What we read in history books is hardly ever true. At least, they are not a hundred percent true. History is probably made up of half-truths and half fiction. Therefore, history should always be taken with a pinch of salt.
A battle or war is fought between two rivals or opponents. The opponents could be races, tribes or even countries. In most duels, one of them wins the campaign. The other one becomes the loser. All said and done, it is the story of the victor and the vanquished unless it ends up in a stalemate or a ceasefire.
When we read the history of two countries that went to war, things tend to change over a period of time. A hundred years later, the history is not going to be quite the same as it used to be when the war was fought. With the passage of time, both the countries try to glorify the actions of their respective armies. You may be led into believing that both the countries won the war. Obviously, that is not possible because one of them must have lost the battle or yielded to the other country. War is seldom a win-win situation for both the countries. But that is the way it is portrayed.
Perhaps, that’s why it is called history. Or, should I say: HIS-STORY? By that, I mean the point of view of the historian. History is written by historians who are engaged to do the job by powerful authorities. Or, they do it on their own volition. Either way, there is room for bias or prejudice.
Most of the time, it is the victor that is the architect of history of his times. In other words, history is the story of the victor. Therefore, even the failings of the victor are glorified and the glorious feast of the vanquished tend to get neglected or ignored. However, the loser may glorify their valiant feats in their country and make it appear as if it is them that won the war.
Invasions were designed to conquer and subdue the native population and establish the rule of the invader. In doing so, the victor used to focus on destroying every trace of lineage of the vanquished. Most invaders adopted a common four-pronged approach:
- They killed all boys and men above 12 years of age. By doing this, they ensured that there would be no resistance or uprising against the aggressor because children cannot counter a fighting army. This also ensured that no one who knew the history of the tribe or race survived to tell the stories of their past.
- They raped all the womenfolk among the native population they could. With this, they managed to put a stop to the existing lineage at age twelve and introduce their own lineage in place of the native lineage. After this, the women hardly ever discussed their past for obvious reasons.
- They ravaged and plundered the property of the inhabitants because people without resources can never stand up and fight against an invading force. Submission became their only option.
- They destroyed the archives and other records including literature of the race or tribe of the native population. By destroying the archives, they wiped out all evidence of the tribes they invaded. And, the existence of the vanquished got wiped out from the pages of history.
This strategy worked well for the invaders. And, this left no trace of the tribes that inhabited the territory. This is why the stories of our lost tribes and kingdoms. This may not be possible today. But those were the days of barbarism. And, they did not have such sophisticated information storage and retrieval systems.
Today, if you and I are here, it is because we belong to a race or tribe which was aggressive or a tribe that was able to withstand the depredations of the invaders.
So, if we have a history, it is the history of the victor. Or, we are part of the history of the vanquished that bidded for its time to rewrite its history because the vanquished never get the opportunity to write their history in their own time.
Irrespective of whether our ancestors were victors or vanquished, we now have a glorious past to boast about. Because, history often rides on half-truths and lies!
