What's a historical misconception you used to fall for, but have dropped after careful study of the subject?

>>17862775 (OP)
I used to think shit threads were just trolling. Now I understand 4chan's valuation is dependent on post volume, so they need to spoof certain boards to keep decline at bay. They're bot threads stashed where they won't draw attention.

>>17862775 (OP)
White people never participated in slavery

That James Buchanan did anything wrong.
The same people who tell you he was "le worst president ever" for not shredding the Constitution and going full dictator are the same people who will tell you Lincoln was the Second Coming of Christ for using Sumter as a pawn to get the South to fire first, suspending habeas corpus, forcefully drafting the Irish, etc.

>>17862800
why are those contradictory?

>>17862804
What do you mean, "why"?
Buchanan gets deemed "le worst" for trying to call for a border-state peace conference (which Lincoln refused to support), didn't raise tensions with S. Carolina even when they fired on a ship headed to Sumter, tried to tell people to uphold SCOTUS's decision in the Dred Scott case whatever their decision, acted as he should have as a lameduck president in the interrum instead of inflaming more border states towards secession, didn't call for troops when he knew it would only cause more states to secede, and put moderate voices first. Lincoln did more to spur on Virginia's secession than Buchanan ever did and yet only one of them gets deemed "le worst" for the sake of raising Lincoln above Washington as a literal God in US national-mythology.

Used to believe the monarchists won the English Civil War through the Glorious Revolution, in that the king was put back in place.
Truth is, the English king was just a figurehead from that moment onwards, and Parliament was and still is in charge of everything.
No real state religion remains either.
The Roundheads won and the UK is an aristocratic republic, not a monarchy

That the Inca empire was bellicously conquered by le ebil spaniards.
Turns out Pizarro and Spain wanted to make them into a client state (because setting up an administration over Tawantinsuyu would be seen as too much investment), so they intervened at the very last hour of the civil war between Huascar and Atahualpa, captured the latter, and said that Pizarro would judge which of the two should become emperor, and forbid Atahualpa to order Huascar's execution before a tribunal could be set up. Atahualpa ordered Huascar killed nevertheless, which enraged Pizarro because he was left with an obvious loose cannon as head of the Tawantinsuyu, and that could not be allowed. So instead Pizarro had Atahualpa fucking strangled publically and installed instead the brother of Huascar, Manco, as Sapa Inca, and went to deal with the remnants of Atahualpa's loyalists. Manco would eventually just tell the Spaniards to fuck off once Atahualpa's people were finally dead, and the Spaniards were led to the conclusion that obviously keeping the current administration might actually be a bad fucking idea after all. So the conquistadors hunted Manco across the Andes all the while actually investing the cities they conquered, setting up municipal and provincial governors along the way and having a shit time of instating the "Viceroyalty of Peru" all the way - and that's not mentioning the civil war between conquistadors that Spain only learned after it had been effectively waged - until almost fourty years had passed and the Inca and its successor the neo-Incan states were finally fucking dead. Spain was actually pretty disappointed with Peru because beyond the initial plunder the Viceroyalty suffered catastrophic population loss due to smallpox and the consequent conflict (meaning virtually no taxes), its infrastructures and cities were often sacked and less often razed to the ground, destroying infrastructure along the way, and the resources were mid except for the Cerro Rico.

>>17862881
obviously you think being a strict constitutionalist and compromiser with the south is good, and other people prefer the guy who trampled liberties to kill the south. I'm wondering how their view of buchanan and lincoln contradict

Mexican independence is the most misunderstood event in our history.
First we have to know there different eras in the colonial spanish period.
First was the austria era, in this era the empire was more "federalistic" and therefore the vicerroyalties didnt have so much taxes.
But then borbons came and maaaaaaaany taxes were imposed to the Vicerroyalty of New Spain, one of the worst ones was the consolidación of vales reales.
The corporation that got more affected with this was the church, since many of its goods were "expropiated".
This also made the economy of the vicerroyalty to fall down and therefore people were hungry now.
But the trigger was the arrest of the vicerroy Iturrigaray and of Fernando VII.
We have to understand that the mexican people thought that the king had nothing to do with all these changes in the economy, but rather that it was the elites the ones who betrayed the King and the people, thats why all the independent leaders procalimed their loyalty to the King.
With all of this priests like Miguel Hidalgo or Maria Morelos started the mexican independence and they incited their followers (mostly indigenous catholic people) to rebel

>>17863030
>obviously you think being a strict constitutionalist
>the guy who
>the guy
You obviously haven't even the first inkling of the subject, so why don't you just fuck off instead? My post was directed toward actual Amerisharts

>>17863067
>deflection
fucking bot KYS

>>17863052
Truly incredible the ability of the Bourbon dynasty to fuck up. Apart from France (thank you Napoleon), literally everywhere they've ever ruled over was and remains an underdeveloped shithole.

>>17863070
>nnnooooo just spoonfeed me basic US history or y-y-you're deflecting!!! Rrrreeeeeeeee!!!
Not my fault you're retarded/a non-Amerishartian.

>>17863095
this thread is shit and you're a shit poster. At least a bot is following its raison d'etre instead of being a complete waste.

>>17863091
>Truly incredible the ability of the Bourbon dynasty to fuck up. Apart from France (thank you Napoleon), literally everywhere they've ever ruled over was and remains an underdeveloped shithole.
It's because they literally considered anywhere other than France colonial shitholes that they could flee at any time back to France, unironically.
One of the big problems of dynastic holdings away from your dynastic centers is that they mostly assume the parent, major house can bail them out if they fuck up, while the dynastic center doesn't have that option.

>>17863097
>now it's the thread that is shit because he's seething mad over not understanding a middleschool-tier history subject
Now who's deflecting, faggot

>>17863101
You'll be amazed to learn the very first reply to this thread is mine.

Its not only the borbons.
Practically all the absolute monarchies in the XVIII Century became bad with their vicerroyalties.
Like for example, the Austrias had the same reforms

>>17863103
>it was a retard who posted the most retarded, off-topic post in the thread
Yeah, truly shocking

>>17863117
bots mad they can't slide in peace

Christianity didn't expand through "women and slaves", but rather through the sympathy of non-Romans (freemen or slaves) who couldn't relate to the traditional Roman religion

Brutus wasn't insane or even selfish, in fact he was genuinely convinced of the morality of his gesture

>>17862775 (OP)
Meso-American religion did not revolve around human sacrifice. It was an important part of it. But the sheer morbidity of the act seems to eclipse everything else about their spiritual beliefs.

>>17863132
>muh bots
Babe wake up new /his/schizo just dropped

>>17863233
>defending bots
new levels of NPC you mean

>>17862775 (OP)
The holohoax.

>>17862775 (OP)
I once thought that the French revolutionaries and Napoleon Bonaparte were crazy warmongers who wanted to conquer Europe. Closer inspection has shown me that literally every war they fought was defensive and justified, they were responding to attacks every single time.

>>17863924
>Closer inspection has shown me that literally every war they fought was defensive and justified, they were responding to attacks every single time.
The point of the War of the First Coalition was to rescue the dethroned French monarch.
As soon as the Revolutionaries scored enough victories to keep their enemies away from Paris, they executed Louis XVI and ensured years of warfare by other outraged monarchs who weren't willing to allow what back then appeared as extreme insolence, and essentially proto-Bolshevism.
You should also not forget that many French were openly against the revolutionary government, particularly in Vendée, Brittany and Normandy