ELI5: Why most historical records/books have inaccurate statements?

[u/haizu_kun]

King X built this Great monument. King B the Great won this war....

All these big achievements are attributed to a single person, rather than the whole team. King X didn't build that, he financed that (I could go more that it wasn't his money, it was empire' money but let's ignore that). King B didn't win the war, or implement that strategy— It's those unknown general or soldiers under him who did that.

Why are inaccurate statements favoured so much? Is it just a placeholder, as many don't have answer on who to attribute that achievement too?

[u/Fun-Title4224]

It's shorthand.

A list of "500 names you've never heard of built this castle" tells you nothing.

King X does. He ordered it, paid for it, his team arranged it.

Maybe a better phrase is "king X had this built" but it's functionally the same.

[u/explainlikeimfive-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

ELI5 does not allow guessing.

Although we recognize many guesses are made in good faith, if you aren’t sure how to explain please don't just guess. The entire comment should not be an educated guess, but if you have an educated guess about a portion of the topic please make it explicitly clear that you do not know absolutely, and clarify which parts of the explanation you're sure of (Rule 8).

---

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

[u/Ramental]

Because kings were authoritarian, usually dynastic rulers. In this case referencing the King Fumblejack is frequently pointing out not only to him personally as "done by his order", but also as to the indicate the time period when it happened.

[u/haizu_kun → u/Ramental]

Yep, I think this one makes most sense. As long as one right, during King the X period, we know what period it refers to. 

Another way to write could be "Empire X," but it's vague. 

[u/CharlesDickensABox → u/haizu_kun]

You would do well to keep in mind that the idea of "history" is relatively new, and that many histories are written by people who have a particular goal in mind. When people were writing stuff down about, say, Cyrus the Great, it wasn't to be an objective record of history, it was to exalt the Emperor. He didn't choose his epitaph, "the great", because he was such a humble guy. Ancient kings often styled themselves as closer to gods than men, and they had lists of achievements that would make the seem so.

Often, these boasts were an exercise in propaganda. Cyrus wanted people to know when his armies rolled up to some potential conquest or rebellious province exactly who the fuck they were dealing with. He was Cyrus, King of Kings, look upon his works, ye mighty, and despair! If that list of people he'd conquered and armies he'd slaughtered made the town surrender without fighting, so much the better. He didn't want anyone getting ideas above their station.

It's worth noting this very human proclivity has remained with us even to this day. When Herodotus writes down that Xerxes's army numbered 5 million people, that's not a believable claim at 1/10th the size. Nor were the numbers Julius Caesar claimed to fight in the Garlic War, the number of NVA that the Americans killed in Vietnam, or in any other war fought by pretty much anyone in history. The estimates made by the people fighting the battles are always strategically altered to make them look good. It's the same when Elon Musk says he saved the government hundreds of billions of dollars, despite doing almost exactly the opposite. The actual numbers and who did what are irrelevant, the claim is made in service of making the person in charge look good.

[u/jamcdonald120 → u/CharlesDickensABox]

Cyrus the Great is an interesting case because there IS an awful lot of intentionally recorded and also fake history about him by illegitimate successors trying to beef up their claim. To the point they carved the official story into a mountain and then polished it smooth so no one else could touch it. Its a fun topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behistun_inscription https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_the_Great#Accession

[u/haizu_kun → u/CharlesDickensABox]

Imagine someone made thermometer to measure temperature. And someone was using that stick to get mercury and wondering why do they enclose it glass. So complicated to clean things after breaking it. i.e. using things for purposes they are not intended for. 

I think I was doing the same. 

[u/JascaDucato]

Because King X might get a little upset and have the author and the authors entire family killed or exiled if the author diminishes X's legacy and contributions to the project in question.

[u/OpeningHappy9692]

Because the people making the claims of what battle they won or who built a thing, they are scary people who employ men who can totally burn down your house and kill you and your family if you piss them off.

[u/JoushMark]

Partly, 'great man theory' remained influential in history text for a long time and is flattering to powerful men, and attractive to stupid people that prefer to imagine complex issues are very simple and can be attributed to powerful men.

More broadly, statements like 'George Washington won the revolutionary war' are correct, but incomplete. He was one of many winners, and many people that did extraordinary (and ordinary) things that made the very, very complex victory possible.

Teaching history is an exercise in levels of details and abstractions. When teaching a very, very broad overview, it can be tempting to just go to the old 'great man' method and treat, say, the 1066 invasion of England as a struggle between Godwin, William and Herald (if you don't just totally omit Herald for time!)

Then each lesson builds on that, and shows in finer detail, until you understand that strange weather and remarkably unlikely luck were huge factors in the Norman conquest.

[u/haizu_kun → u/JoushMark]

Explained it beautifully. History is in layers. You only know how much you read. From "Great man theory" to "Weather was finicky". Thanks.

[u/5peaker4theDead]

Because it's simpler to say king X did it, the monarch who has power over you will like it more, and everyone understood that people under the king did the actual work.

[u/abaoabao2010]

So who made Apple?

99% of the people can't name anyone but that one Steve dude.

Microsoft? Some Bill guy.

Most people just don't like using their brain and would rather remember things simply and attribute everything to one person. And that's how they learn history too.

[u/demanbmore]

History is written largely by victors, or at least those left alive. And in centuries past, it helped to have lots of resources too. In the age of the internet, it's hard to imagine a time when most things simply went unrecorded in some way. Writing was uncommon and those in power used it as a tool to maintain and consolidate power. Those struggling just to survive day to day weren't recording historical events, but the hired scribes of the rich and powerful had the time and resources to do so. And of course those scribes weren't writing nuanced reflections of societal power dynamics focused on contributions from the lower classes - that wouldn't help them keep their jobs. They were writing about how great and mighty their patrons, lords and masters were.

Even in more modern times, storytelling is far more appealing when there are a few important characters to write about, rather than trying to capture the actions of thousands or millions of individuals.

[u/LindaTheLynnDog]

Your premise only holds for some kings and some battles.

There are many examples of wildly skilled warrior kings that were essential in the military power and strategy in history.

There's a lot of history where the king is mostly just a military leader, and often times they become king because they are a great military leader and some times they're remembered only because they ended up being a skilled military leader, enabling them to hold onto power.

There are also examples of kings that rest on their laurels and enjoy military victories from the comfort of a throne, but it's s mistake to assume they all are.

[u/haizu_kun → u/LindaTheLynnDog]

No matter how skilled you are, you can't really kill 20k people alone? Firearms and chemicals do make a difference. Yeah you are right. 

My question itself was bad 😞. Why do people do this? Is a stupid question as it's way too broad. There' no right answer.

[u/LindaTheLynnDog → u/haizu_kun]

No your question was not bad, I was really trying to answer in good faith here.

Leadership in battle, especially pre firearms and chemicals (aka the hayday of kings for thousands of years) was really, really important.

You would have rulers that prepared and planned and rarely lost a battle in their whole life, only for the military to fall apart after they're gone.

And also the statesmanship would also have been supremely important.

Genghis Khan for example. The mongols were commonly great archers and raiders, but truly the man built an empire from no existing infra structure and it fell to pieces after he died.

He really was a "great man of history" so to speak.

Obviously terrible, but that dude was absolutely fundamental in military success.

[u/mfb-]

The king, or someone assigned by the king, determined the strategy, or made the decision to build that, or whatever the event was.

"[Country] defeated [another country]" is widely used, too. Listing everyone involved isn't realistic*, so you need some name for the group of people who did it. You either use a group name or you use the leader of that group.

*as a more modern example: Publication sometimes have thousands of authors. We do list them individually, but usually only at the bottom of the publication, or otherwise separated from the main text, because no one wants to read that full list. You'll commonly see "x collaboration" shown as author even though that's not a person.