Buzz
The 'fog of war' doesn't only obscure the understanding of those directly involved in battles but also distorts the memories of those who recount them. Even the most famous wars are often shrouded in myths and fabricated narratives.
10. The “Join, or Die” Serpent - American Revolution
The Myth: The famous “Join, or Die” illustration portrays the American colonies as a segmented snake, symbolizing their lack of unity. It’s widely interpreted as a straightforward call to action: unite or remain under British rule.
Reality Check: The political cartoon was designed to unify the divided colonies—against the French. In 1754, two decades before the colonies united to fight the British, Benjamin Franklin advocated for a similar alliance to halt French expansion into the American interior.
Efforts to form a coalition against New France fell flat. Most colonies felt more loyalty to Britain than to each other. The British also opposed such a union, partly due to the colonies' constant infighting and partly because it could set a risky precedent. Instead, Britain opted for a costly military campaign to counter the French. When the colonies were later billed for the Seven Years’ War, the idea of uniting against British interests began to gain traction.
The confusion about the snake cartoon’s origins likely arises from Paul Revere, who adapted Benjamin Franklin’s concept for his newspaper’s masthead in 1774.
9. Saratoga: A Solely Colonial Triumph - American Revolution
The Misconception: The tale of Saratoga is often oversimplified: The determined colonial troops achieved their first major win against the British, showcasing the rebels' resilience and leading to a surge in French support.
But Really: The colonists' victory at Saratoga was made possible by French gunpowder, weapons, and supplies—a fact frequently overlooked. Also neglected are the French and Spanish agents who were active in America long before Saratoga. Long before the first “special advisors” arrived in Vietnam and Nicaragua, the emerging USA was learning about Foreign Intervention 101 from two nations eager to curb British influence.
Initial French assessments of the colonies' military potential were greatly exaggerated—overstating not only the number of armed men but also the rebellious fervor of the local population. Motivated by these reports, France's government embarked on a lavish spending spree to fund the young rebellion. Spain was even more eager to leverage the colonial uprising to challenge England. Before the Declaration of Independence was even drafted, Spain was funneling money and arms into the colonies, while engaging the British in South America and Portugal. While the revolution's roots were distinctly American, they were significantly bolstered by agents from both Spain and France.
Once the war began, it was the rapid involvement of the Spanish and French that ensured the colonists' guns remained loaded and operational for the two-and-a-half years leading up to Saratoga. The success at Saratoga, much like the colonies' overall victory in the war, was a result of collaborative effort.
8. The People’s RevolutionFrench Revolution
The Misconception: The idea that the 'people' sparked the French Revolution was likely popularized by 20th-century Marxist histories and the incorrect association with the June Rebellion of 1832, immortalized by the street urchins in Les Miserables.
But Really: The French Revolution didn’t start in the streets of Paris. It began when the French aristocracy pressured Louis XVI to summon the Estates-General for the first time in almost two centuries. After the American Revolution, France’s financial state was precarious. The war had been funded through loans, but with lenders scarce, the nation was now grappling with a severe debt crisis.
In 1787, seeking financial reform, the King’s administration called upon the nobility to discuss new taxes. Proposals, particularly for direct taxes, were met with growing resistance. While the nobility had numerous complaints, they insisted on convening the Estates-General, arguing it was the sole authority capable of approving taxation. Though there was talk of human rights and citizenship, the primary focus was taxes. With no resolution in sight and the treasury depleted, Louis XVI had no option but to convene the Estates-General in May 1789.
Thus, while the Third Estate (commoners outside the nobility and clergy) executed the revolutionary changes—liberte, egalite, fraternite!—it was the aristocracy who set the stage for the downfall of the ancien regime.
7. The Battle Of New OrleansWar Of 1812
The Misconception: In an unusual departure from the typical outcomes of the War of 1812, American forces decisively crushed the British at the Battle of New Orleans. Yet, this triumph was largely symbolic and highlighted the inefficiencies of early 19th-century communication, as trivia enthusiasts know the battle occurred after the war had officially ended.
But Really: The Treaty of Ghent, which ultimately concluded the War of 1812, specifies in its first article that hostilities would persist until both parties ratified the treaty’s terms. If either the US or Britain rejected the treaty, the conflict would resume on the battlefield. Although the British had accepted the treaty by the time of the battle, the United States was still more than a month away from ratification.
While Congress debated, the future of the strategically vital Gulf Coast city remained uncertain. Far from being a hollow or symbolic event, the Battle of New Orleans was part of a series of engagements aimed at securing control of the valuable Gulf Coast region as the war drew to a close. A defeat in New Orleans or Mobile could have resulted in the loss of a critical port, with long-term implications for dominance in the Gulf of Mexico. Additional battles occurred in Mobile until the US ratified the treaty in mid-February. Hostilities did persist after the war’s official end on February 16, 1815, but only at remote frontier outposts, not at New Orleans.
6. Slaves Fought For The ConfederacyAmerican Civil War
The Misconception: The image of black Confederate soldiers is frequently cited as evidence that Southern slavery wasn’t as harsh as claimed. If the Civil War was truly about upholding a racist system, why would African-Americans fight for the Confederacy? Surely, thousands of black men wouldn’t have supported a cause that oppressed them.
But Really: Those thousands of black soldiers never existed. While black individuals did serve in the Confederate Army, their roles were limited to non-combat duties such as cooking, transportation, labor, and serving as personal attendants. The few black regiments formed in the South, like the 1st Louisiana Native Guards, were primarily used for propaganda in newspapers and were excluded from actual combat. In fact, one such regiment surrendered to and partially joined the Union.
While there were rare instances where black men might have been forced into combat roles, Confederate laws explicitly barred them from bearing arms or enlisting as soldiers. Only in the final weeks of the war did the Confederate Congress narrowly vote to allow black enlistment, but the conflict ended before any meaningful recruitment could take place.
Evidence for widespread African-American combat service in the Confederacy is virtually non-existent. Among the over 200,000 Confederate prisoners of war captured by Union forces, not a single one was black. Photos purporting to show black Confederates have been debunked as forgeries. Other images of black individuals in Confederate uniforms or attending reunions are frequently presented without proper context about their roles or service history.
5. ‘Lions Led By Donkeys’World War I
The Misconception: Allegedly, after witnessing a brave but futile British assault, a German officer commented, 'The English soldiers fight like lions.' A fellow officer supposedly replied, 'True. But don’t we know they are lions led by donkeys.' This phrase is often used to encapsulate the idea of courageous soldiers being undermined by incompetent leadership—a fitting summary of the British war effort.
But Really: This myth has two key flaws. First, there is no evidence that the exchange between German officers ever happened or that it originated the phrase. Second, the phrase does not accurately reflect the British war effort. The expression itself was a common cliché used to describe various armies since the Napoleonic era. It’s clear the German officers did not coin the phrase. The British author of The Donkeys, who popularized the modern usage, claimed otherwise but could never provide a credible source for the supposed conversation.
So, how well does this recycled century-old rhetoric capture the reality of the British army and its leadership during World War I? To the degree that all organized slaughter is futile, the phrase holds some truth. However, it’s unjust to suggest the British, who ultimately won the war, were merely less incompetent than their German adversaries. Consider the challenge of exploiting a breakthrough in enemy lines in 1915: horses were rendered ineffective by trenches and barbed wire, tanks were still experimental, and precise artillery fire was more art than science. These were the obstacles British commanders faced, often unfairly labeled as rigid and foolish. Mastering the use of emerging technologies while the fate of a nation hung in the balance was no simple feat.
Even without the clarity of hindsight, British commanders demonstrated adaptability. They achieved victory by combining precise aerial and ground bombardments with coordinated mechanized attacks supported by light infantry. While their generals may not have been geniuses, they were far from being mere donkeys.
4. Nothing But Trenches And DefenseWorld War I
The Misconception: When you think of World War I, the first image that likely comes to mind is the Western Front—a hellish landscape scarred by endless trenches and littered with artillery craters. These static, impenetrable lines are often seen as defining the entire war.
But Really: The grueling defensive war of attrition and the concept of 'no man’s land' only tell part of the story. On the equally brutal Eastern Front, World War I took on a completely different character. The conflict between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia was marked by its ferocity, mobility, and tactical complexity. The vast geographical expanse, more than four times the size of the Western Front, prevented the war from stagnating for long periods.
The Eastern Front was akin to a deadly game of rock-paper-scissors. The Russians had sheer numbers (over 10 million troops) but lagged in technology. The Germans excelled in weaponry and leadership but were outnumbered. As for the Austro-Hungarians, they were deficient in both technology and numbers, though they had a highly skilled officer corps—three-quarters of whom were actually German. Consequently, commanders on the Eastern Front constantly maneuvered to shield their vulnerabilities along a dynamic 1,800-mile front. The nature of the war in the east was so distinct from the west that even cavalry units found success in charging and overwhelming infantry.
The Eastern Front wasn’t the only theater where World War I diverged sharply from the trench warfare of the Western Front. In Africa and the Middle East, extensive guerrilla operations characterized the East African Campaign and the Arab Revolt, the latter immortalized in the film Lawrence of Arabia.
3. White Man’s War, Black Man’s FightVietnam War
The Misconception: The Vietnam War featured a US military that seemed entirely disconnected from the population it aimed to protect. Young black men, among the most marginalized in America, died in numbers disproportionate to their representation in the broader US population.
But Really: The truth is more complex. The Vietnam War was a conflict fought largely by the poor and those not enrolled in college. While black soldiers did bear a disproportionate share of casualties early in the war, the overall statistics reveal a more balanced picture.
Out of the 58,193 total US casualties in Vietnam, around 12.5 percent were black, and 86 percent were white. These figures closely align with the demographic makeup of the United States during the Vietnam War era. Contrary to popular belief, approximately two-thirds of US service members volunteered for duty during the conflict. This stands in stark contrast to World War II, where about two-thirds of the military was drafted.
Of course, statistics alone don’t capture the full story. Many young men were pressured into service, limited job opportunities drove enlistment across racial lines, and draftees often chose to enlist to gain more control over their military roles. However, overall, the army that fought in Vietnam was more inclusive and better educated than those in previous wars, even if it didn’t perfectly mirror the demographics of the home front.
2. The Blitzkrieg StrategyWorld War II
The Misconception: The Germans overwhelmed the Allies in the early stages of World War II due to their groundbreaking innovation in warfare: rapid mechanized attacks—the Blitzkrieg.
But Really: After Germany swiftly conquered Poland, marched through France, and forced the British retreat across the English Channel, the Allies credited their defeat to the Germans’ new Blitzkrieg strategy…a concept the Allies themselves invented for the German military. However, Hitler was almost as shocked by the rapid German victories. Upon hearing of the swift advances in France, Hitler exclaimed, 'A miracle, an absolute miracle!' The German success was so overwhelming that Hitler suspected an Allied trap or counterattack. Of course, none materialized.
Far from being a meticulously planned strategy, Germany’s early actions in World War II were disorganized and rushed. In Poland, France, Norway, and Denmark, Germany improvised as it advanced. Following their initial triumphs, it was logical for Germany to adopt the Blitzkrieg doctrine, even if it was a concept created by their enemies. While Germany’s pre-war intelligence was poor, France’s was even worse. Instead of attributing their defeat to being unprepared or paralyzed by indecision, it was simpler to blame it on a supposedly revolutionary form of warfare. And so, Blitzkrieg was born.
1. Polish Cavalry Charged German TanksWorld War II
The Misconception: When hostilities with Germany began, Polish cavalry, lacking modern alternatives, famously charged a German tank division, attacking Panzers with swords and lances. Unsurprisingly, this valiant but misguided effort ended in disaster.
But Really: The Nazi propaganda machine fabricated this story almost entirely and even staged fake film footage to support it. We say 'almost' because, in 1939, Polish cavalry did indeed charge German forces. During a minor skirmish near Krojanty, Polish lancers attacked exposed German infantry, forcing them to retreat. However, a counterattack by two German armored cars drove the Poles back, who then sought cover.
While the Polish army couldn’t match the mechanization of the German forces, they countered German tanks by equipping each cavalry regiment with some of the era’s most effective anti-tank guns. These weapons were integrated into Polish military doctrine and training long before World War II began.
Poland maintained its cavalry for reasons beyond economic limitations. Just two decades earlier, Polish cavalry had proven highly effective against the largely machine gun-deficient Red Army during the Polish-Soviet War. Additionally, in the absence of sufficient armor or motorized vehicles, horses remained a practical means of ensuring mobility throughout much of World War II.
