What's a historical misconception that you either hear frequently

>>1779860
they didnt?

>>1779866
no sweetheart

>>1779870
what about that painting of diognes and ceaser meeting?

All the ancient Greek texts we have today were preserved by the Arabs.

>>1779880
Dio met Alex the Gr8, not Ceaser.

>>1779893
>Alex the Gr8
who?

>>1779860
I've never met anyone believing that

>>1779893
>dio met Alexander
Nice meme

>>1779860

>If Hitler hadn't made [insert mistake here] he'd have conquered the world!

Double points because the said "Mistake" usually isn't one of Hitler's actual blunders, or at the very least the proposed alternative is usually retarded.

File: link is this nigga serious.jpg (21KB, 281x301px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 281x301px

>like 300 conquistadors took down the entire Aztec empire!!!11!!

>>1780020
clearly this is a goofy statement, but, by chance, do you know how many it really took? a few thousand? tens of thousands?

>>1779860
>Napoleon was overrated/poor mans Hitler/etc
Most history laymen seem to think this.

>>1780031
Not him, but it was roughly 100 conquistadors and literally every tribe in Central Mexico that weren't the Mexica.

>>1780043
This is a history board, you should know at least the basics.

File: 1898px-Aztec_Empire_1519_map-fr.svg.png (766KB, 1898x1462px) Image search: [Google]

766KB, 1898x1462px

>>1780031
There were about 3000 conquistadors IIRC, but the important part was that Spanish had allied themselves with a neighboring confederacy (The Tlaxcalans) that hated the Aztecs, and had a massive army just as big as the Aztecs, and the Spainish/Tlaxcalan assault only occurred after the Aztecs had already BTFO the spainish out of their capital and then smallpox ravaged the aztecs for 10 months before said assault began.

So it was actually "200,000 smallpox famine ridden aztecs vs 200,000 Tlaxcalans & 3000 Spainards".

>>1780051
Accidentally a zero. 1000 conquistadores.

>>1780056
>There were about 3000 conquistadors IIRC
Not even close. Even the most liberal estimates don't reach 2000.

>>1780063
Yeah, I double checked after I posted that and was gonna correct myself.

In any case my point was that the Aztec's downfall had way, way more to do with the smallpox and Tlaxcalan army then it did the Spainish, and if it was just the Spainish it wouldn't have been an issue.

hell the Aztecs had multiple chances to kill pretty much all of cortes's forces before they even got into Aztec territory but Montezuma II was being a dumbass.