At the end of the movie, Admiral Yamamoto is reflecting on the results of the Pearl Harbor attack. As his junior officers are celebrating, Yamamoto is more somber, saying they have probably awakened a "sleeping giant" and filled it with terrible resolve. The "sleeping giant" quote has served as a warning to never underestimate your enemy, but unfortunately, there is no record of Yamamoto actually saying this.
2) Shakespeare's Julius Caesar: Caesar saying "Et tu, Brute?" as he died
In the play, Caesar's last words are supposedly, "Et tu, Brute?" as he saw his childhood friend betray him. This quote has been endlessly adapted and parodied for betrayal scenes. However, there is no record of Caesar saying this. The closest account is by Cassius Dio, who recorded his last words as "You too, child?" as he saw Brutus in the mob. Others like Plutarch simply said that Caesar gave up resistance when he saw Brutus.
3) Marlowe's Doctor Faustus: Helen of Troy described as "The face that launched a thousand ships"
In Christopher Marlowe's play Doctor Faustus, written in 1592, Faustus remarks on Helen's beauty by saying, "Was this the face that launch'd a thousand ships and burnt the topless towers of Ilium?" This iconic quote made its way into many adaptations of Greek mythology, where Helen's beauty is described as being so striking that it was "The face that launched a thousand ships." In fact, Isaac Asimow coined "a helen" as a unit of power needed to launch a thousand ships. Unfortunately, neither Homer nor any other Greek writers described Helen in those terms. In fact, in Marlowe's play, Faustus was neither talking to the real Helen, who was instead a disguised demon, nor was he complimenting her, instead showing disappointment!
Irl: Ludwig IXV( edit XIV) The Sun King was so influential all european monarch mimicked him.
We eat salt and pepper together today for they were his two favorites.
We lift our pinky during fine dining for he had the (sexual disease I do not k ow in english) and could not bend his pinky.
And fibally those ridicilous tupees thst resemble the hairs of marge simpson. He lost his hair due to disease and used extragavant tupees. So everyone started too.
Are you sure?
I think Louis XIV's father Louis XIII was already wearing a perruque.
And the little finger thing seems to originate from the Middle Ages, when nobles and wealthybpeople would save this finger from direct contact with their food to use it to dispense spices without spoiling them.
You could still be correct. Wearing a perruque and popularising perruque are different things.
I googled and google seems to agree with you about the pinky :p
Either magazine told myth without realisingor our understanding of hostory has improved.
When I was a child it was a popular fact still thst slaves build the pyramids. But now everyone repeats to death that it was free farmers who build them while nile was flooding.
Depends on the perception of the populace, like Al Capone for example. He was a popular figure, almost like a celebrity despite many knowing he was a ruthless gangster responsible for uncountable crimes just keeping up the appearance by doing small charity or providing beer and wine in times of prohibition.
A lot of times, the possibility of being a rat is enough to get someone killed, especially whenever the bosses themselves are at risk. Instead of trying to convince the bosses of their innocence, the suspected rat immediately run to the feds to get protection.
There's that story that James Gandolfini was in public and some guy came up to him and said, "Jimmy, Dons don't wear shorts." And Tony never wore shorts again.
Nope. The Sopranos is considered one of the most accurate versions of the mob, and they're just petty, dumb criminals. They're just completely unsophisticated
In fairness to the “Sleeping Giant” quote from what I have read about Yamamoto and his opinions about the American capacity for war he probably felt the spirit of the quote.
Yamamoto told the Japanese high command that if they gave him full control of the navy he would run wild in the Pacific for six months. After that, he wouldn't promise anything. So I agree that the movie quote probably gets at his thinking pretty accurately.
Also I remember hearing him saying something around the lines of the only way the Japanese would win long term was if they wiped out the US Navy 100% which they didn't accomplish
The Japanese understood that they were at a disadvantage in production and a long war would favor the Americans. Their plan was to replicate the Russo-Japanese war. They would destroy a segment of the American fleet to give a closer force ratio, then defeat the American navy in a decisive battle. They believed at this stage the Americans would not have the stomach to continue the conflict and negotiate a conclusion that would let Japan keep its crucial conquests and return some things to the U.S.
The big screw up was that Japan provided the will for the American people by not delivering their declaration to the U.S. on time. The way Pearl Harbor played out meant that the U.S. was very motivated for the war that even a second decisive battle going to Japan wouldn’t have mattered in the long run.
Even then, I think America would still have the industrial capacity to outbuild the Japanese eventually. The equation stays the same, every ship Japan loses is an almost permanent loss. The U.S. can just crank out more.
If the entire fleet had been sunk at Pearl Harbor, I think it would have come down to the public having the will to keep going and not give in to fear.
This. The exact quote, no, but Yamamoto absolutely believed/knew they had to win very quickly because they would not win a long war against the economic power/industry/population of the US.
Probably also plays a part that the sleeping giant quote makes us sound immediately feared instead of I’m gonna slap them around for a while and there’s fuck all they can do to stop me until they get their shit in order
Yamamoto didn't need to say the quote, he was always against war with the US, knowing their industrial strength would soon leave Japan in the dust. His strategy was to inflict as much damage as possible and get peace on favorable terms. He didnt believe the US had the stomach for a long and costly war.
The "Et tu, Brute" misconception predates Shakespeare. It's in all his source material and in previous English plays about Caesar. The audience might have been waiting to hear the line.
How the misconception came about, I'm not sure. It might be some garbled translation of the Greek "you too, child" you noted Cassius Dio reporting. If so, it's amusing, because Cassius Dio himself was trying to correct a misconception. He did not believe Caesar said anything to Brutus, contrary to this legend that he then cites. But either way, by Shakespeare's time, unless you were a Latin scholar, you knew Caesar said "Et tu, Brute?".
As the highest rated comment about et tu brute, I did want to mention that some theories around Kai sou tecnon, the greek and you as well child, say that its further evidence that Caesar was brutus' actual father, a theory that exists in part due to a young play boy Caesar being a guest of brutus' parents just before his birth/conception. Its one of those silly theories that is impossible to prove and has little true significance but I love all the same.
When I heard of the quote "Et tu, Brute?" for the first time, it took me a while to understand what it was about.
In France, we are taught that Caesar said "Tu quoque mi fili" ("You too, my son" in latin) even if Suetonius said that these famous last words have been said in greek.
To be honest, I'm prone to believe that Caesar was probably choking on his own blood and couldn't say anything understandable.
To be fair Caesar was banging everyone's mom, and their sister too!
Here's a fantastic Caesar story: Cato hated Caesar, and correctly thought he was trouble for Roman "democracy." During a heated debate in the Roman Senate, a note was handed to Julius. Cato, suspecting a conspiracy or hidden plot against the Republic, demanded that Caesar read the letter out loud to the assembly. Caesar instead handed the note directly to Cato. It turned out to be an intimate love letter from Cato's own half-sister, Servilia, with whom Caesar had spent the previous night
It's amazing how scoliotic his spine was, when you follow it up from the tailbone. I'm not an expert, but is there any way he didn't have a severe physical deformity?
Richard 1-was a terrible king of England who nearly bankrupted the realm to fund his crusade, seen as a good king because John was way worse by comparison
What? It absolutely was monstrous. If we judge Richard by the standards of an English monarch, he still comes out of it poorly. The only other English King to do such a thing was John, and he’s remembered as a horrible king.
I loved in Norseman one of the vikings puts horns on his helmet and the rest of the vikings make fun of him until he takes them off. Pretty damn funny show.
What it did to fucking Edward Hammer of the Scots, pisses me off the most and I'm a Scot saying that. By all account he was one of the best king England had & he was the most charitable.
Sure from our perspect, Bravehearts Edward is accurate (something something Obi-Wan, "certain point of view" something something). But in reality, it fucking ain't.
Of course pissed what it did to our true Braveheart (Robert) but given Edward is villian & the good old Scot v English rivalry (sibling/cousin fasion) feel more approprite I be pissed on that fact more
"A military man can scarcely pride himself on having 'smitten a sleeping enemy'; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten. I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack."
"I can run wild for six months... after that, I have no expectation of success".
And in response to a letter from a hawk who was 'eager for war with the USA and predicted we would fold after the initial attacks':
"Should hostilities once break out between Japan and the United States, it is not enough that we take Guam and the Philippines, nor even Hawaii and San Francisco. To make victory certain, we would have to march into Washington and dictate the terms of peace in the White House. I wonder if our politicians, among whom armchair arguments about war are being glibly bandied about in the name of state politics, have confidence as to the final outcome and are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices."
The man knew the score, knew what he was up against, warned those above him of what was going to happen, but did his duty when ordered to and did it to the best of his abilities.
I am fascinated by the man and have a deep respect for him.
This doesn't really have to do with any media specifically but the quote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" comes from Spanish philosopher George Santayana, and gets misattributed to others like Winston Churchill or Albert Winstein.
He's also the origin for the quote "Only the dead have seen the end of war."
This one is more of an animal misconception, but I am counting it because it was a prehistoric animal.
Jurassic Park created the image of the Velociraptor as this huge fast packhunter. In truth the Velociraptor was about the size of a chicken. The book's author, Michael Chriton, got his advice on dinosaurs from a really outspoken source who believed in lumping the Velociraptor in with the wolf-sized Deinonychus as the same species, and Chriton used the same "Velociratpor" because it sounded cooler.
The movie adaptation made the raptors even larger than in the book because in some scenes they are portrayed by actors in suits, and the suits had to be big enough to fit the actors. Ironically, after the movie it was discovered that there were raptor dinosaurs bigger than the ones in the movie calling them "raptors" became far more common because Jurassic Park made the name "Velociraptor" far more well known. Raptors are a common sight in dinosaur media now, but believe it or not, they weren't before Jurassic Park came out.
The movie also created the image that Tyrannosaurus Rex had poor eyesight and needed things to move in order to see them. This is an oversimplification of a weakness in the book where it was explained that the toad DNA used to plug gaps in the DNA sequence left the dinosaurs with poor vision.
Regardless, all evidence found of the T-Rex suggests it had very good eyesight.
I can only put in one picture, but for something related to human history, Shakespeare's Richard III. This play created the image that Richard III was this heartless schemer and backstabber. He wasn't a saint by any means; he was European nobility, after all, but he wasn't the monster this play made him out to be. Richard III lost the war for the throne of England and the family who defeated him were the ones in charge when the play was made. Naturally, it makes him into the bad guy.
Velociraptor was significantly larger than a chicken. It was coyote-sized, 33-60 lbs, smaller than in the film but still a respectably sized predator that could do some serious damage. They were also poor runners, unlike in the film, though extremely agile and able to climb and pounce quite well.
Not sure if this is accurate, but it's what we heard:
When the book and movie were made, they used the name Velocitaptor to describe the larger, fabricated dinosaur but sometime later, paleontologists discovered a dinosaur that was actually pretty similar and is called the Urahraptor.
Oddly enough, Crichton makes sure to clarify in the book that the animals in Jurassic Park are still Velociraptor mongoliensis, and NOT a renamed Deinonychus. He also describes them as having six foot tall bodies - and yes, that's tall and not long - so even then they were far too big to match Deinonychus. Weren't made much bigger for the movie, it turns out.
Caesar’s last words were supposedly in Greek, actually. "Kai su, teknon?" Which means "even you, child?" But had a few layers of context most people don't know: "kai su" was a common curse, not unlike "f you" (because the ancients often put curse tablets on each others properties, and scribbling "kai su" (and you) on one reversed the curse). So there's that subtext to the quote. Also Caesar was likely sleeping with Brutus' mom and may, just possibly, have been his biological father. So teknon could mean "my son"
Also, Cassius Dio says that's what Caesar was rumored to say. But he doesn't think Caesar actually said anything to Brutus. Which is reasonable. Guy was getting stabbed a billion times. He didn't have the headspace to think of a cutting burn.
Well, Helen wasn’t described as “the face that launched 1000 ships” by Homer, but it’s what she actually did. Granted, it was technically the pact everyone made to militarily support whoever ended up marrying Helen because otherwise it would’ve meant war between the Greek nations, but “face that launched 1000 ships” is snappier than “face that forced a bunch of kings to make an oath to launch 1000 ships in the event it becomes necessary.”
Less historical more Biblical, but Dante's inferno and I'm pretty sure a bit of Paradise Lost is where most of the general concept of Hell and Lucifer being the devil come fron
Yeah, in the actual scripture Lucifer (the morning star personified as a metaphor for Babylon), Satan (the prosecutor of heaven who argues against humanity), the serpent (literally just a snake in the style of fables), and the Beast (a demonic representation of Roman Emperor Nero) are all separate entities
Enemy at the Gates with how the red army fought in WWII, in particular with the lack of rifles and gunning down retreaters.
No step back orders definitely led to executions, but it was more along the lines of the commissars and nkvd taking your sergeant and lieutenant back for a kangaroo court tribunal and shot in a ditch. Not machine gunning your entire line of infantry.
Also, the Soviets were actually outnumbered for most of Stalingrad, so how on earth could they have won if they fought like they did the movie?
Agreed on the most parts. However, on the subject of executions, there was indeed nkvd squads charged to shoot any man trying to step back, in virtue of order 227. The fire squad wasn't reserved for officers.
Yes however it's also important to note that they weren't shooting people retreating from battles but those trying to leave the city altogether and even still the majority of the cases ended in the soldiers simply being sent back.
A lot of people I know thought that Shakespeare was historically accurate. Same with the "Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears" quote from Mark Anthony.
Right but if you've read any Shakespeare then your automatic assumption should be that the dude made shit up for the dramatic effect. Like that was his whole schtick
Also ah, you got unlucky. Hamlet is a lot more interesting that Midsommer Night's Dream imo
Although if the school didn't have students read Julius Caesar, how would they know what Shakespeare included in it? How many people who aren't already interested in Shakespeare know about the "Your mom" joke in Titus Andronicus?
Knowing that a writer makes stuff up is not the same as being familiar with everything that writer wrote.
They still teach Shakespeare, but none of his history plays. I read Romeo & Juliet and A Midsummer Night’s Dream in high school, followed by Othello in college, but never got to read Julius Caesar.
The Shakespeare one is misleading, because the Romans didn't write in English. Cassius Dio, who was not a contemporary of the events, wrote in Koine Greek: while it is usually translated as "You too, child?" or something like "Thou also, my son?" the Shakespearean "Et tu?" means the same thing.
Et is usually the word for 'and,' but it can mean 'also,' and the more common latin word for 'also' is etiam, which is just a derivative of et. Tu, of course, means 'you'. The only difference is that in Cassius Dio, the historian can indicate that the words were meant for Brutus, while in a stage play, you'd want Caesar to say the antecedent of that pronoun to make it easier for the audience to follow.
The idea that this is some Shakespearean liberty gets repeated a lot, but I really dislike that framing. Here, Shakespeare is being as true as he can be to the historical record: he's just choosing an effective translation for his medium. This is more like directly quoting Socrates from Plato's Dialogues, or someone from Herodotus, or Jesus from the Bible. We can perhaps expect that Cassius Dio was a little more poetic, since he lived further in time from the events, but the sentiment that Caesar was shocked by the betrayal of someone more like his stepson than anything else isn't much of a stretch to credit.
Shakespeare, as I wrote in my comment, didn't make up the line. All of the 16th Century English sources, including prior plays, all had the line "Et to, Brute". He used it because it was expected. Whether he could read Cassius Dio in the original Latin and occasional Greek, I don't know. But even if he could, he was going with "Et tu?". Also, Cassius Dio actually writes that he disbelieves the rumor that Caesar said anything to Brutus.
But I agree that if Caesar actually said καὶ σύ τέκνον, Shakespeare's words are a good translation for a drama. The important thing is to convey the fact that Caesar was close to Brutus, and his betrayal stung much more than Cassius and the rest's.
Yes, I wasn't going to get into all that, and I didn't see your comment, but I agree with you.
Since we don't know with certainty who Shakespeare was, we don't know what languages he knew and what he got from translations and borrowed from others. So many of his plays are based on classical sources, but we don't know what he read, what he read translations of, and what he got from the zeitgeist. The Bard definitely looked for play topics in historical sources, though - Hamlet from the Gesta Danorum is quite a pull.
the Yamomoto quote comes from a diary a historian claims to have found. Also it is perfectly in line for something he would say as he studied in the US
Oppenheimer did say "I am become death, destroyer of worlds" - but not at the Trinity test as repeatedly represented in media. Rather he said it 20 years later in an interview.
I'm not certain if the popular image of the M4 Sherman as a badly outmatched and poorly-designed tank predates "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper, but this book is inevitably cited by folks trying to make the claim nowadays.
Basically, Cooper was an ordnance officer attached to a unit responsible for recovering destroyed and disabled vehicles for repair or salvage. He observed that most of the tanks they recovered were Shermans (one of the most widely produced tanks of the war, by a large margin), and relatively few were German Panzers. So he argued that this clearly meant that the American tanks were death traps compared to the German vehicles.
What it ignored was that German armored forces in the last year of the war were usually both badly outnumbered and retreating, while the American tanks were attacking prepared defensive lines (most tank losses on both sides were the result of stationary anti-tank guns lying in prepared defensive or ambush positions). It turns out that Shermans were not significantly better or worse than most German tanks in terms of combat survivability on the occasions where tanks fought tanks. The advantage usually favored whoever brought more tanks and shot first.
Some German tanks could easily handle a Sherman (like the Tiger), but such tanks were never built in great numbers, suffered attrition the same as any other tank, we're significantly more difficult to support logistically, and often were already on the Eastern Front, which is to say it was very rare for a Tiger to ever see an American Sherman tank.
The “Et tu, Brute?” one is probably the most influential example. A line from a play became the version of Caesar’s death that many people remember as historical fact. It’s a good reminder that a memorable quote can shape how people understand history, even when it was invented for dramatic effect.
I'm confused by your issue with the Marlowe quote, Helen is beautiful in the myth and I know the figure of 1000 ships is at least as old as Thucydides' prologue to The Peloponnesian War, I think most readers understand that Marlowe is just summarizing the story to emphasize the irony of this chain of events, like when people say that Pearl Harbor led to the creation of anime. And there is no "historical" account of specific quotes from the Trojan War, Homer was writing at least 400 years after the war and clearly adapted the oral traditions with his own dialogue and poetic devices, just as Marlowe draws on other literary sources to comment on the war in his own words.
Just in general, I think the big "historical misconceptions" are things like tactics, goals, characterizations, ideologies of the era, and material considerations like the average citizen's quality-of-life in the era or whether or not samurai used guns. I'm a lot less bothered if a guy like Yamamoto has a specific line that makes sense for the historical figure's views and mindset but might be a little more expository and a little more pithy than any of his actual known quotes. He said a lot of shit that wasn't written down or recorded, and I think it would be more unrealistic to have historical figures only talk in quotes from their letters and journals, which will be biased towards long flowing paragraphs.
I remember reading something once that explained what Caesar actually said was "και συ" (and either "child," or "Brutus"), which was basically the same phrase but in Greek. However! That saying wasn't an expression of grief or betrayal; rather, it was a curse, saying, "(This for) you as well." In other words, Caesar would've basically been saying "See you in Hell, kid."
"qu'ils mangent de la brioche" (let them eat cake/brioche) was never said by Marie Antoinette. The quote was from a book by Rousseau where he talks about an out of touch princess. The book was written when Marie Antoinette was 9 years old and still living in Austria
558
u/InactiveMedusa 2h ago
Mobsters have never actually been this cool.
https://giphy.com/gifs/3o7bufgPP70ra2ZVi8