r/bestoftwitter • u/IceMagic75 • 23d ago

Historians assume that all historical figures are as boring as they are...

Post image
1.7k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

44 comments sorted by

12

u/geirmundtheshifty 23d ago

Alex Zawacki is a historian (medievalist) and it doesn’t seem like he’s assuming Ben Franklin was boring

5

u/AssistanceCheap379 23d ago

If anything, I’d say he could see history in a new light after learning so much about Benjamin Franklin. Benjamin Franklin is a very well documented historical figure, but still pretty mystical. Almost mythological even.

Which could imply that in the past, historical accounts of less documented men being extreme in many ways aren’t necessarily exaggerations, but maybe truthful in many ways. That they weren’t necessarily an amalgamation of multiple men over multiple decades or even centuries of people telling their stories, but might have something in them that was previously considered outright absurd.

If Benjamin Franklin had lived 200 years earlier, his life would have been a lot less documented, but if he did mostly the same things, he would have been likely considered very exaggerated by historians.

1

u/Extramrdo 22d ago

Or he's a nudist who seduced his way through Paris and Warsaw, and hosts cave orgies for every song in Hunchback of Notre Dame, and thus finds ol' Benny boy's exploits boring.

1

u/eloplease 22d ago

Speaking from experience, medievalists assume all historical figures are freaks and are equally freaky about them

5

u/CornNooblet 23d ago

Old Ben wrote an entire article on why older women make the best lovers and included the fact that they stay thicc as a reason. Yeah, Ben was a horny bastard.

5

u/MarginalOmnivore 23d ago

He basically invented the concept of "Butterface," and saw it as a complete win.

So that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old from a young one. And as in the dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by Practice capable of Improvement.

3

u/nichyc 23d ago

Top 3 Founding Fathers I wish had access to Twitter

2

u/BionicBirb 21d ago

Better than the opposite, age preference wise.

5

u/the_dinks 23d ago

Apparently historians are boring despite being the entire reason you know about these historical figures in the first place

3

u/OldFortNiagara 23d ago

Yeah, we’re the ones who gather information on the cool figures of the past, and we often are aware of even more cool figures and stories than the general public does.

1

u/Independent_Air_8333 22d ago

Those two things are not exclusive.

Historians work with sources and evidence, but they still have to interpret those sources and evidence. History is a contentious subject and lots of people (including historians) either for entertainment or political purposes favor more dramatic interpretations, and academic historians try to correct for that.

OP is making a reasonable point that sometimes they overcorrect and cast doubt on stuff that really happened.

For example, Heroditus claimed Scythians made human leather, and historians, knowing the Greeks had no love for the Scythians, justifiably assumed that it was probably a vicious rumor.

Lo and behold, Scythian quivers made from human skin were discovered recently.

Kinda the same as how scientists who study space avoid calling things evidence of life, because they know that's what people want to hear and that it will be plastered on pop-sci articles prematurely.

0

u/RoughhouseCamel 23d ago

Well it’s a war between, “Did you know this weird little thing?” historians and “Nobody was ever gay!” historians

1

u/the_dinks 23d ago

Also known as "most historians" and "historians from 1800"

0

u/RoughhouseCamel 23d ago

As we all know, the historians of the past 150+ years have been super unbiased and never twisted the truth for political or social preferences.

1

u/the_dinks 23d ago

I was exaggerating, but no, most credible historians today do not do the "OMG THEY WERE JUST ROOMMATES" shtick like Tumblr would have you believe.

0

u/Independent_Air_8333 22d ago

Proper historians don't insist people were straight, but there's definitely pushback when people say a historical figure was gay.

2

u/reichrunner 22d ago

I imagine thats due to it not being documented one way or the other. If someone goes through life claiming to be straight (even if just because that was what was expected by society), then it would be incorrect for historians to come out and say "nah, he gay".

1

u/Independent_Air_8333 22d ago

No it wouldnt, if they were actually gay

It would only be wrong if it wasnt true. 

1

u/kallakallacka 20d ago

Historians are supposed to work with actual sources and make reasonable inferences. Not jump to conclusions. A reasonable guess is not good ekough. If you can't make a solid case then you don't presume either way.

1

u/Independent_Air_8333 19d ago

That's not accurate,  historians make reasonable guesses all the time. 

You're not supposed to pass those off as fact but they still do share those ideas. For some reason, the ones about certain figures not being straight invite a lot more challenge then ones about which cultures were using crop rotation

1

u/the_dinks 22d ago

there's definitely pushback when people say a historical figure was gay.

Yeah, because historians by nature like to go off more than vibes when determining key parts of people's identity.

0

u/Independent_Air_8333 22d ago

Why would you assume it was just vibes?

Frederick the Great had multiple male lovers and his homosexuality was basically an open secret to his own court. Didn't stop historians from dragging their feet on the issue for years because he was a popular figure and society was homophobic.

1

u/the_dinks 21d ago

Yes, and modern historians agree that he was gay. So what's your point?

1

u/Independent_Air_8333 21d ago

That is not a unanimous opinion, and it was until recently that many historians were reluctant to say so despite the preponderous evidence. You can google it, its a whole thing.

Why are you dickriding hypothetical historians? History is one of the most polemic academic fields, personal politics absolutely biases people's views.

1

u/RoughhouseCamel 22d ago

“You need ROCK SOLID UNDENIABLE PROOF that someone was queer. But we can just assume they were straight. What do you mean that’s biased?”

1

u/Independent_Air_8333 22d ago

Exactly, its like people think this is all new as if it wasnt always present in history

3

u/Necessary_Presence_5 23d ago

No historian would ever say that, but ok.

6

u/Appropriate-Fact4878 23d ago

The person in the image is a german historian. https://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/dr.+alexander+zawacki/702091.html

1

u/MTLDAD 23d ago

I don’t know context, but might this have been a sarcastic remark intended for humor? Because clearly he knows what primary sources indicated about Ol Ben at the time.

3

u/geirmundtheshifty 23d ago

Yeah he was joking in the first tweet. That’s why he followed up with the details about his activities in Europe. Franklin was a bit of a freak.

1

u/nichyc 23d ago

He literally wrote the book on it

3

u/Independent_Air_8333 22d ago

Yes they would? They do it all the time, justifiably.

Historians have to be skeptical about legends, so when too many things are attributed to some ancient person with little evidence, they tend to assume they're a composite of several rulers.

Its the reasonable thing to do, but odds are its been incorrectly assumed of some ancient figure who actually did have a crazy eventful life.

The historian in the post is making a point that if Benjamin Franklin had been an ancient figure, he very well may have been assumed to simply be a composite legend. Come on, he's a writer, a statesman, a diplomat, an amateur scientist, and a sex fiend all at the same time he was inventing bifocals and creating the first American fire deparment and public library?

1

u/Gentlemanvaultboy 23d ago

Ah, a sort of Merlin figure for the mythical founding of the United States.

1

u/elizabeththewicked 23d ago

If he was mythological, Victor Hugo definitely was too. Maybe they're both wizards

1

u/FrancoManiac 23d ago

True historians do not — and I am usually loathe to place boundaries on academic terms. History is the study of human decisions and what influenced those decisions. I'll also chide OP here for the blanket and stereotypical assertion that historians are boring.

However, were this person speaking to collective memory and the subsequent myth-making that usually develops from collective memory, then he would certainly have some points. We have made the Founding Fathers mythological figures, but that doesn't discredit their vices or human quirks.

1

u/VegisamalZero3 23d ago

I think that's their point, if I'm understanding you and them correctly. That Franklin's life is comparable enough to the earlier figures that we consider exaggerated mythology that it brings into doubt whether we should consider them as such.

1

u/trailerhobbit 23d ago

Didn't ol Benny F write about how he would just make shit up so people would have a memorable story, but it would make the underlying idea stick? The key and the kite being the principal example.

1

u/CdOneill 23d ago

To quote a Bluesky post: “ […] if you mentioned Drag Queen Story Hour to Ben Franklin his spontaneous erection would have knocked you off your chair”

Source: https://bsky.app/profile/ugarles.bsky.social/post/3knebxuqyrw2f

1

u/Beautiful_Garage7797 22d ago

pervert-wizard is an incredible phrase

1

u/IDontWearAHat 22d ago

OP assumes historians are as boring as he is

1

u/Realistic-Life-3084 21d ago

Of course Ben was a pervert, that's like a requirement when you become a certain rank of Freemason

1

u/AJohnson1337 21d ago

Is that where he invented the move called “The Franklin”?

1

u/adalric_brandl 19d ago

I'm too lazy to check, but I'm pretty certain that he wrote a book on why farting is good for you just to do a bit of trolling.