Buzz
We have a fascination with misconceptions. The Internet is packed with articles claiming that everything you know is wrong, especially when it comes to history. While some of our historical beliefs are indeed incorrect, there are times when these so-called 'misconceptions' are not as false as they seem.
10. Nero Allegedly Played the Fiddle While Rome Was in Flames
A simple Google search for 'history misconceptions' will lead you to a number of articles debunking the myth that Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned. These articles often argue, 'The fiddle didn’t even exist back then, so how could Nero have played it?' Even we’ve been fooled by this one!
It may seem like a strong argument—unless you know what figurative language is. Clearly, Nero didn’t literally play a fiddle, but he certainly could have been 'fiddling around' during the chaos.
Various Roman historians recount the story of the Great Fire of Rome differently, but none of them portray Nero in a positive light. Both Cassius Dio and Suetonius suggest that Nero was either responsible for starting the fire or failed to help those suffering afterward.
There’s only one account that implies Nero may have actually helped people: Tacitus. However, even Tacitus notes that the accounts of the fire are numerous and that 'each version has its sponsors.'
The truth about Nero’s actions during the fire remains unclear. What is certain, however, is that he was widely disliked after the event. This suggests that he likely didn’t handle the situation well.
9. Caligula Probably Didn’t Appoint His Horse to the Consulship
The Roman historian Suetonius is famous for his wild tales, and his accounts of Caligula are some of the most outrageous. It was Suetonius who claimed that Caligula appointed his horse to the Roman consulship—a story that has since been debunked as pure fiction.
How do we know it isn’t true? Our most trusted historians carefully examined Suetonius’s writings, and one exclaimed, 'That’s absurd! That has to be a joke!' That sentiment spread, and it became accepted that the tale was too unbelievable to be real, because, after all, strange things just don’t happen.
That’s the entirety of the argument. No evidence contradicts this claim. Historians simply consider it a fantastical tale, which is why we’ve concluded it probably didn’t occur.
Suetonius might have fabricated the story, but we don’t have any other sources to verify it. When people dismiss this as a lie, they’re only speculating—many other historians believe it actually happened.
8. Spartans Killed Deformed Babies—And So Did Every Other Ancient Culture
Plutarch, the Greek writer, told us that a Spartan baby would be brought before an elder, who would decide if the child should live or be abandoned in a pit to die. For centuries, this was accepted as fact—until a group of archaeologists examined that pit and found no trace of dead babies.
It was concluded that Plutarch was likely fabricating a smear campaign against the Spartans. If the archaeologists are correct, Plutarch may have orchestrated the most successful propaganda campaign in history.
For one thing, Plutarch described the killing of babies in a section titled 'The Advantage Of Spartan Education And Marriage Customs,' implying he thought this was actually a beneficial practice.
Moreover, the Athenians were doing virtually the same thing they accused the Spartans of. At the same time Plutarch criticized the Spartans for killing babies, the Greek physician Soranus was publishing a treatise called 'How to Recognize the Newborn Worth Rearing,' advising parents to abandon unwanted infants.
It is true, however, that no babies were found where Plutarch said they would be. This could indicate that Plutarch was mistaken—or it might just be a result of the 2,000 years that have passed since his writings.
One thing is certain—Plutarch had no reason to fabricate this story.
7. Pocahontas Likely Didn’t Save John Smith’s Life
Some argue that the famous tale of Pocahontas risking her life to save John Smith may have been invented. According to this theory, John Smith fabricated the story to capitalize on Pocahontas’s fame.
Professor J.A. Leo Lemay closely examined this theory and highlighted several flaws. For one, John Smith—who had already established the first English settlement in North America—wasn’t exactly desperate for recognition in the history books. He was already well-associated with Pocahontas.
Moreover, there’s no reason to doubt John Smith’s honesty. No one challenged his account until 250 years after he shared it. In fact, there’s almost no controversy over any of the other writings by John Smith.
So, either John Smith suddenly decided to start fabricating tales about young Powhatan women saving his life, or it simply really happened.
6. Julius Caesar’s Famous Last Words Were Essentially ‘You Too, Brutus?’
As some have pointed out, Julius Caesar didn’t actually say, “You too, Brutus?” when he was assassinated. This line comes from Shakespeare, written 1,600 years after Caesar’s death. Numerous articles have addressed this surprising misconception—one of the most ordinary misunderstandings out there.
Roman historians report that the actual phrase was, “Kai su, teknon?” (“You too, child?”). The term “child” was directed at Brutus. So, in simpler terms, his final words were essentially, “You too, Brutus?”
As some have noted, we can’t be certain that Caesar said anything at all. Even those who recorded it were simply relaying what bystanders claimed, without knowing for sure if it was accurate.
However, if Caesar did say something, it was very close to what Shakespeare wrote.
5. Pharaohs Were Definitely Buried With Their Servants
Some surprising misconception articles claim that pharaohs weren’t actually buried with their servants. According to these articles, they didn’t sacrifice servants to accompany them to the afterlife. Instead, pharaohs supposedly died alone.
This would be a shocking revelation that could change our understanding of Egypt—except that there’s almost undeniable evidence proving that pharaohs did indeed take their servants with them.
Archaeologists have uncovered the remains of 41 people buried with Pharaoh Aha. Some of them were children, and they didn’t die of natural causes—they seem to have been strangled to death. Aha’s successor, Djer, took it even further, burying 300 people with him.
Some studies highlight that we’ve only shown the actions of the first pharaohs' dynasty—and yes, that's accurate. Over 3,000 years, Egyptian culture evolved, which is undeniably true—but it shouldn’t really come as a shock.
4. Pythagoras Likely Existed
Some claim that the Greek mathematician Pythagoras may not have existed at all. They argue that the only evidence of him comes from his disciples, and there's no surviving record of any words penned by Pythagoras himself.
That’s true—but it also applies to nearly everyone from the sixth century BC. For instance, the only records we have of Socrates and Confucius are from their followers. By this reasoning, we could also claim that neither of them ever existed.
The notion that Pythagoras may have been a fictional character occasionally appears in odd listicles. However, in academic circles, there’s little debate about whether Pythagoras existed. While some question whether he accomplished all the feats attributed to him, there’s no significant evidence suggesting a large group of people invented a fictitious mathematician to admire.
3. Archaeologists Have Not Proven That The Jews Were Never In Egypt
Ze'ev Herzog once stated, 'Archaeologists have discovered' that 'the Israelites were never in Egypt.' This claim is quite startling. It’s not merely a matter of dismissing a Biblical miracle; Herzog is asserting that it has been proven that a crucial aspect of Jewish history never took place.
Herzog's statement holds weight. There is indeed no archaeological evidence to suggest the Jews were ever in Egypt or that they journeyed through the desert. This often leads to the conclusion that the absence of proof implies the Jews were never there. And that conclusion is accurate—no conclusive archaeological proof exists.
However, this doesn’t definitively rule out the possibility. Many historians challenge Herzog's claim, highlighting the existence of Canaanite slave records in Egypt, though we can't confirm they were specifically Jewish. Additionally, by the 4th century BC, multiple non-Jewish cultures had versions of the Moses story, none of which seemed to question its truth.
While it's true that no conclusive evidence proves the Jews were in Egypt, the opposite is also unproven. Like much of ancient history, this is yet another aspect we simply can’t know for certain.
2. The Aztecs Were Not Engaging In Cannibalism Due To A Lack Of Protein
For years, we believed the Aztecs engaged in human sacrifice and cannibalism due to a twisted cultural norm—until Michael Harner provided a different view. He argued that their actions stemmed from a desperate need for protein, but that explanation is now debunked.
This theory significantly altered our understanding of Aztec culture, but it was ultimately proven to be incorrect. In reality, the Aztecs had a wide variety of foods available and weren't lacking in protein as once thought.
Harner's hypothesis was proven false, but that didn’t diminish its impact. The Aztecs often engaged in cannibalism during the harvest, a time when food was abundant. Moreover, it was mainly the elite who partook, and they had greater access to protein than most people.
It would have been convenient to portray the Aztecs as more rational, but the truth is they were performing ritual sacrifices to appease their dark gods.
1. Machiavelli's *The Prince* Is Almost Definitely Not a Satire
For many years, Machiavelli's *The Prince* shocked and outraged people. How could anyone defend such a ruthless and heartless approach to governing? Then Jean-Jacques Rousseau proposed an idea. What if, he wondered, Machiavelli was simply being ironic?
Some argue that The Prince is a satire, designed to be humorous. This idea has gained popularity recently. The claim is that Machiavelli, when writing about governance, presented contrasting viewpoints. If his advice varied depending on the situation, the argument follows, then his stern warnings must have been intended as a joke, particularly the ones that were uncomfortable to hear.
If this theory holds, The Prince would be an unprecedented piece of satire. For one, it would be the first satire ever published without any jokes. It's also the first book to remain in circulation for over two centuries before anyone realized it was merely a jest.
Many articles treat this theory as fact, but it's hardly more than a controversial claim. The majority of scholars read The Prince at face value, taking Machiavelli's advice seriously.
Of course, you can always read The Prince yourself. If you do, you’ll quickly see that in the opening lines, Machiavelli clearly states that republics should be governed in a different way. You will also realize that the book is far from being a comedy.
