Napoleon Wasn't Short (& St Patrick Wasn't Irish): When History Gets it Wrong

by Andrea Barham

A fun exposé of many commonly believed historical facts that are, in fact, total fiction After falling for one historical misconception too many, the time is now right to launch a spirited fightback to set the record straight, once and for all. Leading the way in this modern crusade comes this lighthearted guide that reveals the many myths, fabrications, and ambiguities found in the annals of world history. For example, Winston Churchill was not born in a ladies' toilet, Lucrezia Borgia was not an infamous poisoner, and Abraham Lincoln did not write the Gettysburg Address on the back of an envelope. Written with wit and fascinating insight, and covering numerous subjects—royalty to religion, saints to statesmen, inventors and explorers, and the lives of famous characters throughout history—this book is guaranteed to astonish, inform, amuse, and entertain.

Genres: History, Nonfiction

192 pages, Hardcover

First published October 9, 2014

Reviews

[TG Lin]

從書名可以輕易推測到，這本《拿破崙並不矮︰歷史寫錯了！埃及金字塔不是奴隸建的、美國獨立不是因為增稅、諾貝爾沒有發明炸藥，揭開那些一直被誤解的史實真相》，是一種「歷史趣味輕鬆讀」之類的書籍，原文標題《Napoleon Wasn’t Short & St Patrick Wasn’t Irish: When History Gets it Wrong》一樣落落長……整體來說，大概就是「故事性過強」的歷史，事實的成份通常都比較低。——自從我讀過各種《太史公史記》的研究之後，認定這應該是中外歷史的定律了。
　
由於作者是英國作家，因此本書所談論中古以後的段落，大多都以英美人士感興趣的主題為主（所以完全沒碰及任何與中國或伊斯蘭相關的歷史）；並且作者也不是史學專科的，所以她的論述稱不上「研究」，大多是引述某些其它書的結果而已。
　
雖然本書所談的主題，我先前大多略有耳聞；然而知識永遠不厭多，我個人還是獲得不少新知。令我印象最深刻的，還是英國都鐸王朝中最有名的國王「亨利巴士」，作者認為他「並沒有離過婚」——因為他是以「撤銷婚姻」的方式來結束婚姻關係，於是在法律層面上，這位國王倒是十分「忠貞」的（？），他從來不考慮和老婆離婚。這令我再度驚艷於「法律人」化腐朽為神奇的能力。
　
不過，我在讀最後幾章介紹科學史的部分，有些地方看不懂。比如像富蘭克林收集閃電的實驗過程中，文章中不斷出現「指關節」接觸風箏上的鑰匙，這個不知所云的詞彙會是什麼術語嗎？而在弗萊明發現青黴素、以及哈雷發現慧星的文章中，作者的筆法亂七八糟，一開始彷彿要遵著本書的調性來「破除大眾心中的定見」，但含含渾渾寫了半天，到頭來的結論只不過是再重述原本的大眾認知，頂多加註一點小小修正罷了。
　
休閒類的讀物。

[Sophie Constable]

A light interesting read about events in history that are accepted as fact but may not be actually true. Some of the things were clear that they weren't true but somethings were a surprise and there were a few things that could be argued for being true. On somethings I was convinced after reading her explaining but on others I wasn't. The same source was also quoted A lot. But it's a quick read for anyone looking to know more about history.

[Sandy Sexton]

This "history light" book probably receives very different ratings, depending on the reader. In short tellings, popularly held beliefs are debunked. The research behind the truth is interesting, but instead of pleasurable enlightenment, I found I already knew what was coming, this, no doubt, because I'm an older reader who has already come upon most of the stories. Without the fun of surprise revealings, I didn't find the book as entertaining as it would be for others.

[Erin]

A few controversial topics and the author seemed to source the same sources is each section. Some were falasies without a doubt but others could easily be argued against. Very interesting read though

[Richard Luck]

Serviceable, sub-QI tome - the third star's for the fact some of the jokes are actually pretty decent.

[Richard Hayes]

This book offers corrections to ninety historical inaccuracies or downright fabrications that are commonly repeated to such an extent that they have become the received story. Two of them are mentioned in the title of the book. Although I found most of the corrected narratives interesting, I also found myself thinking that the correct version often makes a less memorable story and fails to serve as a vehicle for an important principle of morality. When narratives are fabricated, it is often for a reason; the fabrication makes a point that a more accurate telling of the event would not make as well.

[Randall Christopher]

This was a pretty light read, and contained some interesting historical tidbits. The research seemed pretty good, but the overall writing was fairly dry. There were some things that I remember hearing before, and others that I had not. Overall, nothing to really write home about, but worth reading nonetheless.

[Leia]

Although a good premise, many of the "myths" of the book are already well-known to be debunked. Add to that several snide comments and offensive jokes on the part of the author, and the resulting book is not as enjoyable or informative a read as the title would imply. Also, there's nothing in it about Lucrezia Borgia, just in case anyone was specifically looking for that tidbit.

[Steven]

my friend got me this book for my bday (after she couldnt find ice like fire) so I was p excited to read this book but honestly... I just cant lmao, like yeah it has interesting facts but I am not drawn to the book in general. ofc, that's probs just bc there's no story at all it's obvs just a history book.

anyway i will continue reading it, definitely, just. a little bit every once in a while

[Einar Snorri]

Ekkert þarna sem áhorfendur QI hafa ekki séð eða lesið um. Létt romp um hitt og þetta og ekki neitt.

[Mick Meyers]

A good go to book to pick up and put down,use it as a reference book.some of things I did know taught at school by teachers who should have known better.

[Broughps]

Only complaint - it was too short.

[angela]

deadly dull

[Ellis Hastings]

Interesting facts but dry.