocked up from notes where some depth would have been welcome.

[Morgan Maria · Rating 3 out of 5]

A cute, irreverent look at popular misconceptions about history. Because I'm already a geek for history, I already knew most of this, and the writing style wasn't always my cup of tea, but I enjoyed it overall.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

A collection of 1-2 page stories. Funny, enlightening. Perfect to read when trying to raise a family. Stimulating enough that I felt 'smart', but short enough to read when hiding in the bathroom.

[Charles Bookman · Rating 3 out of 5]

History is written by the victors. We’re relearning that lesson in 2025 as the National Endowment for the Humanities has been redirected to develop a statuary garden of heroes instead of funding researchers, curators and historians who actually do the hard work of history, digging for facts and reshaping and telling stories from our past for modern audiences.

Published in 1993, long before the retelling of history once again became political, Richard Shenkman’s collection of historically accurate and factual anecdotes skewers the conventional history we all learned about revolutions, religions, heroes and inventors. Cleopatra and Jesus didn’t look like white Anglo-Saxon protestants. The Russians had more to do with defeating Hitler than any of the other allies. Churchill drank too much and his famous speech, “We shall fight them on the beaches” speech was read for the radio by an actor. Mel Brooks’ “robin Hood Men in Tights” might be more historically accurate than the valiant man of legend who robbed from the rich to give to the poor.

Collections of anecdotes like this, as interesting as they are, have largely been supplanted by Internet memes.

[Loretta Shively · Rating 3 out of 5]

Do not read if you do not understand sarcasm, however I certainly would not call it world history. (He says little to nothing about Africa, Australia, or South America). A better title would be “Debunking History as it is Portrayed By Movies” as he mentions over and over the errors in the films he watched. Sorry bud, not all of us learned our history from Hollywood! I have never been prone to believe any movie I watched be it historical or otherwise, to me they are all merely entertainment! He does debunk many modern day myths but his ignorance of scripture is laughable, although it is possible he is basing his knowledge off of what he learned in school in which case it is a sad reflection on the ulterior motives of the public school system if according to him, Jesus ministry is summed up by them as simply teaching right and wrong sex practices!! I would say he does a good job of knocking everyone equally so I can’t hate him for that.

[Don Heiman · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Lies, Legends, and Cherished Myths of World History” by Richard Shenkman was released in 1993 in multiple editions. I read the Kindle e-book edition. While reading the book, I made 138 highlights which I will use to craft discussion notes to share with a friend who recommended the book. The book is surprising and very thought provoking. Before discussing it with my friend, I intend to buy and read the companion Shenkman e-book “Legends, Lies, and Cherished Myths of American History.” (P)

[you ness · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتاب جميل، يعرج فيه المؤلف بمراجعات لابرز الاحداث و الشخصيات التاريخية بلغة انجليزية بسيطة شيئا ما.
طبعا لا يمكن او يستحيل الاتفاق معه في بعض ما ذهب اليه كمراجعته لشخصية عيسى عليه السلام، لكن الكتاب يستحق القراءة

[Abby · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a very fast read. Give yourself a few hours and you will have most, if not all, of it read. I wish there was more detail in some of the sections, but overall it was interesting.

[William · Rating 3 out of 5]

Probably should have been called “Legends, Lies, and Cherished Myths of Western History” as opposed to World History of which there is very little.

[Lisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting tidbits, but I'd rather do a deeper dive into any of the topics vs the superficial skimming of things

[Angie · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars. It was ok. Some stuff was interesting. Didn’t love the format.

[Margaret · Rating 4 out of 5]

Light but interesting reading

[Jackson · Rating 5 out of 5]

more for fun than scholarly, but there is an index and 12 pages of references ... since it is from 1993, it does not show as much depth as one would now -- this inspires me to look for it.

[Bernie4444 · Rating 5 out of 5]

A good compliment to the "Myth America" TV series.

As with most TV series, you get statements without support. So, I tracked down the Richard Shenkiman book to get some background to the statements about American myths. I was not disappointed. It is as if he was reading this book on TV with more graphic representations of the different media.

The book is worth reading. However, the format may not be to some people's liking as it is short choppy statements and the chapters are divided into subjects such as Discoverers and Inventors, Presidents, Sex, and Art.
There is a fair set of footnotes to lead you to further reading. You may need this as he sometimes stretches a point.

Final analysis, you are better off reading this to give a better perspective on reality. Read it to your kids and save them a lifetime of "Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of American History".

[Billie Pritchett · Rating 3 out of 5]

Richard Shenkman's Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of World History has lots of fun facts. Some I'd never known, others I'd known and forgotten, and still some that I doubt are true. Nevertheless, I think Shenkman has made a noble effort here.

Here's something I didn't know. I didn't know that the England appeased Hitler in the run-up to the Second World War, during Hitler's attempt to reclaim 'German' lands, not out of naivete of his plans but out of weakness. Turns out that England was not strong enough militarily to wage war with Germany and so had to do whatever they could to make tough deals with Hitler. I also didn't know that Hitler's Germany was so inefficient. Prone to factions and unable to get its citizens to do what it wanted, it relied heavily on the propaganda campaign of a unified Germany favouring the Third Reich. Also found out that the extreme German nationalism about how special and superior the German people were preceded Nazi Germany and had long been written up in German history books for schoolchildren.

Something I forgot, for example, was that Catherine the Great was German, and yet she was able to become the Empress of Russia, even being looked upon by the French philosophes as an enlightened ruler and Philosopher Queen. Furthermore, I had forgotten just how unimportant it was for leaders of the past to have the same ethnic identity as the people of the country. It makes sense, when you think about it, because the importance of national and ethnic identity is a very modern, 20th century-and-onward notion, not something any of the leaders of the past would have cared about. And as for the ordinary people of the past, they would have been indifferent to the issue since the only thing they would have wanted out of a leader, if they could get it, was just to be able to live as well as possible.

As for things that might not be true... Well, I've already forgotten what they were and won't bother to go back and check out what these things were. Suffice it to say that there are some moments where it seems Shenkman is just trying to take a contrary position, and then you check the endnote attached to it, and at that point he softens on the position or says that the claim is controversial. Fun little book, although I'm glad I borrowed and didn't buy it.

[Leslie · Rating 3 out of 5]

For the most part, I enjoyed this book. It's very short and written in an irreverent, almost flippant voice that makes it fun, quick, and accessible, particularly for readers who may not be interested in the minutia. However, keeping it short and sweet means that a lot of the finer detail is glossed over; often statements are made to the effect that someone did something, no one knows why, they just did. History is way more nuanced than that, and casual readers may get the wrong impression if they read this version of history and take it all as undeniable fact. Also, I think that the author's own biases color his "real" version of certain events quite a few times, giving more false impressions; beyond that, a few of his "facts" are just not quite correct. Sometimes I got the feeling the author just really wanted to be different and provocative. If a reader picks up this book, I hope they give other sources a chance as well and use differing versions and opinions to think critically and make up their own mind.

[Colleen · Rating 2 out of 5]

When I started listening to this, I really enjoyed it. But as chapters went on, it started to sound like a conspiracy theorist had fallen off his rocker. I'm interested to look into this a bit more and see how credible Richard Shenkman really is....

[Jillian · Rating 4 out of 5]

good info

[J.M. · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a fun book to read. I really enjoyed it.

[Isabella Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

interesting books with lots of unknown facts.

[J Crossley · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book takes a look at the different legends that we tend to believe as "true," but really have no basis of truth in them.

[Broughps · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too bad he didn't talk to any bible scholars and gotten some accurate info.

[Jason · Rating 2 out of 5]

A whole book to tell you that water is wet.

[Artie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reminds me a bit of Dave Barry and I mean that in the most complimentary way possible.