Things that are widely believed, but not true

[Kyng]

Honestly, the knight in shining armor is more of an early Imperial Age/Post-Medieval thing than Medieval since full suits of plate were introduced very late in the Medieval era. Also, they coexisted with and used early gunpowder firearms so guns did NOT make knights extinct.

Indeed, they didn't: it was the rise of professional standing armies that did away with knights as we know them.

(Had it not been for that, and had knights continued to exist, I'm sure they would've used any new technology that came along... now I'm imagining knights running around in tanks in the present day !!!)

[Kyng]

You might have heard that male penguins search entire beaches for the perfect pebble to give to females, in order to 'propose' to them.

This isn't entirely false - because they do build nests out of pebbles as part of the courtship process, and males will sometimes collect pebbles for the females. However, these are practical presents, rather than love offerings: the females only care about the pebbles being suitable for nest-building .

https://www.flipscience.ph/flipfacts/do-...h-pebbles/

[JHG]

This notion that Heracles was just muscle without brains is not true at ALL in actual mythology. He beat the Stymphalian birds, Hydra, Antaeus, and Geryon by figuring out their weaknesses, tricked Atlas, and cleverly redirected a river to clean the Augean Stables. Making him both smart AND strong.

[Kyng]

This notion that Heracles was just muscle without brains is not true at ALL in actual mythology. He beat the Stymphalian birds, Hydra, Antaeus, and Geryon by figuring out their weaknesses, tricked Atlas, and cleverly redirected a river to clean the Augean Stables. Making him both smart AND strong.

Yeah, doesn't surprise me. Given how physically strong some of those adversaries were, he was never going to overcome them with brute force alone - even if he was Heracles .

[Kyng]

In order to bring this thread into line with rules elsewhere (e.g. the Forum Games guidelines), I have relaxed the "Nothing religious" point, so it now says "Nothing related to present-day religious issues".

This means that anything about historical religions (e.g. Greek/Roman gods) is OK - as is anything indirectly tied to a present-day religion (e.g. Christian music or Islamic architecture), as long as you stay away from the beliefs, theology, and the related social issues.

[JHG]

No Deadliest Warrior, the Waffen-SS wasn’t an elite military group. Aside from the 1st-3rd divisions, the SS actually didn’t have exceptionally high end training comparable to modern special forces groups like the SAS, Spetsnaz GRU, SEAL Team 6, or the Shayetet 13(the last of which would’ve been an especially fierce enemy of the Nazis if they coexisted for a million obvious reasons.) The Waffen-SS just got priority in equipment and boasted about being elite.

[JHG]

Thor wasn’t the stepbrother of Loki, that was Odin. Loki would be Thor’s uncle in mythology. And no, they weren’t archenemies either Marvel. Thor’s arch nemesis was his cousin Jörmungandr. Loki was archenemies with his nephew Heimdall.

[Kyng]

You'll often hear people talking about how we're more likely to accept gradual changes than sudden changes - by comparing our situation to a frog in boiling water. The idea is that the frog jumps out of the water is already boiled - but the pan is boiled gradually, the frog stays there and overheats (and eventually dies). However, this analogy is wrong on both counts:

• A frog that's in cold water, that's heated up gradually, will jump out when the water gets too hot;
  
• A frog that jumps into boiling water will die immediately - not jump out.

(Source: https://www.fastcompany.com/26455/next-t...consultant)

[Opal Fruit]

King Harold was shot in the eye with an arrow, which killed him at the Battle of Hastings in 1066.

Wrong. Writings from the time mention nothing about this. They do, however, detail what happened to him, which was indeed still a nasty, bloody end. The Bayeux Tapestry has had us believe Harold was shot in the eye due to the writing close to the scene, as he appears to be holding an arrow which has gone into his eye. Actually, the arrow seems to have been added in later on to suit a slightly different version of events, as was discovered when the tapestry was moved recently, finding that it was stitched with a different kind of thread, and actually what was originally there was in fact a spear. On top of that, that particular figure is thought to have been one of Harold's army, defending him; not Harold himself. It's the scene right next to this one, which is actually presenting Harold, showing the moment that he is charged down by a soldier and horse and slashed through the leg, as the then-texts described. A arrow had also been added close to Harold's face in that scene, but was later taken out, whilst the other was kept in. Not 'one in the eye for Harold' after all!

[JHG]

So...he was shot in the face? Anyway...
The notion that the Mongol invasions of Poland and Hungary in 1241 were stopped by the death of Ogedei Khan doesn't make sense if you consider logistics-it would've taken months for news of the Khan's death to get that far. So the actual reason was probably a tight resistance from the natives, stormy weather, supply lines drying out, and/or just getting bored to tears of the campaign.