q_id
stringlengths 5
6
| title
stringlengths 7
300
| selftext
stringlengths 0
39.2k
| document
stringclasses 1
value | subreddit
stringclasses 1
value | url
stringlengths 4
132
| answers
dict | title_urls
list | selftext_urls
list | answers_urls
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
216wre
|
Why have sit down style toilets not caught on globally? It would seem especially as people age they could maintain independence and quality of life easier if using their toilets did not put as much strain on the joints.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/216wre/why_have_sit_down_style_toilets_not_caught_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgagd1g"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"This is more a medical question, not a historical one.\n\nMedically, squatting to defecate is far healthier than sitting on a toilet seat. The puborectalis muscle forms a kind of sling around the lower end of the rectum, and in the sitting position, this sling is tightened, forming a kink in the rectum and squeezing it shut. This is why people don't normally leak feces while sitting on a chair. When people sit on the toilet seat, they consciously relax this muscle, but the kink in the rectum remains, and feces has to be forced past that kink.\n\nThis causes two problems: incomplete voiding, and straining. Straining eventually leads to hemorrhoids. And as you grow older, your muscles weaken and you can't strain as much, which worsens incomplete voiding. This is an aggravating factor for colon and rectal cancer.\n\nSquatting straightens the anal canal, which allows voiding without straining. In fact, if you check out medical supplies stores for old people, you will find high footstools they sell to old people for use in the toilet. The idea is to sit on the toilet seat but put your feet up on this high footstool so your knees are up folded against your abdomen. It's as close to a squatting position as you can get while still resting your posterior on a toilet seat. This is recommended for people who have a hard time defecating.\n\nJoint strain is not a problem if you are used to it (ligaments that have been stretched and toughened by squatting all your life can take the strain quite easily) and if you are not overweight. There are plenty of 70-80 year olds in Asian countries who have absolutely no problem squatting for extended periods. In fact, lacking chairs, many of them typically squat on the ground to do daily chores like cooking or laundry.\n\nUnfortunately, I can't for the life of me inject some historical relevance into this to make it suitable for this subreddit. All I can say is that historically, everyone squatted to do his business, east and west. Perhaps some historian of bodily functions can shed light on when toilet seats became popular. I know (from having seen pictures) that Romans sometimes used communal toilets with holes cut in a plank at regular intervals as toilet seats. I am not sure how prevalent this was, though. I believe rural populations even then just went out mornings to squat and \"fertilize the fields\". Not sure when **everyone** in the west began sitting instead of squatting, but I'd think probably in the last 500 years or less."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
23ytb8
|
What was life like for the Jewish population in Israel immediately after its declaration of independence?
|
Were people still going to work and to school? Were shops open? I understand that it probably depended on where exactly and I would like to understand what those differences were.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/23ytb8/what_was_life_like_for_the_jewish_population_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch20xx9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Do you mean like a snapshot of what it was like during the civil war before, what it was like that *day*, or what it was like during the war that followed? The three are pretty different depending on which day or which point in the war you mean :)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
15r6ab
|
How did people react to love before the era of romantic marriages?
|
I often have heard that marriage-for-love is a fairly new concept in the grand scheme of history. My questions are these:
* Historically, did people seem to experience romantic love as an emotion in the same way today?
* Was marriage-for-love actually as non-existent as said? Even among the desperately poor, for whom a strategic marriage of any kind seems unlikely to involve high stakes?
* If romantic marriage is off the table, how did people react to being in love? What sort of relationship did lovers develop with each other and what did they do? If they were married, did their spouse consider it a problem if they loved someone else?
* How was romantic love related to child-rearing? Did people consider it a goal to have or raise a child with someone they loved? Or was child-rearing separated from feelings between the parents?
Feel free to correct any underlying mistaken assumptions in my questions or to answer instead the more interesting questions on this subject that I should have asked.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15r6ab/how_did_people_react_to_love_before_the_era_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7p27ps",
"c7p2ep5",
"c7p6ndu",
"c7p7e8s",
"c7pbmqs"
],
"score": [
11,
30,
9,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"What essentially you're asking for is a history of monogamy, and I'd imagine the answer would be contextually dependent on the cultures you're specifically asking about. ",
"Well, this is a complicated and very difficult question (group of questions) to answer. \n\nFirst, you have to decide what romantic love is--that flush of lust at first sight with the probable lifespan similar to a firework or deep friendship that makes for a fifty plus year marriage.\n\nYour last bullet point isn't answerable--child rearing was done differently depending on the time/place, but generally speaking it wasn't a goal to raise a family with someone they loved. Especially for poor families, children were a duty/necessity, not a being to be coddled or even necessarily \"loved\" (as we think it). Go read Methodism's John Wesley's MOTHER's letter to her son on how to raise a child in the 1690s. \n\nOff the top of my head, you need to go read the letters of either John and Abigail Adams or James and Dolley Madison (I suck at remembering facts)--I'm pretty sure it's Dolley because she made saltpeter during the War of 1812 (or I'm completely wrong--sorry). ANYWAY--when you find the right president and wife, their letters are full of their love and respect for each other. Historians believe that George and Martha Washington's letters would have been similar, but Martha burned them all shortly after his death.\n\nI personally read the adorable (but, alas, one sided) correspondence between two cousins at the beginning of the US Civil War--he even wrote up a contract teasing her about their love (I think it was focused on her not loving him as much as he loved her).\n\nSo, what we consider \"romantic love\" did exist, but Jane Austen wasn't wrong when she described Lydia's terrible marriage in Pride and Prejudice--any parent worth their salt would frown upon their daughter's marrying someone deemed unworthy (firecracker-lust does NOT mean that the marriage would be successful).\n\nRomantic love WASN'T off the table, but the odds of finding that best friend who was also parent-worthy was small given the necessary time frames involved--one spinster daughter was necessary to care for aging parents, two was just another mouth to feed.\n\nIn this world, divorce was pretty much non-existent. The only time it was allowed was when the husband was TOO abusive or he walked out of his wife's life. OR when the wife was unfaithful. If the husband was unfaithful, getting the divorce was more difficult (think Henry VIII).\n\nAnd to further complicate the issue, there's the problem of the difference in classes AND individual personalities. And also, my knowledge on the subject is limited to England/America from the past 500 years or so--lolwut_noway is correct in that other countries had different views on the subject.",
"I think the emotions *look* the same. For example, [read Henry VIII's](_URL_0_) love letters to Anne Boleyn (1500's), or [Abelard and Heloise](_URL_1_) (1000-1100's -sorry for the crappy resource on that one).\n",
"From the Bible (1 cor 7):\n\n\"Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.\"\n\n\nAnother interesting tidbit: the Ain Sakhri figurine from ~11000 years ago. It depicts a couple in an embrace or having sex. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nedit: i realize these aren't directly answering your question, but I do think they show that the nature of love doesn't seem to have changed. Also, I'm amused that Paul's advice is surprisingly liberal. He doesn't say that women should submit to whoever is picked for them. He's saying that women should get married when they can't restrain their physical attraction to a guy.",
"* As far as I know, yes, there is evidence of romantic or passionate love in most societies throughout history. It wasn't always seen as positive or even enjoyable sometimes, but it has always existed and we have abundant evidence of it especially from the art of each culture's period.\n\n* This really depends on the time period and part of the world you're talking about. If you're asking if this has ever happened, the answer is yes. As recently as the Victorian age, it was considered improper, sinful, and even unhealthy to be sexually aroused or in love with one's husband. In ancient Rome, Pompeii detractors made fun of him for years because he actually loved his wife and showed her affection *in public*. You can imagine how rare, then, it would have been for someone to marry for love in some of these cultures. There is a \"but\" here. Even in the most morally strict cultures, marriage (or at least sex) did still happen for love. Remember also that people who married for other reasons did often end up loving their spouses, if not in the traditionally romantic way.\n* Again, this depends on the time and place. They reacted by running off with their loves quite often and as far back as ancient myths. They also reacted by marrying for duty and then having extra-marital affairs on the side. A large number of cultures *expect* the male to have a least one lover in addition to his wife and believed him to be less of a man if he didn't. In the 16th-18th centuries, The French people complained and revolted if their monarch did not officially take a mistress they approved of. In some cultures it has even been deemed acceptable for a woman to take another lover. Monogamy in itself is a rather modern concept, so the answer is that for some people, marrying for politics wasn't exactly an obstacle to being with someone they loved. On a side note, the notion of [courtly love](_URL_0_) might interest you. It was a medieval concept of passionate emotional love without physical desire.\n* Motherly love is a separate topic all on its own, which I hardly wish to breach here. :D The really short answer is that parenthood has existed in every form you can probably imagine, but on the most part parents have always loved their children and shown that affection in some respect."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32155/32155-h/32155-h.htm",
"http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aah/index.htm"
],
[
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/vNEwNR8rSzGPSwSn3yeJwA"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love"
]
] |
|
1a2a4n
|
Help with a paper on censorship
|
Hey Reddit, I am a high school student who is doing a research paper on censorship and how it affects the societies in which it is a part of... if any of you have studied censorship and/or authoritarian governments in depth and would be willing to answer some questions on the matter, a response would be greatly appreciated :)
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1a2a4n/help_with_a_paper_on_censorship/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8tg1kb"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Go in depth about American censorship, such as the Hays Code in American cinema, Alien and Sedition Acts, and the 1912 ban on fight films (response to African American boxer Jack Johnson's championship victory)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7kkez0
|
Which works provide a thorough and objective (to the greatest extent possible) analysis of both Hamilton and Jefferson?
|
Because of the success of Hamilton and Chernow's novel, a lot of recent work is very pro-Hamilton, while (in my experience) my education was very pro-Jefferson. If I can be cheeky, reddit is also pro-Jeff more often than not.
I'd like an objective account that just lays it all out there for someone to make their own opinion. Can y'all recommend any titles like that?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7kkez0/which_works_provide_a_thorough_and_objective_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"drfq43f"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"An excellent biography of Jefferson just came out this year: *Jefferson: Architect of American Liberty* by Dr. John Boles of Rice University. His is probably the most up to date, comprehensive analysis of Jefferson since Merrill Peterson. I strongly recommend this book. It provides a thorough view of Jefferson and touches on some of the other figures of the time, including Hamilton and John Adams. Boles overall respects Jefferson, while at the same time criticizing him where it is warranted."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
dq6u54
|
Why did Russia and America care about the korean war?
|
I looked this up but i can't find a satisfying answer. Considering the enormous tension from cold war and the giant stockpiles of nukes, it could have ended really badly. What was there to gain from Korea that justified risking the end of the world to get it?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dq6u54/why_did_russia_and_america_care_about_the_korean/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f60zxbu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I indirectly answered this in [my discussion on the dynamic Tibet played to the Cold War in the 1950s.](_URL_0_) \n\nEssentially: Stalin was probing for weaknesses in the West's defenses. Berlin and Greece were secure, and the Maoists had just won their civil war against the Nationalist government. So while Europe seemed like it was locked down barring nuclear war, Asia seemed like the weakspot of the Western Democracies. \n\nFor the United States, it was less about what they could gain from the territory itself, and far more about Truman's \"Containment\" policy, i.e. keeping Communism in check where it was and not allowing it to expand."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dfgv9v/why_was_tibet_ignored_in_terms_of_the_domino/f366ilc/"
]
] |
|
1qxkga
|
Can anyone read these ancient inscriptions? (From Salamis, North Cyprus)
|
While visiting north Cyprus I saw these inscriptions in the ruins of [Salamis](_URL_1_), but there were no translations available.
[link here](_URL_0_)
Salamis looked pretty amazing but most of it was still awaking excavation, unfortunately nobody is allowed to dig there since the war between Greece and Turkey. I actually got talking to an archaeologist there (Who I stupidly didn’t ask about the inscriptions) and he mentioned that the site is so vast and under developed they are not entirely sure of its size, but it might even be bigger than Ephesus.
I know it’s a long shot but does anyone here know any ancient Greek?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1qxkga/can_anyone_read_these_ancient_inscriptions_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdhjikl",
"cdhk2xd"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"I hope that you are able to find a satisfying answer here, but I suggest you also post your question to /r/linguistics. They have a very good track record with this sort of thing.",
"The first is catalogued as *Salamine de Chypre XIII* (ed. Pouilloux & Marcillet-Jaubert), inscription 29:\n\n > [— —] κ̣τημάτ̣ων καὶ καταδικΙ[— — — — — — —] \n[— —] ζ̣ημιωμάτων εἰδότε[ς ὅτι — — — — — — —] \n[— —] ἀ̣κολούθως τοῖς ὑπερφυ[εστάτοις(?) — —] \n[— λ]ιβέλλων ποιεῖτε ὅπως μ̣ὴ [— — — — — — —]\n\n > [...] of possessions and ... condemn[...] \n[...] of fines, knowin[g that...] \n[...] in accordance with [the most] extraor[dinary...] \n[...] of petitions, take care to avoid [...]\n\nThe second is *Salamine de Chypre XIII*, inscription 203:\n\n > [ἐπὶ τοῦ δεσπό]του(?) μου Φλ(αβίου) Ἀντιόχου Ἀμμιαν(οῦ) Οὐαλερίου \n[ἐμαρμ]αρώθη ὁ πάτος τῆς βασιλικῆς.\n\n > [In honour of] my [mas]ter Flavius Antiochus Ammianus Valerius \nthe path of the basilica was [covered in mar]ble.\n\nText from _URL_0_, translation mine."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://imgur.com/a/T2LJz",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salamis,_Cyprus"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://epigraphy.packhum.org/inscriptions/main"
]
] |
|
2oytju
|
Did tankettes ever prove themselves to be valuable in combat?
|
Hello,
Lately I've been rekindling my interest in WWI-WWII armoured combat, and reading up on a lot of various models of tanks and other armoured vehicles. One class of tracked vehicle that I keep on stumbling upon references to the "tankette" - small, tracked vehicles with around 2 crew members, generally armed with a simple machine gun.
Lots of nations came up with tankette designs - the [Carro Veloce](_URL_1_) (Italy), [Carden Loyd](_URL_4_) (UK), [Type 94](_URL_3_) (Japan), [TKS](_URL_2_) (Poland), et cetera - but the concept seems to have faded during the war, like so many of the pre-war eccentric ideas that designers came up with ([like sticking multiple little turrets on tanks](_URL_0_)).
As a result, I've always mentally dismissed tankettes as being death traps for the unfortunate soldiers assigned to drive them about. But I've never really studied them, so I could be being quite unfair to the tankette!
Basically, did tankettes ever successfully carry out what they were designed to do in any campaign during the various wars they were involved in?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2oytju/did_tankettes_ever_prove_themselves_to_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmrrskx",
"cmrteys"
],
"score": [
62,
46
],
"text": [
"Tankettes were fairly successful for the Italian troops in the Corpo Truppe Volontarie during the Spanish Civil War. At the Battle of Guadalajara, Italian tankettes were able to punch through Republican lines and nearly achieved a breakthrough despite poor weather and a complete lack of support from Nationalist forces (despite Franco's promises to the contrary). The Republicans were able to finally blunt and throw back the Italian advance, partly by using a number of Soviet-supplied tanks.\n\nThose are the facts, but the interpretation of the battle is where things diverge. British and French observers concluded that armored breakthroughs were unlikely, and that it would be better to widely distribute one's tanks so that a defense could be made anywhere along the line. German observers of the same battle concluded that if the Italians had pushed harder and had some more support (both from Franco and from the air) that a breakthrough was tantalizingly close. They were convinced that with advanced armor and air support such an attack could succeed.\n\nStill, the Italians faced limited opposition at Guadalajara. This isn't to denigrate the Republican defenders--quite the opposite. The Republicans simply did not possess large amounts of artillery, either indirect artillery or anti-tank guns. The few Republican tanks that were deployed to the battle were effective, but we're talking about relative handfuls of vehicles when compared to battles in WWII. So perhaps a good deal of the success of the Italian tankettes at Guadalajara should be mitigated by acknowledging that the defenders had little in the way of weaponry that could hope to stop them. \n\nI am not an expert in tankettes, but the times that I have seen them referenced as being successful are generally when their opposition had little in the way of weaponry that could penetrate armor of any type.",
"The problem with tankettes is that we view them from the point of view of ww2 armoured combat - large mechanised formations creating deep breaktroughs and fighting the counter-attack by the enemy's similar formation. In such warfare the tankette is indeed a death trap - however, this is not the kind of combat the tankette was designed for.\n\nAfter ww1, tanks had shown themselves extremely vaulable for infantry support, allowing direct firepower (MGs and/or guns) to be brought directly to the enemy quickly and with its crew protected by armour. The tank was in essence a mobile machine-gun bunker and as such extremely valuable on the battlefield.\n\nThe tankette was an attempt to create a cheap, small, reliable and quick mobile MG bunker to ensure that it could be produced and manned in quantities to provide all infantry divisions with their own integral armoured support.\n\nThe tankette was a late 20s and early 30s design, and when it was created, AT guns and AT rifles were rare or non-existand in most armies. Ten years later, when ww2 started, most if not all armies had acquired extensive supplies of AT mines, AT guns and in many cases AT rifles. It was not until then the tankette became vurnurable. However vurnurable the tankette was, it was still a protection against rifle caliber fire from MGs and rifles, which helped.\n\nBy the time ww2 started, most nations had either abandoned the tankette or had programs in place to up-gun them. The Poles planned to upgrade their TKS tankettes with 20mm wx.38 automatic cannons with decent AT performance. They also experimented with mounting 37 and 47mm AT guns on them.\n\nThe Italians experimented with replacing the MGs on theL3/35 with a single 13,2mm MG that could destroy most light tanks and tankettes and with modern torsion bar suspension.\n\nThe British had long since abandoned tankettes as design and had replaced them with infantry tanks (primarily Matilda I and II when ww2 broke out).\n\nThe large stocks of tankettes available to the Italians, Poles and Japanese were assigned as infantry support or recoinnasance vehicles where they served as well as they could - and were still better than nothing."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/T28E_2.jpg",
"http://www.lonesentry.com/panzer/may/pics/carro-veloce-cv-33-italy-tankette.jpg",
"http://wisepursuits.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/tks-tankette-captured-01.jpg",
"http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/type_94_tankette1.jpg",
"http://pds12.egloos.com/pds/200901/11/96/c0066396_4969f1f169c7c.jpg"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
v20q0
|
Did anything positive come out of Nazi Germany?
|
First and foremost. The holocaust was terrible. I get that.
But did anything positive come out of Nazi Germany? Rockets for instance and didn't they create the first jet fighter? Didn't the Nazis pull Germany out of their Post-WWI depression? If everything the Nazis did was bad why did we have Operation Paperclip? They must have had some of the best minds and they just happend to be working for a government that was led by a crazy guy.
If you try to ask someone they can't get past the holocaust and it makes it hard to learn if anything good came from them.
Accepting that the holocaust was bad and setting that aside. Did any good come from Nazi Germany?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/v20q0/did_anything_positive_come_out_of_nazi_germany/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c50lnvj",
"c50lt2k",
"c50m5f9",
"c50m9ib",
"c50mjzg",
"c50mub4",
"c50oyxl",
"c50phka",
"c50poew",
"c50pwny",
"c50rft9",
"c50sabh",
"c50t2cf",
"c50tslq",
"c50tua2",
"c50ulbn",
"c50uqzi",
"c50vz4e",
"c50w6va",
"c50wkwl",
"c50x1mb",
"c50x82q",
"c50xvrg",
"c50y6ke",
"c50ypzm",
"c50z3fz"
],
"score": [
40,
123,
21,
50,
27,
2,
17,
8,
42,
4,
5,
15,
5,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
5,
3,
2,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"They built a lot of good roads.",
"Their scientists made breakthroughs in several different fields: aviation, rocketry, nuclear physics, etc.\n\nWorld War II in general was interesting that way; both sides had surprisingly many geniuses.",
"[Wernher Von Braun](_URL_0_) and other scientists imployed by the German military, despite creating weapons that killed thousands of people, are largely responsible for the Saturn V rocket, the rocket that got people to the moon. Captured german scientists were incredibly important to the space program.\n\nAlso, [here's a song.](_URL_1_)",
"the Volkswagen beetle, who's design was personally approved by Hitler, would become the best selling car in history.",
" > Didn't the Nazis pull Germany out of their Post-WWI depression?\n\nNo, they didn't. Recovery was well under way before they took over, and the jolt the armament programme gave to the industry was built on hidden credits.",
"I think they serve as a very, very good warning from history.\n\nAbout how some people start off promising to look after your children and end up murdering their own\n\nAbout how bad it can get if you comprmise on civilised values.",
"I am not a historian or even a big history but I do remember reading that the Nazi's were the first people to research the connection between cancer and smoking. They actually had a strong anti-smoking movement.\n\nHere is the wikipedia link on it _URL_0_ \n\nHopefully an actual historian knows more about the topic.",
"Some researchers think that democratic rule combined with the UN and atomic weapons is bringing us \"everlasting peace\". i'm not sure about everlasting, but certainly the last 70 years have been relatively peaceful. \n\nConsidering what Nazi Germany showed us about dictatorships, the establishment of the UN as a response to WWII, and the fact that the U.S, a relatively peaceful state was the first country have an atom bomb as a response to Nazi Germany , Nazi Germany definitely is a major cause behind this \"everlasting peace\" idea. \n\n\n ",
"Almost all of our medical information on how drowning works and affects the human body comes from Nazi experiments done on prisoners. I'm not sure that's good per se, as the test subjects obviously died horrible deaths, but it's something.",
"Didn't they start the first government sponsored anti-smoking campaign?\n\n[Found it.](_URL_0_)",
"Where do you draw the line between \"Nazi\" and \"Germany\"? Let's say a Jewish girl writes a good book in German language in Germany during the Nazi reign while hiding from the Nazis. Would that classify as an outcome from Nazi Germany?\n\n\n",
"Anti-reflective coating for eyeglasses is pretty nice. Of course it WAS invented for german sniper scopes...",
"\"They made incredible medical advancement and not one animal was harmed doing it!\" - Jimmy Carr",
"The United States Space Program (werner von braun and all the german scientists we could grab)",
"Militarily the tactics and technology coming from Nazi Germany was not only revolutionary at the time but still has an impact on modern warfare today. The mg42, albeit heavily modified, is still used by some armies. Most armies use the German style helmet, even the American's modern combat helmet have more in common with the M40 helmet than the American M1. Also the flat design of their tanks has shaped modern tank design in favour of the bulky Sherman, the [Leopard 1](_URL_0_) is considered by many as one of the most effective tanks available, the resemblance to the Tiger is obvious. \n\nNow whether or not that's necessarily 'positive' is very debatable.",
"Reunification of Jewish Identity - keep in mind that many many Jews who they rounded up had assimilated - and there's some debate in the Jewish community about what might have happened next. Then the Germans came along and said \"Hey, you're Jewish from your grandparents\" and pushed them all into camps together. \n\nTherefore, Israel and modern Jewish identity - are those good things? That's totally subjective, I would agree.",
"The VW Beetle.",
"It's arguable that the anti-modernist thought and subsequent drama in the Reich over modernism lead to the eventual creation of Helvetica after the War when the Nazi's had been staked. The most popular font of the 20th (and so far the 21st) century.\n\nSo a bad thing lead to a good thing.",
"I see someone listened to the new Hardcore History podcast ",
"Sending people to the Moon was only possible in 1969 because of Von Braun and his rockets, which he started studying and experimenting thanks to Nazi fundings and slave labor at Peenemünde.\nNo Nazi, no Apollo program. ",
"A lot of this thread is kind of dumb in a way, yes German scientists came up with a lot of great things because Germany had been a very developed and advanced nation for many years. \n\nBut saying \"the nazis invented this and that\" is like saying \"Hey, George Bush may have started the Iraq-war but atleast we got a lot of Apple and Microsoft-products during that time so he wasn't that bad right?\"",
"Well, this might be a bit tenuous - but if the Nazis hadn't invented the [Enigma code machines](_URL_1_), we probably wouldn't have put such a massive amount of resources into breaking them, and the course of computing history would be somewhat different. (See: [Colossus Computer](_URL_0_)).\n\nSo, thanks to the Nazis (kinda ;-)) we got the world's first electronic, digital, programmable computer!",
"They were the first to make the mistreatment of animals a crime.\nCrazy when you think about how they treated humans.",
"Women's Rights\n\nFor thousands of years we had been telling women that they couldn't do the same job us men did, then WW2 came and all the men left for war leaving the women to pick up the slack.... we simply didn't have the luxury of holding back the female workforce any more, anyone who could work was expected to. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nwhen the men came back many of the women simply kept on working (well it obviously wasn't that easy) \n\nEDIT: just re-read the question....read it as \"Did anything positive come out of WW2?\" obviously what I wrote is not actually relevant (sorry :( )",
"Please remember, people: *Autobahn geht gar nicht*. (Autobahn is not cool.) That argument is absolutely invalid. Real achievements are:\n\n\n* Tax System. We still use the (depending on who you ask either best or worst) tax system that was invented by the Nazis.\n* Higher taxes for house owners and rich people\n* lower taxes for middle class and poor people.\n* *Kraft durch Freude*, the first mass tourism program in the world. Filled with Nazi indroctination. But for many the first affordable vacation.\n* Universal health care for senior citizens\n* Scientific advances, often by products of the whole \"Wunderwaffen\"-thing. Good for science, bad for Nazi Germany.\n* The drainage of big swamp areas, like the Masuren. That was also made possible by the Reichsarbeitsdienst\n* Volksempfänger (Radio) affordable for most.\n* Carmina Burana and Leni Riefenstahl's films.\n\nDiscussing this, we should never forget *why* and *how* that was possible. The money spent on the health care of the elderly came from the Holocaust and the Blitzkrieg; money and praise was given to mothers of many children because the produced new soldiers; the Volksempfänger was a tool of indoctrination and the art of Carl Orff or Leni Riefenstahl was celebrated while other artists where forced into exile and had their works burned.\n\nTL;DR: Nazis are bad.",
"Yes, we learned that nazism and authoritarianism sucks."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-otod11g9FgE/ToVHZCcRhKI/AAAAAAAADPQ/A-SOai6OxwQ/s1600/Leopard-2a6.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_machine"
],
[],
[
"http://www.ehow.com/info_8371111_womens-rights-during-ww2.html"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2fxu6t
|
Have Americans always been this passionate about their 2nd Amendment rights?
|
It seems that if you read enough comments/articles/etc. online, you get the sense that Americans are almost fanatical in their support of their 2nd Amendment rights. I'm not judging them either way on that, but it made me wonder: have Americans *always* been this passionate about their guns?
If I went back in time to the 1920's or 1930's and attempted to pass a law barring citizens from owning guns like the Thompson sub-machine gun, would their be mass protests like there would be today?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2fxu6t/have_americans_always_been_this_passionate_about/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckdtqro"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Funny you should phrase the question like you did. It turns out you don't have to go back in time to pass gun control in the 1930's. The National Firearms act of 1934 took care of that for you. It was in large part aimed at controlling the Thompson sub-machinegun. After the Saint Valentines day Massacre there was a large public outcry. The law was passed with a great deal of public support. In fact after the passage of the NFA of 1934 Roosevelt pushed for the NFA of 1938 which also had widespread public support. Karl T Frederick president of the National Rifle Association testifying before congress in support of the NFA of 1938 said “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”\n\nI can guarantee that if you tried to pass gun control legislation in the 1930's you would not have mass protests. Especially if it applied only to machineguns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers and other such weapons."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
641yhw
|
How different was spoken Middle English from the spoken English of today?
|
Essentially, would a modern English speaker be able to converse with a Middle English speaker, in theory.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/641yhw/how_different_was_spoken_middle_english_from_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfz1cwz",
"dfzja62"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Some of this would depend on the speaker of Middle English. Chaucer wrote with a London dialect, which was the ancestor of the main, conventional stock of modern English. Even so, much of Chaucer's vocabulary and his pronunciation would make communication a profound challenge.\n\nThat said, it would be more difficult to speak with the fourteenth-century Gawain poet - the anonymous author of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. That author came from the north of England, speaking a dialect that was removed from the main evolutionary trunk of modern English. Reading that poem, and presumably attempting to talk with its author, would be far more difficult than attempting the same with Chaucer.",
"Hi, the question of \"how far back could I go and still communicate in English\" is a popular one in this sub. Please check out this recent post, and do please follow the link therein to a few more on the Middle English period\n\n* [If I was to travel back to 12th century England, would we be able to easily understand each other's use of the English Language?](_URL_0_) featuring /u/liontamarin"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/61q7xb/if_i_was_to_travel_back_to_12th_century_england/"
]
] |
|
80ajvq
|
People always talk about the Khazars as some proto-Israel bastion of medieval Judaism. How "Jewish" really were the Khazars?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/80ajvq/people_always_talk_about_the_khazars_as_some/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duv4g10"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"Not trying to discourage future submissions, but you might be interested in the [answer I gave some time ago](_URL_0_)\n\nTL;DR - the ruling class was Jewish (mostly converts, but some could be descendants of the real ethnic Jews from the Middle East), but the majority of the Khazars kept their traditional (Turkic Pagan) beliefs.\n\nKeep in mind that I'm merely an amateur - unfortunately, I haven't seen any professional historian with deep academic knowledge of Khazar history in AH. It would be great if one had showed up. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6xnkkq/after_king_bulan_the_khazar_king_commanded_his/dmi45xd/"
]
] |
||
29v8a2
|
What validity (if any) is there to the allegations that James Buchanan was our first gay President?
|
To me it seems like nothing more than a fun and amusing historical rewriting. Kind of like fan fiction in a way? But I was wondering from real historians if there is a shred of real fact here? Thanks for the answer assuming it hasn't been asked before, should make for an interesting discussion.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/29v8a2/what_validity_if_any_is_there_to_the_allegations/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciozbtj",
"cip22p3",
"cip52eg"
],
"score": [
105,
45,
4
],
"text": [
"It's historical revisionism that crosses the line into presentism. Revisionism can be useful: any narrative that is wrong deserves challenging. Most agree history is about interpretation. As much as we claim to search for objective truth, when society changes, so too do our views of past events. Problems arise when we go from reinterpretation to repurposing the past for the present.\n\nWhere to draw the line? James W. Loewen's [research](_URL_0_) displays both. Assuming the following anecdote is true (anyone selling books is somewhat suspect):\n\n > In the late 1990s, Loewen visited Wheatland, the mansion in Lancaster, Pa., where Buchanan spent his later years.\n\n > Loewen said he asked a staffer at Wheatland if Buchanan was gay, and the reply was: “He most definitely was not.”\n\n > Loewen said the staffer pointed to a portrait of Ann Coleman, the daughter of a wealthy iron maker, whom Buchanan was engaged to briefly 1819 — shortly before she committed suicide.\n\n > However, Loewen scoffed at the staffer’s suggestion that the brief engagement to Coleman proved Buchanan was heterosexual.\n\nIt is a case of appropriate revision. The staff were directed to take a neutral stance on Buchanan's sexuality in light of questions new research raised. Here comes the presentism:\n\n > “I’m sure that Buchanan was gay,” Loewen said. “There is clear evidence that he was gay. And since I haven’t seen any evidence that he was heterosexual, I don’t believe he was bisexual.”\n\nWait, what? Insert recitation of Foucault and when the label homosexual came into existence. More important, you can't take a lack of evidence on one side as proof that the other is correct. That's not how history (or science) works. There is sufficient evidence to question Buchanan's sexuality, which is different from declaring him America's first gay president as Loewen wishes to do. We will never know what was going through President Buchanan's head because most of his correspondence was destroyed. What we do know raises questions. Desire for an answer does not give historians licence to supply one.",
"/u/browsingbill and /u/poopsmearPoogilist are right on the money. Attempting to apply today's identity categories to times before these categories existed is inaccurate and generally bad practice. You might be interested in [this rant](_URL_0_) I wrote on precisely this subject.\n\nBut the other thing I want to point out is the prevalence of same-sex 'romantic friendships' in Buchanan's time. These relationships were intense, emotionally charged same-sex relationships which were enabled by the homosociality of many work, religious, educational and other environments of the time. Romantic friendships were accepted and even lauded parts of eighteenth and nineteenth century British and Anglo-North American culture, and they appear frequently in nineteenth century literature.\n\nThere is a good deal of scholarly debate about whether these romantic friendships were a socially accepted cover for what we now identify as queer desire, or they were fundamentally different type of relationship. \n\nBut romantic friendship is relevant to the Buchanan question because it offers another, potentially 'less gay' reading of his relationships. Granted, according to Robert Watson, Washington gossip in Buchanan's day did treat Buchanan's habits and relationship with William Rufus King with a bit of suspicion, even referring to them as 'Mr. and Mrs. Buchanan' (!). This indicates that Buchanan's contemporaries did see Buchanan's proclivities as somehow outside the realm of hegemonic romantic friendship.\n\nOn romantic friendship as a separate phenomenon from queer sexuality, see Carolyn Oulton, *Romantic Friendship in Victorian Literature* (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007).\n\nOn romantic friendship as a proto-homosexual practice, see Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, *Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire* (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985).\n\nAnd for discussion of the gossip surrounding Buchanan during his stint in Washington, see Robert P. Watson, *Affairs of State: The Untold History of Presidential Love, Sex, and Scandal, 1789-1900* (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2012).",
"I was going to reply to a deleted comment but it is now gone.\n\nSo, my related question is: does anybody know of whether or not there is documentation that clearly suggests that there were leaders in other nations, particularly western nations, who were homosexual? I know that there is significant conjecture that Frederick the Great was homosexual or bisexual. How valid is this? Are there other examples?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/10/04/james-buchanan-america%E2%80%99s-first-gay-president/"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/29gzd2/monday_mysteries_the_myths_the_will_not_die/cikxqvg"
],
[]
] |
|
2ikd64
|
How did kingdoms start? Who was the first king?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ikd64/how_did_kingdoms_start_who_was_the_first_king/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl337gz"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Even groups of non-human animals have alpha individuals. Chimpanzees have quite complex proto-political structures, and have even been observed [forming alliances and orchestrating coups to oust unpopular leaders](_URL_1_)(see alpha males section).\n\nThe first king/queen-like human (even one much more apparent than a chimp-like alpha) would have existed long before any sort of historical record keeping and would be unknowable to us now. It would also require completely arbitrary criteria to distinguish between a powerful tribal leader and the first king/queen: is it the size of the tribe, the presence of a taxation system, the area of land under their influence?\n\nOne of the earliest historical records of kings is the [Sumerian King List](_URL_0_). Though most of the earliest entries are obviously mythical, other individuals on the list are believed to have been real people. But surely there were king/queen-like individuals that predate this text. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List",
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasakela_Chimpanzee_Community"
]
] |
||
11p89w
|
Was Martin Luther King Jr. a cheater?
|
I've heard this countless times but I've also heard that this lie was put forward and perpetuated by the CIA. Though that sounds like a conspiracy theory, I wrote an entire report on the shady actions of the government against the Civil Rights Movement and have no problem believing it.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11p89w/was_martin_luther_king_jr_a_cheater/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6oedez",
"c6oevt8",
"c6oj3ww"
],
"score": [
15,
8,
8
],
"text": [
"Yes, he cheated on his wife.\n\nWe know this because the FBI secretly taped him doing it. (Because as far as J. Edgar Hoover was concerned King was scary, and Russia was scary, and therefore King had to be taking direction from Moscow.)\n\nIt's also true that the FBI (not the CIA, as far as I know) used false allegations of cheating to discredit other civil rights leaders, or at least to distract them from, you know, working for civil rights. Look up Cointelpro if you want to get mad.",
"He cheated on his wife, as did FDR, JFK and Bill Clinton. And just about any world leader before or since, with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter.",
"He also plagiarized his dissertation, which might even be too nice of a way of wording it since he turned someone else's in. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4f6y1h
|
I found an old relic from Jerusalem left by my grandfather, does somebody know what it is?
|
Hello, I found this wooden book in my deceased grandfather closet the note attached on the front says "Valuable centenarian ancient relic". Does somebody know what it is or what should I do with it?
Pictures:
_URL_0_
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4f6y1h/i_found_an_old_relic_from_jerusalem_left_by_my/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d26e1df"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Centenarian yes, ancient, no. It looks to be, as adduced by the title page, to be a copy of *Flowers and views of the Holy Land Jerusalem*.\n\nYou can see a similar copy on eBay here for 30GBP claiming that it's from circa 1905: _URL_3_\n\nApparently the dried flowers in it are quite real though, but it's not exactly rare:\n_URL_4_\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_1_"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://imgur.com/a/l4ixp"
] |
[
[
"http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Blumen-Flowers-Of-The-Holy-Land-Jerusalem-Wood-Cover-Book-Antique-/281981721380",
"http://www.ebay.com/itm/FLOWERS-AND-VIEWS-OF-THE-HOLY-LAND-JERUSALEM-c-1900-/141947848589",
"http://www.ebay.com/itm/Flowers-and-Views-of-the-Holy-Land-Pressed-Flowers-Multilingual-Israel-/262385791510",
"http://www.ebay.com/itm/FLOWERS-OF-THE-HOLY-LAND-olive-wood-bound-souvenir-dried-flower-Jerusalem-c-1905-/191809213398",
"http://www.ebay.com/itm/Album-Flowers-from-the-Holy-Land-published-by-Atallah-George-Freres-in-olive-/300950255865"
]
] |
|
23p30a
|
When and why did the Ancient Greeks transition from militia to the professional mercenary armies?
|
Any ancient sources or others on the subject would be great.. I've started reading Xenophon's Anabasis and Hornblowers 'The Greek World 479-323BC'.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/23p30a/when_and_why_did_the_ancient_greeks_transition/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgzdgux"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The book you really want is M. Trundle, *Greek Mercenaries from the Late Archaic Period to Alexander* (Routledge, 2004). Trundle puts the transition in the early 4th century BCE. That doesn't mean there weren't any professional mercenaries prior to that date of course, but he highlights that period as the one where mercenaries started to be a significant *social* force as well as military -- you get large mercenary bodies floating around being *not part of the populace*. Earlier mercenaries were only auxiliary forces.\n\nOne reason he gives for the transformation is that in the 4th cent. there was simply too much warfare for citizen-farmer soldiers to keep up with it all. You can't be away at war 12 months of the year and expect your land to tend itself. Some specific wars helped establish the mercenary paradigm: you mention Xenophon's march of the ten thousand, but the 4th century saw Greek mercenary forces operating within Greece as well, notably in the Third Sacred War (350s and 340s): Phocis would never have been able to sustain a war against the Delphic amphictyony by itself, but by turning the wealth of Delphi into coins, they managed to sustain a 10-year war using primarily mercenary forces."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
an9zxh
|
Did Edward VIII really believe he could have married Wallis Simpson and kept the throne?
|
I read in a book (can't remember which now) that Edward VIII believed he could have married Simpson and kept the throne but didn't because he did not want to tarnish the image of the monarchy given the ensuing crisis that would have resulted from it. He was painted in a noble way almost.
Is this an accurate characterization of what he believed?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/an9zxh/did_edward_viii_really_believe_he_could_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eftlyp8"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"Edward certainly intended to marry Wallis and still be king. However, the characterization of him nobly choosing not to tarnish the monarchy is somewhat debatable.\n\nA little background: Edward and Wallis met in 1931, when he was still Prince of Wales; they were introduced by his current mistress, and were apparently just friends until 1934, when their sexual relationship is believed to have begun. Before Wallis, he'd had relationships with Freda Dudley Ward (who was married at the time to an MP) and Thelma Furness (also married, to a viscount), and generally held that he couldn't get married himself because the women he loved, particularly Freda, were unavailable. As he was the heir to the throne, his marriage was seen as quite important; with a number of younger siblings, including the future George VI (who already was married and had two daughters), it wasn't a *crisis* for him to be single, but the preferred situation was be for him to marry some nice European princess and show the country that he was a nice family man with a few nice kids - setting an example of old-fashioned domestic heterosexuality. That he was pleading an inability to do this because he was in love with married Englishwomen even before meeting Wallis was perturbing to those in his parents' circles, since it implied that either he didn't really get what was expected of the royal figurehead or that he didn't want to have that role.\n\nAs a couple, Edward tried to be with Wallis as much as possible in a way that added to the anxiety. He was devoted to her to such an extent that it seemed to degrade his dignity and imply more unfitness for the role of king - waiting on her hand and foot, allowing her to scold and mock him, and often relying on her to interpret current events and paperwork for him - and many have theorized some kind of BDSM thing (because of course they have). Once his father died and he became king in January 1936, things got worse in the eyes of the old guard. Mainly this lay in Edward's decisions to modernize or democratize the monarchy by breaking established protocols when he felt like it; Wallis also had a tendency to take charge and make decisions or statements that were casual to the point of being tactless. This played very well in the couple's small society, but was not well-liked outside of it, and may have made Edward more ready to be rude in similar ways. It was also becoming clearer to the civil servants who ran the government with the king that he didn't really have the intellectual energy for the job, and even in early 1936 there were concerns about Wallis's access to state papers and closeness to German ambassadors.\n\nBut he was truly intent on marrying her and making her queen. About a month after the death of his father, Edward told Wallis's husband that he planned to be crowned with \"Wallis at [his] side\", and in April he told her that \"my Prime Minister must meet my future wife.\" A few months later, Wallis got her divorce rolling. Cocooned in his high-flying social circle, Edward had no real idea that many people knew about the affair and found it ridiculous or shameful, and that divorces were still viewed with repulsion by the working and middle classes. By the time he brought her with him in the autumn to Balmoral - a place still very much associated with Queen Victoria, where the wider royal family would spend time together - it was clearer than ever that he planned to make her queen, and the snubs were becoming more pointed in response. Things got even worse when she actually appeared in court to win her divorce and blatantly lied about not having committed adultery herself (a necessary step for a woman initiating a divorce, and the woman had to be the one to initiate it to save any face afterward), which upset the public deeply - particularly women, who saw it as a double standard that wouldn't be available to them in the same-but-not-royal circumstances. The British press had kept the details of the entire affair relatively hushed up, but they were starting to find it impossible.\n\nBy the end of the year, Wallis was strongly considering breaking off the semi-engagement to avoid being The Woman Who Destroyed A King, but Edward was threatening to toss his position and come after her rather than lose her. They had spent 1936 pretending that they could live like any aristocratic couple and that they were very popular, and finally had to face up to the facts: they couldn't and weren't, so much so that Wallis was in very real fear of injury or assassination when she went out. The Church of England did not recognize divorces at the time, and since Ernest Simpson was still alive, the archbishops regarded Wallis as still married, and would not perform the wedding. A morganatic marriage - one where the king's wife was only \"the king's wife\" and not the queen, more of a continental tradition than an English one - was put forward, but some of the officials in the commonwealth (Australian, South African, Canadian) who would have had to agree to it vehemently did not, and felt that abdication was preferable, since the king made it clear that either he would either marry her or leave. In the end, he abdicated.\n\nSo really, I think \"noble\" is putting a bit too much garnish on it. Edward was not suited to the job of monarch and didn't want it, though he might have liked being important and having a position above his brothers. As head of the church (a position he also did not care about) he needed to be married in it, and could not be. The choice, as he saw it, was to either give her up and be king, which he was not prepared to do in any way, or abdicate. He could not have married her *and* still been king."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1xer7b
|
Did anyone in the 1930s point out Adolf Hitlers resemblance to Charlie Chaplin?
|
Did anyone in the 1930s point out Adolf Hitlers resemblance to Charlie Chaplin? I am watching the 1980s made for TV miniseries "The winds of War" A character in the show refers to Hitler as "The little tramp" I am aware Chaplin made a movie where he played a very Hitler like character but I am wondering if the was at all a part of popular culture of the era?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1xer7b/did_anyone_in_the_1930s_point_out_adolf_hitlers/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfaps7j",
"cfaueui"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I can tell you that in the film you are referring to, \"The Great Dictator\", Chaplin plays a dopey but good-hearted character very similar to his popular character \"The Tramp\" who is mistaken for a ruthless, evil dictator. So if nobody else noted the similarity, which I'm sure is not the case, Charlie Chaplin did.",
"[Ernst Hanfstaengl](_URL_1_) is known to be one of Hitler's confidants. As a result of the Hanfstaengl family business, Ernst and Chaplin became acquainted (\"Hitler-The Missing Years\" P28 [link](_URL_0_) here) I know that this is conjecture but it is not too presumptuous to assume that Hanfstaengl might have brought up their (Hitler's and Chaplin's) facial similarities on one or more occasions."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=GW8VEnNjqCAC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=Ernst+Hanfstaengl+charlie+chaplin&source=bl&ots=dq6hAjA28b&sig=HlKJR9iRuwFtMFWYLcPplsToWQo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eF73UsXbAuGfyQGutIHQBg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Hanfstaengl"
]
] |
|
3b67rc
|
Is is known that Romans had different beasts fight to each other: bears vs bulls, lions vs tigers, etc. Did they keep records of which animal won each battle?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3b67rc/is_is_known_that_romans_had_different_beasts/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csjcolk"
],
"score": [
35
],
"text": [
"If they kept detailed records we don't have them. But we do know that sometimes the Romans had beasts fight each other. One memorable incident was at the inaugural games for the Flavian Amphitheatre, better known as the Colosseum. The writer Martial was an eyewitness and wrote about a rhino beating several other animals.\n\n > While in fear the trainers were goading a rhinoceros, and long was the great beast's wrath gathering strength, all despaired of the conflict of the promised war; yet at length the fury, known ere-while, returned. For a heavy bear he tossed with his double horn, even as a bull hurls dummies heavenward, and with as sure an aim as that wherewith the stout right hand of Carpophorus, as yet young, levels the Noric hunting-spear. That beast, agile with pliant neck, stood up against (?) a pair of steers, to him yielded the fierce buffalo and bison; a lion in flight from him ran headlong upon the spears.\n\n > Martial, Liber de Spectaculis XXII"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1f4y6m
|
Did Britain/France fail to form a proper alliance with the USSR in the lead up to WW2 because their ideologies were too conflicting?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1f4y6m/did_britainfrance_fail_to_form_a_proper_alliance/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca6usvd",
"ca71zhz"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Partly yes, many western countries hated the Soviet Union; for example, it was completely left out of the League of Nations as well as many other negotiations, and many Conservative MPs supported a Fascist victory over Communist in the Spanish Civil War. Of course, this is an over-simplification, the Labour Party for instance, was somewhat sympathetic (although not supportive) to the Soviets (see; Macdonald recognising the Soviet Union). I don't want to generalise though, many MPs hated both. \n\nThere are likely other reasons however. I'd suggest that the perceived weakness of the Soviet Union (Hitler's 'kick in the door' line comes to mind), as well as many politicians likely believing the two (who were viewed as 'natural' ideological enemies) would focus their attention and weaken each other. Appeasement was the name of the game. Overall, I would say that ideology was the main strain between the relations of Britain and the Soviet Union, but other factors got in the way too. ",
"Ideology certainly played a part, but the Allies [actually invaded Russia](_URL_1_) post WWI to prop the Whites up against the Red Army, meaning that the Soviet Union was just as mistrustful of the West as the West was of a communist nation who still had some leaders advocating for worldwide socialism.\n\nThe Allies were also backing Poland, whom the Soviets [had fought] (_URL_0_) after WWI, during their civil war.\n\nThe West's distrust of communism was more than ideology as well, as Germany was not far off from falling to a communist revolution in 1919 (the Spartacist uprisings). Every western nation had communists agitating for some level of violent action during the period, whether it was a true organized threat (like Germany's KPD) or a minor, relatively inconsequential minority (American Communist parties). As the old saw goes, it's not paranoia when they really are out to get you...which became true for both sides as governments cracked down on communists and suspected foreign influences."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Polish_War",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Russia_Intervention"
]
] |
||
3lrf18
|
What, if any, sports were played in World War II POW camps?
|
Absolutely everything I know about WW2 prisoners of war comes from reading *The Great Escape*. It references a handful of leisure activities--lecture attendance, theater, gardening, art, endless walking. But the only sport-type thing I can possibly think of is the vault set up for "gymnastics drills" (also known as disguising tunnel construction). Surely there was some form of organized athletic competition? Or was that prohibited by the Germans on some grounds or other?
I'd be interested in the experience of Allied or Axis POWs, with the understanding that the answer is going to vary tremendously depending on country of origin, place of internment, etc.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3lrf18/what_if_any_sports_were_played_in_world_war_ii/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv8x1sc",
"cv92jum"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"P.R Reid talks a bit about sport in 'The Colditz Story' (1952).\n\nMost of the exercise at Colditz castle (Oflag IV-C) was in a fairly small courtyard, so there was a tendency towards sports that didn't take up much space. There were some foils for a while, so a number of people took up fencing. Boxing and a kind of volleyball were also popular.\n\nThere was another game they played which he's got a fairly long section on which I will mostly copy out:\n\n'There was one game which deserves special mention It was invented by the British and belonged to that category of local school game devised in almost every public school of England [this was an officers' camp of course]... The Colditz variety, which we called 'stoolball,' was played, of course, in the granite cobbled courtyard. It was the roughest game I have ever played, putting games like rugby football in the shade. The rules were simple. Two sides, consisting of any number of players and often as many as thirty a side, fought for possession of the football by any means. A player having the ball could run with it but could not hold it indefinitely; he had to bounce it occasionally while on the move. when tackled, he could do whatever he liked with it. A 'goalie' at each end of the yard sat on a stool—hence the name—and a goal was scored by touching the opponent's stool with the ball. Goal defence was by any means, including strangulation of the ball-holder, if necessary. There was a half-time when everybody was too tired to continue. There was no referee and there were, of course, no touchlines.'\n\nDespite how dangerous this sounds, the author says that he never saw anyone seriously hurt. He speculates that the game was a sort of manifestation of their desire to be free: 'The surrounding walls were no longer a prison, but the confines of the game we played, and there were no constraining rules to curtail our freedom of action. I always felt much better after a game. Followed by a cold bath it put me on top of the world.'\n\nLater, when they were allowed a few hours exercise in a larger wooded area every week, a kind of football was played. These prisoners were getting Red Cross parcels, (or in the case of the French and Poles, packages directly from home) so, while they were certainly hungry, they still had enough energy to do stuff like this sometimes, whereas the Russians were mostly very near starving.",
"The Imperial War Museum have a number of photographs of British prisoners playing sports, including boxing at [Stalag Luft III] (_URL_4_), cricket at [Stalag VIIIB](_URL_5_) and rugby at [Stalag VIIB] (_URL_1_). There's a large collection from [Stalag XXID] (_URL_0_), including many shots of rugby, boxing and (association) football.\n\nThe American National Red Cross published a Prisoners of War Bulletin, several issues of which can be found at [_URL_3_] (_URL_2_). The November 1944 issue says that \"a six hole golf course was laid on at Stalag Luft III (Center Compound)\", including traps, bunkers and greens, playing equipment consisting of one set of clubs and four balls, more being made from salvaged rubber and leather, but notes that German authorities had recently suspended intercompound sports (Stalag Luft III consisted of a number of separate compounds, three American, two British).\n\nThe March 1945 issue has a small piece, \"Sports at Luft III\", which says that football (presumably American) was the main sports activity at Stalag Luft III in October and November, and the men were waiting for frost to begin the ice hockey season. There are also photographs from Oflag 64 of prisoners playing baseball, and pitching horseshoes.\n\nMost comprehensively, there's an article by Pamela Cohen in *Sporting Traditions*, the journal of the Australian Society for Sports History: [Behind Barbed Wire: Sport and Australian Prisoners of War] (_URL_6_). According to that, \"Australians in Stalag 383\" (500 out of 5,000-7,000 prisoners) \"participated in Australian Rules football, cricket, rugby league, rugby union, soccer, basketball, baseball, boxing, wrestling, hockey, softball, swimming events, volleyball, water polo,\ngolf, and a variety of athletics events.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/listing/object-205009314",
"http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205234558",
"https://archive.org/search.php?query=%22prisoners+of+war+bulletin%22&sort=date",
"archive.org",
"http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205087217",
"http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205022269",
"http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/SportingTraditions/2006/st2301/st2301h.pdf"
]
] |
|
1m666g
|
Did ancient monarchs ever realise that their kids were idiots and worry about that?
|
Like, "Wow, there is no way this guy can run a kingdom. I'm surprised he manages to chew his food before swallowing. What the fuck should I do?"
Has anyone ever assassinated their own son because they thought they would be incompetent (not because they were enemies or anything like that)?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1m666g/did_ancient_monarchs_ever_realise_that_their_kids/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc681yd",
"cc69lms",
"cc6b8pi",
"cc6bce5",
"cc6ilae",
"cc6iwrk",
"cc6qxzl",
"cc6s87s",
"cc71yhb"
],
"score": [
100,
45,
7,
34,
21,
3,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Monarchs often have several options in designating a successor. Their evaluation of their progeny's talents played into this. My area is SE Asia, so to give you one example, Emperor Gia Long (r.1802-1820) of Vietnam did not follow the assumed route of succession which would have meant naming his grandson to the throne (his father, fist in line, had passed away already). Instead, he named another son conceived with a concubine as his successor. He judged this son, who became Emperor Minh Mang (r.1820-1841), to be a strong confucian-style leader. Also, keep in mind that in some monarchical systems, like Japan, the king/emperor was largely a figurehead/national symbol and real power laying with nobles.",
"I think this question will suffer from a lack of documentation.\n\nThere are more modern examples ([Infante Philip of Spain 1747-1777](_URL_0_), a first born who likely had Downs Syndrome and was skipped over).\n\nI think ancient examples will be harder to come by as, speaking generally, there is a need to portray leaders as strong, healthy and fertile. And I think weaker candidates for succession were usually pruned from the family tree.",
"King Steven of England's first born son, Eustace IV of Boulogne was apparently a real twat. He gave his mother, Matilda (not Empress Maude) a lot of anxiety about his ability to rule. He died (struck down by God...I guess) while plundering church lands. \n\nsources: _URL_0_\n\nalso-check out the book \"When Christ and His Saints Slept\" by Sharon Kay Penman, it's historical fiction, but follows the historical account closely and only adds one character who doesn't effect the overall story arch ",
"Crown Prince Sado of Korea was allegedly to have engaged in wanton debauchery and random acts of murder possibly as a result of mental retardation, insanity, or syphilis. Finally, in 1762, his father, the king, grew weary and ordered Sado to lock himself in a box until he suffocated.\n\n_URL_0_ (It's a book review, but the book seems grounded in historical research)",
"We actually have two well-attested changes in the heir to the Hittite throne-one for this reason, the other for political reasons. One of these happened in the Hittite Old Kingdom when Hattusili I was dissatisfied with his heir because he was insufficiently merciful and under bad influences. This is an extract from the text in which he changed the succession, the \"Political Testament of Hattusili I\". I apologize for the long quote but it's worth reading in full:\n\n\n > (Previously) as a son I declared Labarna for you, (saying) \"May he sit upon the throne!\" I, the king, called him my son. I continually instructed him, and I kept running behind him. But he showed himself to be a son not worth seeing: he did not shed tears, he did not show mercy. He is cold! He is not merciful!\nI, the king, took him and I advanced him in my wisdom. What now? From now on, no one will (ever) raise his sister's son! For the word of the king he did not take. He kept taking that which is the word of his mother, the snake! The brother's and sister's kept bringing cold words to him, and their words he kept listening to. But I, the king, heard, and I argued an argument.\nEnough of that! He is not my son! Then his mother kept bellowing like a cow, (saying) \"They separated the living bull-calf from me! And they deposed him! And for what?\" Did I, the king, treat him badly in any way? Did I not make him a priest? Do I not keep pulling him forth in goodness? He did not show mercy for the will of the king, how could he show mercy on his own for the welfare of Ḫatti? His mother is a snake! Henceforth the word of his mother, his brothers, and his sisters he will hear. (If) he draws near, he will draw near for vengence! Concerning the troops, the dignataries, and my servants, those who are near the king, they are ready to die for the king. So he will set about destroying them, and bloodshed he will begin to accomplish. He does not fear! He will set about killing the citizens of Ḫatti. In this way he will approach. He will draw near to carry off the oxen and the sheep of each of them. The foreign enemies malatti, and I was able...? and my land I have pacified. So in the future may he not set about stirring up my land!\nNow may he by no means ever go down on his own will! I have now given an estate to my son, Labarna. I gave much land to him. I gave much cattle to him. I gave many sheep to him. So may he keep eating (and) drinking! When he is good, he may come up. But when he approaches for trouble or some slander or some rebellion, then may he stop coming up! He must stay on his estate!\n\n\nNow of course some of this is probably formulaic political material; there is a longstanding topos in Hittite political ideology of the ideally merciful king reaching all the way back to the Anitta Text(a group of historical inscriptions concerning the earlier Anatolian king Anitta of Kussara) that the good king is merciful and this is reflected here-as is a very, very firmly held Hittite taboo on killing members of the royal family. It's why Hattusili specifically says he will not seek to harm the former heir bodily and will provide him with a reasonably good living. The reference to paying too much attention to his mother also suggests a certain amount of political infighting within the royal family. But the text does make clear that the king has a certain amount of free choice in selecting his heir and deposing a former heir if he is clearly unfit. This was easier with the Hittites because they had very loose succession rules; the closest thing to a codification of the succession we have is as follows(from the Proclamation of Telepinus, an edict summarizing various reforms in the structure of Hittite government in the aftermath of a series of bloody succession struggles): \n \n\n > Let a prince, a son of the first rank, become king. If there is no prince of the Wrst rank, let him who is a son of the second rank become king. But if there is no prince, no heir, let them take an antiyant-husband for her who is a daughter of the first rank, and let him become king.\t(Telipinu Procl. §28, ii 36–9)\n\n\nAs you can see, even this strict rule allowed the king a certain amount of room to choose his successor and later in the empire period this room rather dramatically expanded as one would expect, not least because one of the later kings, Muwattali II, had no sons \"of the first rank\", which left the succession even more open to various claims. This leads to the other most famous example of a change in heir; Hattusili III's decision to make the future Tudhaliya IV his heir instead of Nerikkaili, Tudhaliya's older brother(probably at any rate; we don't have an official statement of this but Nerikkaili had been given a post usually given the heir to the throne and we know from the \"Bronze Tablet\" that Tudhaliya replaced another heir. \n\n\nThis change is a good deal more surprising because it seems to have been planned somewhat in advance with Tudhaliya being given offices that Hattusili saw as stepping-stones to the throne even when Nerikkaili was officially heir and because Nerikkaili was clearly not regarded as incompentent or disgraced-he held very important government posts under Tudhaliya IV. One possibility that has been suggested is the involvement of Hattusili's wife Pudhuepa, who was rather important in the Hittite government. Another possible reason for the change was that Tudhaliya had a close friendship with the ruler of Tarhuntassa, Kurunta, a very important subject magnate whose loyalty had been lately called into doubt. So we have a possible change of a heir for reasons basically political-choosing the heir based not on primogeniture but on who would be best able to ensure the loyalty of vassal rulers.",
"Philip II of Macedon had a son, also named Philip (Arhedaeus, I bet I \nspelled that wrong) who supposedly wasn't playing with a full deck. He would have been Alexander the Great's half brother, and was a full blooded macedonian whereas Alexander was only half Macedonian. I suppose Alexander did claim the throne after Philip's assassination, but I dont think anyone wanted Philip Arhedaeus running the country anyway. ",
"Charles VII of France, deemed his sons Louis XI to be unfit for throne (albeit Charles had by the end of his reign a few brain cells fried) he wanted to discard it from throne and started to want to make an arrangement with Phillipe de Bourgogne for successor. The poor guy had not an easy reign or childhood, but finally Louis XI proves more than his fitness as he became one of the strongest king France had.",
"Peter the Great had his son Alexei tried and executed after the son returned from self-imposed exile in Austria. This capped a long-standing antagonism between the two of them, stemming from Alexei's reluctance to endorse or support the reforms that Peter had staked his entire reign on. I suppose they were enemies, but it arose from their differences about the correct path for Russia.\n\nIvan IV \"Grozny\" (\"the Terrible\") killed his son, also named Ivan, apparently after a spontaneous fight over the prince demanding to lead troops into battle at the siege of Pskov, demanding that troops be sent to the battle, or over Ivan IV seeing his son's wife in her underwear and beginning to beat her for being indecent (!). This wasn't so much because Ivan considered his son an unworthy heir, though, but because Ivan IV was well on his way to being completely off his rocker at that point.\n\nUnfortunately, I've lost my biographies of Peter the Great, so I had to reference that bit from Riasanovsky and Steinberg's *A History of Russia.* You can find a lengthier summary of the varying explanations for Ivan IV's killing his son in Pavlov and Perrie's *Ivan the Terrible*.",
"King Taejong of Joseon Dynasty (Korea) had 3 sons (well 3 sons from his First Queen Consort, aka the first ones in the line of succession). \nThe firstborn, Crown Prince Yangnyeong was a drunkard bum who repeatedly caused scandals in and out, such as fathering multiple bastards, hiding his mistress in his own father-in-law's house, whoring, skipping Seoyeon (Royal lessons for the Crown Prince) repeatedly, etc.. In the Joseon Sillok (Annals of the Joseon Dynasty) there is a story of King Taejong crying to one of his subject about what to do with his heir. \n He ended up being stripped of his Crown Prince title and was banished from Seoul.\n\nKing Taejong then skipped his second son, Prince Hyoryeong, because he was \"weak\" and \"could not hold his drinks.\" Prince Hyoryeong also was interested heavily in Buddhism, which was looked down upon by the Neo-Confucian Joseon Dynasty, and later became a monk. So then King Taejong designated his third son, Chungnyeong as his heir. And he went on to be called [King Sejong the Great](_URL_0_), only one of two rulers in Korean history to have the apellate \"the Great\", and is widely regarded as the greatest ruler in Korean history, with major legal amendments, saw increases in scientific technology, sponsoring the inventor Jang Yeong-sil in creating water clocks, armilllary spheres, sundials, the world's first rain guage, etc. To this day, his legacy lasts as he is the [creator of the Korean alphabet](_URL_1_). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infante_Philip,_Duke_of_Calabria"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustace_IV,_Count_of_Boulogne"
],
[
"http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/culture/2013/07/142_56275.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejong_the_Great",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_hangul"
]
] |
|
5uh4kx
|
Jewish history in Arabia at the time of the rise of the Muslims
|
The event I wanted to know specifically is the incident regarding the tribe of Qurayzah. Outside of Islamic sources many claim this event never even occurred.
Here's a link for those unsure of what I'm referring to
_URL_0_
What I want to know is if anyone here has any insight regarding the event or could refer any book to me so I can research it
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5uh4kx/jewish_history_in_arabia_at_the_time_of_the_rise/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddv1oxl"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Cool question! Note: I'm primarily a philologist of Arabic and my knowledge of Hebrew is pretty much cursory, so I can't offer too much information on the history of Judaism in Arabia in general. Seeing the framing of your question in an *Islamic* context, I think I can be of some help though! \n\nThe biggest problem with our understanding of pre-Islamic Arabia up until the death of Muhammad is that so much of it has been influenced by the Islamic hagiographies. As you understand, considering the theological implications, we risk entering an extremely controversial discussion. It is important to realise that we possess extremely few primary sources from this period: even the Constitution of Medina, although very likely to have been composed during Muhammad's lifetime is only mentioned in sources written by – you guessed it – Muslims. All-in-all, considering the hagiographic and teleologic nature of these texts, we have to be extremely critical in assessing them. \nNow, moving on to the actual event itself: the massacre of the Banu Qurayzah is mentioned in Ibn Hišām's *Sīra al-Nabī* (or al-Sīra al-Nabawiyya), which was based on an earlier work by Ibn Isḥāq, which is now lost. It later appears in Al-Ṭabari's *Ṭarīkh al-rusul wa l-mulūk* (History of the Prophets and Kings), but this version too is based on Ibn Hišām's version. According to these sources, after the Banū Qurayẓa betrayed Muhammad the latter laid siege upon their stronghold. After about a month they surrendered unconditionally and subsequently 600 to 700 men were massacred and their bodies disposed of in a large trench. It's possible that this event is refered to in the Quran (33:23; 8:55-58): \n > He brought down those who supported him from the People of the Book from their castles and cast fear in their hearts; a number of them you killed and a number of them you took captive. \n \n > The worst of living creatures in the eyes of God are those who disbelieve, and they do not believe (56) – those who allied you, then broke their alliance every time, they do not fear (57) so if you you victor over them in war, then disperse them so that they may remember. (58) If you fear betrayal from a people then refuse their treaty; indeed God does not love traitors. \n\nIn my understanding, the Quran is extremely vague here and does not relate to any specific event. As such, I'm not entirely convinced that the specific event is mentioned in the Qur'an. More strangely, such an event would likely not have gone unnoticed in the larger area: compare the Massacre of Nağrān, which occured about a century earlier: it's suggested that about 2 000 Christians were killed in South Arabia, which not only prompted the invasion of Yemen by the Christian Kingdom of Ethiopia, but is also corroborated by Aramaic writings from Syria as well as the Qur'an (85:4-5). It seems very unlikely that the Jewish coreligionists of the Banū Qurayẓa would have not mentioned this event at all. Incidentally, the first time this event is mentioned after Muhammad's death is during the Islamic conquest of Syria, in which this verse is used to justify the seizure of enemy lands. In short, if we are to take the Islamic sources for granted, it would mean that the complete extermination of an entire Jewish tribe would have gone completely unnoticed in an already interconnected Near East. This seems to be incredibly unlikely.\n\n\n**TL;DR: It's possible – but extremely unlikely – that the Banū Qurayẓa were completely wiped out** \n & nbsp;\n\n\n*Sources* \nAl-Tabari, (1896) *Tarīḫ al-Rusul wa l-Muluk*, edited by M.J. De Goeje. \nHoyland, R.(1997) *Seeing Islam as Others Saw It*\nIbn al-Kathīr, *Tafsīr al-Qur’an* (I have to find the exact references later; I think my edition was printed in Egypt) \nWatt, M. (1970) \"Ḳurayẓa\" in *The Encyclopaedia of Islām, Second Edition* \n \n------- \n\n**Warning: personal opinion following**: \n \nSo what's going on here? A few days ago I had a discussion with one of my professors, where we were discussing the sometimes outrageous events described in the early Islamic sources. I personally believe that many of these stories served to explain some of the more obscure or esoteric parts of the Quran, which simply do not make sense without any context. Through folklore, which may either be original or based on earlier stories and expressly tying these to Muhammad – while in this case, simultaneously absolving him of this event by leaving the actual judgment to one of his companions – a certain spiritual authority is added. It must be mentioned that the Muslim authors recounting these events were very much aware of this and used stylistic elements to expresse their scepticism: the verb *zaʿamū*, ('they assert; suppose) as well as the expression *wa llāhu ʿalam* ('but God knows best') are generally inserted when the authors want to stress the general unrelability of their sources (see also Khalidi, *Islamic Historiography: The Histories of al-Mas‘ūdī.)\nٍ"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Invasion%20of%20Banu%20Qurayza&item_type=topic"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
6hz9rn
|
Why did bayonets take so long to become widespread in combat?
|
Weapons like early matchlocks and muskets were around in limited numbers in the 1400's and 1500's, but as far as I know bayonets didn't begin to see wide adoption until the 1700s. Given how significant of an advantage they could have over the typical pike-and-shot formations, why didn't someone think of them earlier?
Or, if they were attempted earlier, why did they fail compared to pike-and-shot?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6hz9rn/why_did_bayonets_take_so_long_to_become/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dj2li7p",
"dj2yo9u"
],
"score": [
14,
8
],
"text": [
"As a quick answer, early bayonets were limited in their utility because, once affixed, the bayonet prevented the musketeer from firing. These were called \"plug bayonets\" and were inserted into the barrel. You can see what they looked like [here](_URL_2_) and [here](_URL_0_).\n\nSo they had extremely limited usefulness when they were first introduced. The ubiquity of pikemen, and the infrastructural reinforcement of them, made the use of pikemen still an extremely reliable method of conducting warfare for a time.\n\nRing and socket bayonets, which were designed to fit around the barrel of the musket and so leave firing unobstructed, were introduced a little later (the plug bayonet is dated to the early 1670s as a military weapon, the ring style in the late 1670s), but these also took a while to become fully adopted in armies for a number of reasons, with expense, tradition and logistics problematizing their adoption.\n\nIt also takes a significantly different attitude to use the bayonet as opposed to shooting at enemies. Charging is significantly more stressful to a would-be combatant, and engaging in hand-to-hand combat depicted in a lot of films was so rare as to be exceptional, even well after socket bayonets had become ubiquitous.\n\nOne of my favorite little blurbs to that end comes from Winfield Scott, when talking about the Battle of the Chippewa in the War of 1812, which ended with a successful bayonet charge: \n\n > That clash of bayonets, at each extremity, instantly followed, when the wings of the enemy being outflanked, and to some extent doubled upon, were mouldered away like a rope of sand. It is not in human nature that a conflict like that should last many seconds. The enemy's whole force broke in quick succession and fled...\n\nIt is, quite simply, something that people would rather avoid.\n\n________________________\nTactics-wise, one of the best books on the use of the bayonet in an 18th century context is *With Zeal and With Bayonets Only* which relates the bayonet-heavy focus of the British army in the War for Independence in a wider context, explaining that bayonet use was a tactical doctrine adopted on the ground for that war, and was an unusual approach for the British army to take.\n\nAnd you can find Winfield Scott's memoir online [here](_URL_1_), and it should take you right to the appropriate section.",
"u/PartyMoses has covered the difficulties involved with developing and fielding an effective bayonet, however it might also be worth re-examining what advantages the bayonet actually provided. \n\nA bayonet certainly provides more reach than a sword does and many musketeers found the bayonet less cumbersome than carrying a three foot sword around everywhere, however the musket was still rather heavy for a pole-arm and some infantry continued to prefer carrying swords well after the bayonet was introduced. In addition, even with bayonets musketeers still stood no chance against an actual push of pike unless they could repulse the enemy with firepower alone. Sweden would continue to use aggressive pike charges to good effect even into the 18th century and during the American revolution, a number of founding fathers including Washington thought it would be a good idea to arm colonial troops with pikes or half-pikes to counter British superiority with the bayonet.\n\nInstead the bayonet is just one of many developments which lead to the pike being widely abandoned by European armies. The 17th century saw muskets become lighter and more ergonomic, gunpowder improved, paper cartridges were introduced, cavalry became lighter and abandoned the lance in western Europe, the flintlock mechanism improved the reliability and rate of fire of muskets, drills improved, and formations became thinner to better emphasize firepower. At the end of the 16th century observers were already noting that it had become uncommon for infantry to come into physical contact before one side fled, and as u/PartyMoses points out by the 18th century actual melees with bayonets had become very rare and sporadic, typically responsible for perhaps only 1% of battlefield casualties. The 17th century had already seen the ratio of infantry with pikes to muskets in most armies gradually increase from 1:1 to 1 pikeman for every 4 musketeers. It just took the bayonet to finally convince conservative military men that armies could survive without any pikes at all.\n\nFor more reading:\n\n*European Warfare, 1350-1750* Frank Tallett\n\n*Military Experience in the Age of Reason* Christopher Duffy\n\n*Fighting Techniques of the Early Modern World* Christer Jorgensen"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://worldbayonets.com/Bayonet_Identification_Guide/Unknown/b1557/b1557_1.jpg",
"https://archive.org/stream/memlieutgen01scotrich#page/130/mode/2up",
"http://derpwell.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/2/5/13257769/3294870_orig.jpg?386"
],
[]
] |
|
dogo7y
|
Why do some say Lenin was paid by the Germans to lead the Russian Revolution?
|
I've heard from many people including Russians who say that Lenin was paid by the Germans to lead a revolution. This sounds to me like anti-Lenin propaganda and is a way of making the revolution seem fake -or less genuine as it would seem.
& #x200B;
I think I'm pretty literate with the Russian Revolution but I really don't have an answer to this!
& #x200B;
Thanks everyone
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dogo7y/why_do_some_say_lenin_was_paid_by_the_germans_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f5ovs0n"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"When you say \"paid,\" do you mean to imply you've heard that Germany gave Lenin physical goods/currency, or are you interpreting the German transport of Lenin back to Russia as paid? As Germany did sponsor his trip back to strategically fuel the revolution."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
16ihol
|
What are some of the great intellectual or technological achievements in classical Europe *outside* of Greece or the Roman Empire?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16ihol/what_are_some_of_the_great_intellectual_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7wcxhf",
"c7wduas",
"c7wgcva"
],
"score": [
10,
12,
2
],
"text": [
"Not much I guess, but the Gauls (pre-Roman conquest) invented the wooden barrel. \n\n_URL_0_",
"During the heyday of Classical civilization, which as an aside by definition only applies to the Greco-Roman world, Europe outside of Greece and Italy was inhabited almost completely by tribal groups, ranging from quite primitive tribal structures - e.g. in the Germanic and Balto-Slavic regions - to societies that were on the verge of forming organized states - e.g. parts of Thrace, Gaul, Iberia. Nevertheless, even in the latter case these regions were very economically underdeveloped relative to the Classical world. Compared to the Mediterranean region, urbanization, commercial activity, and political centralization were minimal at best and as such there was little room or basis for the growth of sophisticated intellectual traditions like those that developed in Greece. Another stumbling block was the lack of real written language in most of Europe outside the Classical sphere, which as you can imagine prohibited scientific inquiry among other things.\n\nThere are some tentative examples of influential inventions from beyond the Classical world: for one, mail armor, supposedly invented by the Gauls, would be adopted by the Romans and became the armor of choice in Europe and further abroad for many centuries. The Romans' famous stabbing sword (*gladius hispaniensis*) was also adapted from those used by Iberian/Celtiberian warriors. But in terms of high scientific achievements, these societies had little to offer. Nevertheless the tribal societies of Gaul, Germania, Iberia and Britain were highly developed culturally and materially, producing extremely sophisticated art, fine objects and cultural treasures, even if they lacked the deep foundation for scientific development found in the older, more well-established civilizations of Greece and the Near East.\n",
"The Gauls were considered to be excellent makers of steel. In fact, Roman soldiers often preferred Gallic weapons and armour to ones built in Italy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1mfr0c
|
Sources for info on the Modern History of Yoga? (first post I apologize if I am doing it wrong)
|
EDIT: (I found some great sources with some further digging and using googles academia search. _URL_0_)
I am looking for information around the 1980's in western civilization for a presentation. I have tried my damnedest and all I have found is a tiny blurb in the yoga wikipedia page and countless yoga "online journals" which I trust as far as I can throw them. There was mention of a guy named Dean Ornish who promoted the heart health aspects of yoga and apparently yoga moved in the direction of exercise and focused less on the religions associated with the practice.
Also in general, who do you guys search for reliable sources?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1mfr0c/sources_for_info_on_the_modern_history_of_yoga/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc8s6pa"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"For a pretty hardcore academic treatment of the subject - looking at the origins of *haṭha* yoga/*āsana* and its import to the West - check out Mark Singleton's *Yoga Body: The Origins of Modern Posture Practice* (Oxford University Press 2010). "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.academia.edu/638083/The_Development_of_Modern_Yoga_A_Survey_of_the_Field"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
6pwjdm
|
How did Irish kings live in the early middle ages? (600 a.d - 900 a.d)
|
Once Irish monasteries started growing to thousands of inhabitants, (laypeople and monks), and became important centres of learning, commerce and administration in the 700s Irish kings began to build their households there instead of on isolated fortified settlements. Is there any information on what a king's house would have looked like? I'm presuming they lived in something more grandiose than the common round house or farmstead at the time?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6pwjdm/how_did_irish_kings_live_in_the_early_middle_ages/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkt94lu"
],
"score": [
122
],
"text": [
" > Once Irish monasteries started growing to thousands of inhabitants, (laypeople and monks), and became important centres of learning, commerce and administration in the 700s Irish kings began to build their households there instead of on isolated fortified settlements. \n\nThis is actually not quite true. While there is an example of a King-Bishop during this time period (Cormac mac Cuilennáin was simultaneously a bishop and King of Munster in the first decade of the 10th century), Irish kings did not make any attempts to consolidate or centralize their power until at least the 12th century. While some monastic settlements could be described as urban centers, Ireland was a thoroughly rural society comprised of relatively self-sufficient farmsteads dotted across the countryside; the Irish never even established villages until the 13-14th centuries. The disparate pattern of settlement and economic structure of Irish society was the base on which its political superstructure took form. Accordingly, Irish hierarchies of kingship were incredibly decentralized and appear to have been relatively mobile when compared to the courts of European monarchs in the late Middle Ages; an Irish king and his retinue of noble clients were often moving between the homesteads of other clients, as the provision of hospitality was a very important aspect of the Irish political-social system. Lacking any state apparatuses to extract taxes or rents, Irish lords rented cattle to their dependents in exchange for hospitality (among other things), essentially sustaining the warrior-aristocracy with food and labour on a contractual rather than institutional basis.\n\nAn Irish king's power was dispersed on a geographical level as well. They did not draw their power from a unified, central settlement but from three major sites scattered around their *tuath*: the hereditary homestead of the king's lineage, the ecclesiastical site that their family patronized and the inaugural mound on which kings assumed their office in a public ritual. So yes, Irish kings in the early medieval period did rule in part from their farmstead, but because of the decentralized nature of Irish society and the ritualistic and almost priestly role of the early Irish king, they weren't really doing that much \"ruling\" in a modern context. To give you a quick rundown, Irish kings appear to have originated as priestly figures whose duty was to uphold the metaphysical wellbeing of their kingdom by the abidance of strict taboos & prerogatives, possessing an unblemished body and making good judgements in legal cases. Later on, starting around the 8th century, they begin to transform into regional warlords who are more concerned with subjugating their neighbouring kingdoms. This coincides with the Viking Age in Ireland, which led to a further militarization of Irish society and the further expansion of kingly power with the infusion of Scandinavian allies, weapons and tactics. \n\nSo we've established that Irish kings did, in fact, \"rule\" from their homesteads, but what would they have actually looked like? As far as I'm aware, there isn't archaeological evidence that kings' households were any more lavish than a typical nobleman's. They may have lived either within a farmstead or a *rath* (ringforts that had been built during the Iron Age) or *crannog* (a fortified artificial island) but the actual house of an Irish king doesn't appear to have been palatial or grandiose. The only description of a king's house in a historical source that I found researching for this post only describes the personal items of the king, rather than the building itself:\n\n > And he was in his sleeping-place then, and his riches were all there with him, as it was customary for the kings to have cubicles of yew about them, that is, a partitioned place, for their bars and cases of silver and their cups and goblets to give service at night, and their brandub and fidchell games and their bronze hurley-sticks to use by day. Feradach had many treasures, and he loved them greatly; but he had acquired them by evil means, for he would not hear of much or little gold or silver, in the possession of either powerful or wretched in Osraige, without confiscating it to take away that wealth, to ornament those treasures.\n\nSources:\n\n* “Fragmentary Annals of Ireland, FA 4”, trans. Joan Newlon Radner. Last edited 2008-09-05, _URL_0_\n\n* D. Blair Gibson, “Chiefdoms, confederacies, and statehood in Early Ireland” in Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State, ed. Bettina Arnold & D. Blair Gibson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) \n\n* F. J. Byrne, *Irish Kings and High Kings.* (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2001)\n\n* Thomas R Kerr, Finbar McCormick & Aidan O'Sullivan, *The Early Medieval Archaeology Project (EMAP): Project Report 2013 - The Economy of Early Medieval Ireland.* (December, 2013)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T100017/"
]
] |
|
3wd814
|
Who were the Caliphates?
|
When we hear someone talking about the Umayyad's or the Abbasid's
Are those just dynasty's? or... something else?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3wd814/who_were_the_caliphates/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxv9zzj",
"cxvcb9v",
"cxvewrv",
"cxvgato"
],
"score": [
17,
42,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The caliphate is a form of government with a leader that combines leadership in politics and religion. Muhammed, having no male heirs, had a lot of succesors, that widened the influence of islam. Their form of government was the caliphate.\nThe Umayyads are a chain of successors from the same clan, if you will, not that different from european dynasties. ",
"A *caliphate* is, to put it simply, an Islamic monarchy. The leader of a caliphate is called a caliph. When reading about the Rashidun caliphate, you can sometimes see them being referred to as *amr-ul-Mu'minin*, which translates to \"leader of the faithful\".\n\nA caliphate implies theological leadership of Muslims all over the world. That is why in my country (Malaysia), we have sultans and a raja, but we won't call them \"caliphs\" since they never made the claim of global representation (and if they did, it will be laughed at). As trivia, Saladin, even for all of his reputation, is a Sultan of the Ayubbid dynasty, not a Caliph.\n\nThe first caliphate consists of the four closest *sahaba* (Companions) of the Prophets - Abu Bakar, Umar al-Khattab, Ali bin Abu Talib and Uthman bin Affan. This is known as the **Rashidun** caliphate; unlike subsequent caliphates, all four are \"elected\" (bai'ah), rather than passing the \"throne\" to their offspring.\n\nAfter a whole lot of conflict, the Rashidun caliphate ends, and the **Umayyad** one begins, started by Muawiyah b. Abu Sufyan. The Umayyads manage to expand their empire until it reaches Hispania (Spain).\n\nHowever, the Umayyads are hostile to the Shi'ites, and this mistreatment eventually culminates to rebellion and the formation of the **Abassid** caliphate. However, an Umayyad prince managed to escape, and hold on to, their holdings in Spain, and established the rival **Caliphate of Cordoba**. \n\nMy knowledge after this gets all fuzzy so I will end this post; there are subsequent caliphates, such as the **Fatimids** and of course, the **Ottomans**. ",
"Aside from being the spiritual leader of Muslims, Mohammad was also the ruler of the lands that Muslims had conquered. After his death, Muslims needed a new ruler. These new rulers were caliphs which in Arabic means successor. Caliphate is the system of Islamic government that is led by a caliph. \n\nThe first four caliphs are called Rashidun which means *rightly guided*. These caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali )were chosen by prominent Muslims and chiefs of various Muslim tribes. Although there was much disagreement in choosing these caliphs, they had considerable popularity among Muslims and all of them were some of the first people who'd converted to Islam. Also, aside from Abu Bakr who only ruled for 3 years and died of old age, all of these caliphs were killed and are considered to be martyrs by the majority of Muslims. \n\nOne important point here is that Shias generally don't accept the first three caliphs and consider them to be usurpers of the position. They believe that Mohammad chose Ali as his successor and the position of the leadership of the Muslims (which is called *Imamat* among Shias ) belongs to him and his descendants. \n\nAfter Ali was killed, his son Hassan ruled for a very short time. He abdicated and Muawiyah ibn Abu Sufyan became the first ruler of the Umayyad dynasty. He chose his son Yazid as his heir and from here on, caliphate became hereditary. \n\nIn 750 and after Abbassid revolution, they took power and called themselves caliphs. They ruled for a long time and during their time, many other kings and rulers in the Islamic world deferred to them and accepted their position as the caliphs even if they were weak. \n\nAfter the Mongol invasion and sack of Baghdad, Abbassid caliphate came to its end (although it was reestablished in Cairo, they had lost most of their power) several dynasties such as Fatimid called themselves caliphate but the most well-known and lasting one of them is ottoman caliphate which lasted until 1924.\n\n\n \n\n",
"To put it in a Western context, it would be like if the President of the United States also declared himself the Pope. The Caliphs claimed not just political authority, but also religious authority as the heirs to the Prophet Mohammed. That's what sets them apart from Sultans, etc. And technically, there can only be one Caliph at a time since he speaks for all Muslims, but there have been times when multiple people claimed the title (just like with the Papacy)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
21g04l
|
Gambling has been a part of human culture for thousands of years but the Casino is a modern invention. When was the first large scale gambling industry devised and what were the circumstances that led to it being adopted as a model for modern times?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21g04l/gambling_has_been_a_part_of_human_culture_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgcuoai"
],
"score": [
22
],
"text": [
"It has been a while since I've read it so I don't have a specific answer, but I'd recommend checking out Roll The Bones: The History of Gambling by David Schwartz.\n\nMost of the early established casinos were in places with natural hot springs and baths. These were already vacation destinations for the wealthy so it was a natural place to setup gambling houses as well. Baden Baden in Germany is one example of a Roman bath town that has had institutionalized gambling for most of its history."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3ju6jy
|
Is there any evidence that medical physicians, surgeons or midwives of the Roman empire understood some level of 'germ theory'? If so, what was the reason that they were not more commonly employed in the early empire?
|
Considering the influx of highly educated and medically competent physicians from the East, why did Romans of the early empire (principate, I think is the term?) still employ 'folk medicine' remedies and treatments (such as the powdered dung mixtures and earthworms in wine described by Pliny), when they could turn to professional physicians and midwives with specialised training and medical knowledge?
Was the success rate of the 'modern' medicine of the East not much better than traditional treatments?
Was the odd dichotomy between Roman folk magic/medicine, and the practice by Eastern physicians of more advanced medicinal techniques (eg Erasistratus), a matter of Roman tradition vs untrustworthy Greek innovation? Was it an economic matter, who attended you when you were ill? Was the availability of physicians/midwives vs sagae/folk healers more a question of where you lived?
I would love to understand more.. why, if Romans could enjoy the highly competent and advance levels of medicine and trauma care that were theoretically possible, why did they so often still end up having to drink powdered sows dung mixed with wine, then sleep with their head to the West, on a bed of slate? ..and think themselves better off for it too!!
I know thats a lot of questions.. Im just trying to be specific in the interests of a detailed answer or two. Thanks!!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ju6jy/is_there_any_evidence_that_medical_physicians/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cusg5xv"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"The issue here is that you're looking mostly at Pliny :) Pliny is a wonderful glimpse into the Roman world, and he did some excellent work in ecology and such, but he also likes reporting rumours, such as that sub-Saharan Africans had eyes and mouths in their belly and things like that. He was by no means a medical mastermind. The work you're looking for - and, incidentally, the most complete work purely on medicine in that time period - is Celsus' [*On Medicine.*](_URL_0_) While yes, he does note some \"folk remedies\" that you mentioned, he also does note that they were...well...folk remedies. \n\nFor example, one of the ones I remember offhand most clearly is in his section on angina (random chest pains, they can be a sign of something worse). I quote:\n\n > I hear it commonly said that if a man eat a nestling swallow, for a whole year he is not in danger from angina; and that when the disease attacks anyone it is also beneficial to burn a nestling which has been preserved in salt and to crumble the powdered ash into hydromel which is administered as a draught. Since this remedy has considerable popular authority, and cannot possibly be a danger, although I have not read of it in medical authorities, yet I thought that it should be inserted here in my work.\n\nBasically tl;dr'd into a \"I've heard people say this, and while I can't prove it's true, it can't hurt. Go for it.\" (Nota bene - don't do this. If you have angina, go see a doctor.)\n\nOne essential thing to remember is that there was no \"central school\" for medicine. Doctors learned from other doctors (apprenticeship), and therefore kooky traditions would be passed on religiously down the line. By far the best doctors generally were those who were attached to the legions, because, even when those legions were garrisoned, there was a constant stream of injuries which had to be treated. The Romans were pretty incredible at battlefield medicine, able to do everything from trepanning to fix a cracked skull/hematoma to fixing basically any flesh wound ever. [Book 7](_URL_2_), for example, is on surgeries, while [Book 5](_URL_1_) does a quite a bit of discussing on flesh wounds. His discussion of how to stitch things really is pretty good:\n\n > The suture or fibula should take up, not only skin but also some of the underlying flesh, where there is any, that it may hold more firmly, and not tear through the skin. And both are best used with a strand of a soft wool not too closely twisted that it may cause less irritation to the body, and both should be inserted at intervals not too distant or too close. For if the intervals are too distant, the wound is not held together; if too close, it is very hurtful, for the more often the needle this fixes the tissues, and the more places are wounded by the inserted stitches, the worse is the inflammation set up, especially in summer. Neither procedure needs any force, but is useful just so far as the skin follows that which draws it as if of its own accord. Generally, however, fibulae leave the wound wider open, a suture joins the margins together, but these should not be brought actually into contact throughout the whole length of the wound, in order that there may be an outlet for any humour collecting within. If any wound admits of neither of these, it should none the less be cleaned. Hence, upon every wound there is to be applied, first a sponge squeezed out of vinegar; or out of wine if the patient cannot bear the strength of vinegar. A slight wound is even benefited if a sponge is applied wrung out of cold water. But in whatever way it is put on, it is only of service while moist; and so it must not be allowed to become dry.\n\nRegarding germ theory! Yeah, that wasn't a thing. It's kinda hard to realize that there are invisible (to the human eye) microbes everywhere that cause infections and such - hell, it took us centuries after the Byzantines fell to formulate that theory. Medicine for the Romans (and, incidentally, for everyone after them until germ theory) was all about correcting the bodily \"humours\" - ensuring that each of the elements was in balance with the others. If you had too much blood, for example, some needed to be drained. That kinda thing. For example, he notes on seasonal allergies in this way:\n\n > In spring those diseases are usually to be apprehended which are stirred up anew by movement of humor. Consequently there tend to arise runnings from the eyes, pustules, haemorrhages, congestions in the body, which the Greeks call apostemata, black bile which they call μελανχολία, madness, fits, angina, choked nostrils, runnings from the nose. Also those diseases which affect joints and sinews, being at one time troublesome, at another quiescent, then especially both begin and recur.\n\nThey did, however, recognize the power of antibiotics, *even though they had no idea why they worked so well*. For example, in the book on surgery that I just linked a couple of paragraphs up...\n\n > Therefore whenever it is dressed, the abscess cavity should be washed out, with wine mixed with rain water or with a decoction of lentils, when the discharge seems to need checking; with honey wine when cleaning is required; after which it is dressed as before. When the discharge appears to be checked, and the cavity clean, then is the time to help the growth of flesh, both by irrigating with equal parts of wine and honey, and by laying on a sponge soaked in wine and rose oil.\n\nAlcohol (usually rubbing alcohol) and honey are both still pretty widely known as fantastic antiseptics, as well as clean water (rainwater) for general cleaning. Additionally, Celsus does note that it's a bad idea to \"take a bath\" while ill or soon after surgeries. This sounds like terrible advice until you remember that baths were communal, and it was WAY more likely for something to get infected if you were taking communal baths together (especially because there was no chlorine to keep the water relatively clean). \n\n---\n\nThere is a good bit of stuff that's just a bad idea to try in Celsus' compendium - medicine was trial and error, and if one person got better while taking a particular remedy, it could be noted as a potential cure. Even so, Roman doctors did take quite a few remedies from Greek doctors (as noted within Celsus) - Hellenophilia was a pretty big thing :) \n\nHope that answered your question!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Celsus/home.html",
"http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Celsus/5*.html",
"http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Celsus/7*.html"
]
] |
|
ch288g
|
Why did Buddhist missionary missions (Particularly the Ashoka one) failed to build lasting presence in the West/Hellenistic world while succeeding so in the East?
|
Buddhist missionary work found incredible success in the East principality in South-East Asia while it found at best temporary success in the Hellenistic world, so what factors resulted in the failure of buddhist missionary work in the West?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ch288g/why_did_buddhist_missionary_missions_particularly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eurflzr",
"ev7l9ur"
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text": [
"This answer of /u/SleepingAran/ answers your question: [_URL_1_](_URL_0_)",
"So, I'm seeing a lot of misinformation here and would like to clear some things up. To do this, I'm going to run through your question's misunderstandings and then move to the things I've seen that are wrong in other replies before addressing the question directly. I should also state, as I've received some PM's accusing me of bias, that I'm a practicing Therāvada Buddhist as well as a Buddhist academic working primarily within the framework of the Paḷi textual tradition as well as comparisons to the Āgamas. \n\nThe error I notice in your question is the presumption that the Aśokan missions found incredible success in the the East and in South-East Asia. While many Southeast Asian countries will attribute their Buddhism to Aśoka, the evidence simply doesn't indicate such an early adoption of Buddhism, or at the very least that it was that widespread. In the East, that is Gandhāra, Buddhism seems to have already been well established among monastics. There is some indication that the Greeks during Chandragupta Maurya's time knew of the sect, at least knowing the distinction between Brahmanas and Śramaṇas and that Śramaṇic religions were well established in Takṣaśilā. Buddhism had a gradual spread into Central Asia, and eventually East Asia from it's inception to the second or third century CE when it became dominant in the Tarim Basin and in parts of China. As for Southeast Asia, it may have found a foothold, but we don't have much evidence for it until the 1st through 4th centuries CE, by which it seems to have become the lead religion of the Mon and Pyu peoples, while elsewhere forms of Hinduism and native religions were most common. The modern ethnic and cultural composition of the mainland is fairly recent due to population movement since the medieval period. The Buddhification of Southeast Asia was a slow and gradual process over the course of more than a thousand years before dominating the region in the early medieval period after royal patronage of Hinduism largely ended and Buddhism was adopted and an orthodoxy established. This was done through sustained contact with the Buddhist heartlands in East India and Śrī Laṅka. \n\nThe claims I'm seeing here are basically two things. One, Aśoka had little contact with the Western Greek kingdoms and two that it had followers far away from India and that somehow Christianity or persecution ended it. Let's start with the first one; In his 13th rock edict (or what we call the 13 rock edict, there were probably a lot more than we know about and we really can't establish a timeline on them.) Aśoka speaks thus:\n\n > *Now it is conquest by Dhamma that Beloved-of-the-Gods considers to be the best conquest. And it (conquest by Dhamma) has been won here, on the borders, even six hundred yojanas away, where the Greek king Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule*\n\nThese are absolutely real Greek kings who rule at his time, Antiochus being Antiochus I Soter of the Seleucid Kingdom in modern day Iran, Iraq, and the Levant; Ptolemy being Ptolemy II of Egypt, Antigonus being Antigonus II of Makedon, Magas being Magas of Cyrene (a briefly independent state in modern day Lybia that I had to look up, and Alexander *probably* being Alexander the II of Epirus. What we can gain from this, at the very least, is that Alexander was in contact with the Seleucids enough to know of key diplomatic rivals. We also know through Seleucid records that there were fairly substantial diplomatic ties between them and the Mauryans even fairly late into their existence due to a several travel guides, of which only one can be reconstructed. Megasthenes' *Indika* was followed up by other diplomats writing travelogues and it seems to contain accurate geographical and cultural information recorded during the reign of Chandragupta Maurya. Furthermore, Pliny mentions that Ptolemy had diplomatic relations with Aśoka who wrote his own (now lost) travelogue.\n\nA more credible criticism is that Aśoka's Dhamma envoys were secular or at least not Buddhist. This is something that can be neither proven nor disproven. In another edict he mentions that he has sent his Dhamma Mahāmātās to religious disputes, but in yet another he sends them to oversee all religions and to oversee ethics. In a recent argument, Dr. Nayanjot Lahiri argued that these were Buddhist missionaries, repurposed as diplomats and ethics instructors. While a somewhat interesting argument, it is mostly conjecture based on the highly biased account given in the Mahāvaṃsa. In any case, we can at least say there WERE missions under Aśoka and there was some religious dimension to his Dhamma. However, the farther away from Aśoka's core territory they were sent, the less successful they could have been and the more difficult it would be to convert people, the exception being Śrī Laṅka which absolutely did see missions and successful ones under Aśoka. \n\nBecause of this, I highly doubt there was ever a Buddhist presence beyond maybe one or two diplomats or traders in Europe, at least until the eighteenth century. Which more or less handles the second concern I had.\n\nNow why didn't Aśoka see much success outside of his core realm. I think it is relatively simple. People are typically pretty happy with how they are and unless there is some impetus to convert, be it economic, political, or environmental, they won't. While there will always be outliers who find themselves intellectually interested in a religion, they are often far and few between. Sending a missionary from one powerful ruler to another doesn't really change much, nor does preaching to a people who are quite happy with the status quo or are already experiencing religious oppression. It is said that Devānaṃpiya Tissa adopted Buddhism (and the name Devānaṃpiya) after meeting with Aśoka's son, Mahendra, who had become a monk. This is actually supported by some evidence and it wouldn't be all that out there for a man, struck by the conquests, riches, and power of another king, who still appeared to be somewhat humble and paternal, to convert upon being asked and given gifts. It would hardly be the only time in history it had happened. And once the King converts and begins to patronize a religion, well there's the incentive for the rest of the populace. \n\nUltimately, Aśoka's missions may have had an impact among the Pyu or Mon or whoever inhabited the realms to the direct east of his empire, but since they left scare records and remains, we can't really know. Within India, he may have been Buddhism's greatest patron, but outside the process was rather gradual. \n\nSources\n\n*Aśoka in Ancient India* Nayanjot Lahiri, 2015.\n\n*The Edicts of King Aśoka* S. Dhammika, 1993.\n\n*Mahāvaṃsa* William Geiger, 1912.\n\n*A History of Myanmar Since Ancient Times* Michael Aung-Thwin, 2012\n\n*Indian Buddhism* AK Warder, 2004\n\n*A Concise History of Buddhism* Andrew Skilton, 2013."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4txvom/why_didnt_hinduism_buddhism_taoism_or_any/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4txvom/why\\_didnt\\_hinduism\\_buddhism\\_taoism\\_or\\_any/"
],
[]
] |
|
6tn8ql
|
How different was Shakespearean English from modern and English?
|
How different was Shakespearean English from modern English when spoken aloud, and how different was it from the "day-to-day" language used by most people? Were there embellishments added, or was "forsooth" a common enough word that no-one would have batted an eyelid?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6tn8ql/how_different_was_shakespearean_english_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlnbele"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Writing from this time is often referred to as 'Early Modern English' in so far as the language has more in common with modern English than Old English, and is recognisable as the beginnings of how modern day English is spoken.\n\n\n\nThe first part of your question seems to address pronunciation, so in terms of how Shakespeare's English sounded, evidence indicates that Shakespeare's English sounded quite different from modern day English in its pronunciation. There are quite a number of examples of poetry where rhyming pairs form 'near misses' in modern English, but appear frequently enough that we can assume that they rhymed at the time they were written. Words that end in 'ity' like 'eternity' are put in rhyming pairs with words like 'lie', suggesting a pronunciation more like 'et-er-ni-tye' than modern 'et-er-ni-tee', for example. There are also puns in Shakespeare's work which no longer make sense, because they originally worked through a play on words involving a homophone and pronunciation of one of those words has diverged in modern pronunciation. A scholar called David Crystal has been working on evidence like this in order to establish what the [Original Pronunciation](_URL_1_) of Shakespeare's works might have sounded like. You can see a video of actors working with OP [here](_URL_0_). It's also worth bearing in mind that then, as now, pronunciation would vary substantially across the country. Even if Crystal's Original Pronunciation comes very close to how London-based actors spoke, this wouldn't be representative of a speaker from a different region. Broadly speaking though, as far as we can tell, yes, Shakespeare's English did sound different, but not incomprehensibly so.\n\n\n\nThe other part of your question is more directed towards whether stage language would seem somewhat out of place when spoken off stage. In short, yes it probably would, but not really in the way that you describe by asking if words like 'forsooth' were commonly used. If someone went about their day speaking in the same way as people on stage spoke, it would probably seem about as odd as if someone spoke as though they had just wandered off the set of a modern day action movie. Just as the dramatic pauses, odd whisper, and punchy comebacks would seem odd (and truthfully, rather cringey!) in present day because it's a style of speech and use of language we associate with drama, so too would Shakespeare's stage writing sound a bit artificial. We can see this played out to some extent in the way that Shakespeare represents his comic characters from the lower classes. While Shakespeare certainly toys with this convention, typically, high status characters will speak in verse (usually iambic pentameter, either rhymed or un-rhymed) while characters marked as 'common' will depart from this formal register and speak in prose (see for example, Trinculo and co in *The Tempest*). The rarefied speech of the stage is deliberately contrasted with informal speech patterns that are more in line with everyday intonation.\n\n\n\nIn terms of embellishments - yes, Shakespeare's writing is often highly embellished, but not in the way that you are thinking. 'Forsooth', 'zounds', the use of 'thee/thy' are all pretty common in this period. They feel like embellishments to a modern reader as they have fallen out of common usage, but wouldn't have seemed odd in Elizabethan/Early Jacobean England (they map fairly well onto modern 'truly/honestly' and 'oh my god', and modern French 'tu'). Where Shakespeare's language is embellished in a way that would make it odd for every day conversation is in poetic language. When Prospero says 'We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep’ (*The Tempest*, act 4 scene 1) he is speaking in a register that would sound very odd if you were just going about your daily life, but which doesn't seem out of place on stage.\n\n\n\nI hope this helps answer what you were looking for - let me know if you have any other questions!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s",
"http://originalpronunciation.com/"
]
] |
|
6m5zir
|
Why is it that our education system and our society teaches, at least by omission, that African-Americans are the only people ever to have been sold into slavery?
|
In reality slavery has existed long before America was even dreamed of, and still exists in other countries, so why do both our society and education system pretend that black people are the only ones who have ever been enslaved?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6m5zir/why_is_it_that_our_education_system_and_our/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djzcbyn"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"Although I can't speak to contemporary slavery practices which of course does exist, I can perhaps try to answer your question. There are major distinctions between slavery in the ancient world and modern racialized chattel slavery, which is perhaps why it is emphasised in the US education system as racialized chattel slavery is directly relevant to the founding and building of the United States. A few differences:\n1. Something that Orlando Patterson calls \"social death\". Which means there was a chance for enslaved people in ancient Rome to be integrated into the community, or even into a family. However, enslaved peoples in the Atlantic slave trade were selected because of their \"racial\" difference, which made it impossible for them to assimilate into their new forced societies. Their families were broken apart and they were removed from their communities and forced into societies that did not legally allow them to participate, hence the term \"social death,\" since enslaved peoples from Africa did not have any social support systems. In fact, black skin became a signifier of a slave. If you were black in America it was assumed you were a slave and you had to carry official documents to prove otherwise.\n\n2. The invented concept of race as biological difference was of course not a factor in the ancient world. Was there an idea of differences, yes, but it was not until the Enlightenment that these \"racial\" differences were supported by \"science.\" And it was not until the Enlightenment that peoples from Africa were seen as, in some cases, subhuman. All of this was justified by scientific inquiry. Here, again, this made it impossible for peoples from Africa to assimilate into their new forced societies. So complex race theories were invented to support the practice of enslaving only peoples from Africa and not other places.\n\n3. Chattel slavery was quite different from obtaining slaves from \"just wars\" in ancient Rome. Slaves from war come from certain types of social structures, and were predicated on war and annexation of territories. Chattel slavery had built around it very complex social structures to support the kidnapping, and selling of specifically peoples from Africa, supported by race ideologies that claimed peoples from Africa as mentally inferior but physically strong. Chattel slavery was also supported by complex laws that legally codified enslaved peoples from Africa as property within America's growing legal culture, which is why you see slavery in founding documents of American history like the Constitution. For reasons like the history of the law in the US racialized chattel slavery is quite pertinent. \n\nRobin Blackburn has a great text called *The American Crucible* that will answer your question in depth as he goes through the history of slavery from the Ancient west to modern racialized slavery.\n\nSo to answer your question more directly I don't think anyone is \"pretending\" slavery only existed for \"black people,\" but they are talking about a specific type of slavery, that is racialized chattel slavery specific to US history. Perhaps if you take an ancient Rome course they will teach about slavery in a different context there, and I am sure courses in contemporary political issues or even International Development will teach about current systems of slavery. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2qhkkt
|
What are some really great documentary TV series that you would recommend?
|
I have been watching America: The Story of Us...and it's just ok. It's a bit too jingoistic for my tastes, and the panel of "experts" that they interview is a total joke (I don't particularly care what Sheryl Crow or Donald Trump thinks about president Lincoln).
However, I do like the high production values that the series has when it comes to the visual effects and the dramatizations. Things like that make the subject matter really engaging for me.
I'm looking for series with similarly high production values that don't dumb down the subject matter too much. Pretty much any period of history would be good, but shows about the civil war, the two world wars, and american history in general would be particularly interesting.
Thanks in advance for any recommendations!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2qhkkt/what_are_some_really_great_documentary_tv_series/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn6d985"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I know it's not tv. but yalecourses on YouTube has a great 284-1000 ad class. Berkeley. ucla and many other universities offer free lectures."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
18kwq8
|
In the time period you study, what did an average person do for fun?
|
It's something I know little about prior to the 20th century and I think any answers will help me paint a clearer picture in my head of what people were like in that time.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18kwq8/in_the_time_period_you_study_what_did_an_average/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8fokj8",
"c8fqzlm",
"c8fru7b",
"c8fuwe5",
"c8fya8a",
"c8fz4gy",
"c8fzw0k",
"c8g33dh"
],
"score": [
59,
36,
173,
15,
16,
5,
10,
3
],
"text": [
"Writing a book to [scare, shock, and amuse children](_URL_0_) was as much fun in 1845 as it is now. Once publishing was common place looking at picture books, reading, and being read to were commonplace. \n \nA great many \"classics\" of literature (e.g. Dickens) were first published as serials in newspapers and so had an role analogous to that of \"The Wire\" or \"Breaking Bad\" today. \n \nThroughout much of history and in many locations fathers and older brothers, uncles and grandfathers would whittle (carve) toys for children, tops, pull toys, rocking horses, etc. \n \nGambling with die or teetotums has a long history, dice like objects seem to turn up in even the most ancient sites with artefact collections. Losing money == fun? Apparently :)",
"Puritan children in colonial New England invented a game where you would run up behind someone in the stocks and kick them in the butt and run away laughing.\n\n In general, though, most children started working as soon as they were able. There was work to do and many hours of church to attend so there really wasn't much time for fun. \n\n It's not difficult to make the obvious tentative connection and assume that kids living in such a lifestyle might every so often lash out or do it strange things for attention. Having fun and having free time is a very important parts of a person's development.",
"The Aztecs played and bet on games, had banquets (and took a LOT of hallucinogenic mushrooms at those banquets), went to ball games (and bet on those too), listened to music and poetry, and sometimes partook in recreational hunting. There was a large community festival at least once a month. One of my favorites involved adolescent boys and girls \"fighting\" for a day, with the boys ambushing the girls and the girls retaliating. It wasn't particularly dangerous, more like their equivalent of a water-balloon, flour-bomb, or pillow fight today. But an attack could happen anywhere in the city or village, at any time. It's really humanizing, to imagine Aztec teenagers screaming and giggling and ambushing each other, and I always love anything that connects a seemingly distant culture to us today.\n\nedit: User snickeringshadow made a good point, mentioning that the use of hallucinogenic mushrooms was generally restricted to the nobility by strict sumptuary laws, and associated with religious rituals. I'll go through my books to find the specific source if I can, but I know that I've read detailed accounts of members of the merchant class throwing banquets and ingesting mushrooms recreationally. But this would all have taken place in a rich merchant's home, out of the public eye; the merchant class had its own set of courts and laws, and could technically purchase other items like gold and jade that were typically restricted to the nobility, as long as they didn't publicly flaunt their wealth. Most regular people did not ingest hallucinogenic mushrooms recreationally.",
"Drinking -at least in Scandinavia - during the 17th century was so popular that townspeople starting to complain about not being able to find their way through their city/town due to all the taverns taking up space.\n\nEating and poetry were as usual popular pass times with the nobility, to the point that a nobleman (the name escapes me) managed to charm the Swedish king Karl X in to giving him a high position in a newly conquered territory through hosting a massive feast for him and his son and writing a 500 line poem that tickled Karl X's ideological fancy (through endorsing Absolutism). Karl X supposedly wished that the poem was even longer.\n\nThey certainly did more than this for amusement, but I haven't specifically studied pass times.",
"I've been studying popular entertainments in rural 19th century America (particularly the South, and even more particularly the Ozarks). These people generally did not have much leisure time outside of Sundays (reserved for religious observance and rest, even if there wasn't a nearby church.) People were also quite isolated and generally poor. Community events tended towards the educational, things such as spelling bees, debates, \"kangaroo courts\" (mock trials), and graduation ceremonies, where the graduates would present on different topics. For example, they would recite stories and poems, talk about historical events, do math problems, etc. Outside of that, there was the old standby of sitting on the porch with family and neighbors, playing music, singing songs, and passing down stories to the next generation. My favorite book on the subject is *Ozark Baptizings, Hangings, and Other Diversions* by Robert Gilmore.\n\nOther sources of entertainment for rural America - circuses were quite popular, showboats (of course, if you lived on a river). There were even circus showboats! Theatre usually consisted of touring companies that traveled by train that would stop in major towns for anywhere to one night (for small towns) to two weeks (for larger cities). Sometimes this was an entire company, sometimes it was a single star that would play with a local company. All actors were expected to have certain plays memorized and at the ready, so Helena Modjeska could roll into town one morning and say \"I want to do Macbeth!\" and they would do Macbeth that night. And, yes, all kinds of people went to the theatre - even Shakespeare was not seen as \"highbrow\" - it was not seen as something only for the wealthy or the educated.",
"In rural areas of NW Spain, singing was an extremely popular group activity. There used to be songs for working the fields, for passing time at the mill, for drinking at taverns, for dancing in the village, etc. This changed several decades ago, with the arrival or electricity and mass media, as well as massive emigration from the country to the cities. However, a large amount of these popular songs are still kept in living memory. Many folk bands in Galicia, for instance, get their source material by talking to old folks and recording the songs that they used to sing when they were young.\n\nJust talking out of personal experience, I am sure that it was similar in many other places.",
"For Victorian women, there were many things to do indoors and outdoors. \n\nOutdoors\n\n* Tennis\n* Croquet\n* Horseback riding\n* Picnics\n* Fern gathering parties\n\nIndoors\n\n* Embroidery, needlepoint and making samples\n* Pressing wildflowers and making potpourri\n* Reading\n* Women were expected to know how to play something, usually a piano\n* Dancing\n\nAs for party games, they were fairly tame compared to 'wentwhere' Aztec games. One game was to fill a shallow tray with brandy, put some raisins in it and then light it on fire. The object of the game was to 'bob for raisins'.\n\nAnother very popular parlour game was for one person to take an item from the parlour, say a small china cat. Everyone looks at the cat and then closes their eyes and the hostess will hide the cat somewhere within the room and then whoever finds the cat wins.",
"Beyond speeding, screwing and drinking, beetle-racing. I'm currently studying the Italian campaigns in WW2. U.S. soldiers (I don't know if the Germans or Italians had similar \"sports\") would find a good sized beetle, draw a circle roughly six fight wide, put their insect into a container with other nominees and dump the lot into the center of the circle. The insect that made it out first was the winner. This became a serious business with a lot of money on the line. Some bookies would even fix races by squishing competitors. It just goes to show the lengths that people will go to when they're bored and what people will bet on."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struwwelpeter"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1chr1o
|
Historians of Philosophy: Did others apart from Jesus talk of loving your enemy?
|
I've always heard that was a revolutionary idea, and I'd like to know the broader picture of it. And, if other people have talked about it, to go and learn about their own take on it.
Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1chr1o/historians_of_philosophy_did_others_apart_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9gnji8"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Short answer: [yes](_URL_0_). The Babylonians (2000 years before Jesus), Buddhists and Taoists each have quotes talking of forgiving one's enemies."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://etb-biblical-errancy.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/jesus-was-not-first-to-teach-love-your.html"
]
] |
|
1obcnj
|
Why do Dutch and Belgian Monarchs not have crowns?
|
I noticed that both of the new Dutch and Belgian Monarchs were "crowned" with no crown. Why is this the case?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1obcnj/why_do_dutch_and_belgian_monarchs_not_have_crowns/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccqg8jt",
"ccql9zz"
],
"score": [
22,
18
],
"text": [
"The Dutch Royal Family does have a crown, but it was donated to a foundation run by the Royal Family and is not put on public display (according to Wikipedia.) The tradition of the Dutch Monarch not wearing the Crown dates from 1815 when Wilhelm I became the King of the then newly formed Kingdom of the Netherlands (see _URL_1_) rather than choosing whether a Catholic or Protestant should Crown the King he opted not to be crowned. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nI can't find an explanation for why Belgium does not have a Crown, but have found many mentions of the fact that they lost a lot of the female Royal Regalia from Princesses taking it with them when they married foreign princes. ",
"Belgium does not have and never had a crown. The crowning of royals traditionally held religious significance and Belgium was established as a constitutional monarchy with separation of church and state (unlike the UK which has the monarch as head of the Church of England - hence they are crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury in Westminster Abbey). There was therefore no official church personage who could legitimately crown the monarch. \n\nBelgium also lacks other common regalia such as a royal mantle, sword or sceptre. We do have a throne. As the new monarch is not crowned, the ceremony is not called a coronation, it is called the accession to the throne. The Belgian throne was custom built for the rather substantial first king Leopold I and has proved somewhat too ample for some of his smaller successors. The original throne was lost in a fire and the current one is an exact replica. [Here it is in storage awaiting its next use.](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22353152",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Republic"
],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/j6pj4sw.jpg"
]
] |
|
3lqo81
|
What is the oldest known mathematical work, or evidence of mathematical reasoning?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3lqo81/what_is_the_oldest_known_mathematical_work_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv8m2ib"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"\"Evidence of mathematical reasoning\" really throws this one open. That definitely predates modern humans by an exceedingly long time. Off the top of my head, I might suggest the Oldowan style of stone tool, or hand axe, which dates back 1.5 - 2.5 million years. Suggested to be the first evidence of cultural activity, it would also be the first evidence of math. Everything about stone tool production, from the understanding of how the rocks striking each other will interact, to the reasoning behind using a blade instead of a smooth surface, requires at least some primitive grasp of a mathematical principle or two.\n\n[Oldowan tools](_URL_0_)\n\n\nIf you're referring to formal written mathematics, not just evidence that our ancestors possessed mathematical ability, I daresay that is more restricted by the development of writing than by the development of mathematical knowledge. Some of the earliest examples of writing we have are things like inventories and accounting data, inherently mathematical activities. It would appear that in some cases, writing was adopted to facilitate the math already being done. \n\nExamples: \n\n[The oldest Egyptian hieroglyphics, used for inventory](_URL_1_)\n\n[The oldest Greek writing, used for accounting](_URL_2_)\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/minigalleries/handaxes/intro.shtml",
"http://archive.archaeology.org/9903/newsbriefs/egypt.html",
"http://www.ancientscripts.com/linearb.html"
]
] |
||
3qums7
|
The consulship and senate outlasted the the Western Roman Empire, but what exactly was their function in these later centuries? Did they still serve some form of "Rome"?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3qums7/the_consulship_and_senate_outlasted_the_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwiment"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"The short answer is that, in principle, they all continued to serve the Roman empire. The longer answer is more complicated and I'll only discuss the consulship here, as I definitely don't know enough about how the Roman or the Constantinopolitan senate worked. \n\nThe first thing to note is that what happened in 476 to the western Roman empire was not the end of an era. Instead, one ambitious general, Odoacer, had enough of his boss and decided to overthrow a puppet emperor. Afterwards, he then submitted (in theory) to the more legitimate but previously overthrown emperor, Julius Nepos, based in Dalmatia. After Nepos' death, Odoacer then did the same to Zeno ruling in Constantinople. The Roman order was not overthrown, as people instead acknowledged what was already self-evident - the western empire had been crumbling for years and repeatedly needed to be helped by eastern armies. Now that its territories were restricted to Italy, what was the point of needing a separate emperor? Moreover, there had already been long interregnums between western emperors, such as the ~19 months gap between the emperors Libius Severus (461-465) and Anthemius (467-472), so the lack of an emperor in the west in 476 would not have surprised the Romans. \n\nAs Odoacer had no need to tear down the Roman empire, he naturally continued to appoint consuls in the normal fashion - one candidate chosen by him, the other appointed by Constantinople. Occasionally there were years when no western consuls were appointed, but the same was however also true in the still healthy eastern Roman empire. By then, the consulship was a purely honorary position with only the responsibility of throwing circus games for the masses. Real power was held by the masters of soldiers and the dukes for military matters, and the praetorian prefects for civilian matters, so the consulship became only the preserve of wealthy aristocrats willing to put on a good show and perhaps use it as a springboard for a career beyond the consulship. If there were no rich nobles to desire the office, or if the emperor wanted to gain the adoration of the crowds by holding games himself, then there was no need to appoint someone to the office. In fact, the eastern empire began to offer 'honorary consulships' to those willing to pay in the late fifth century, so for many it must have seemed a bit pointless to spend more of their own money to gain the same title. The 'ordinary consulships' still had meaning however, as documents continued to be dated using the traditional formula of 'in the consulships of X and Y...' This was still true in the seventh century, even in the 'barbarian' lands of the Burgundians, so if you were an aristocrat and wanted a shot at immortality, getting the consulship was still worthwhile. \n\nThe same continued into the reign of Theodoric the Great, who led the Ostrogoths into Italy and murdered Odoacer in 493. Theodoric himself was once a consul of Constantinople, so it is natural that he continued to appoint consuls for the west. There were years when he was in conflict with Constantinople however, so in those years western appointees were not recognised by the east. In 508, the emperor Anastasius even decided to grant an 'honorary consulship' to King Clovis of the Franks as a reward for his campaign against the Visigoths in southern Gaul, which drew away Theodoric's attention even as the Roman navy began to operate against Italy. When the relationship between the two powers was more cordial however, western consuls were recognised and honoured, which is perhaps best seen in the consulship of Eutharic, Theodoric's chosen heir, in 519, as he was also acclaimed as Emperor Justin I's 'son-in-arms'. The last western/Ostrogothic appointee, Paulinus, became the consul in 533; after that, the Ostrogothic kingdom became embroiled in dynastic infighting (so appointing someone to be the consul was probably a long way down their list of priorities), which in turn provoked Emperor Justinian I's invasion of Italy in 535. By 541 the forces of Constantinople were seemingly triumphant, so Justinian appointed a western aristocrat, Basilius, as the western consul. He however did not know that the Gothic War would rage on for another 13 years, by which time Italy was devastated, exhausting the wealth of the traditional elite and thus the candidate pool for the consulship.\n\nThere was also another reason for the lack of consuls at this point. Justinian was an emperor with many enemies and so didn't appoint many consuls for the east anyway, as they would have used their new-found influence to gain support amongst the masses. The extraordinary victories of Belisarius in North Africa in 533-4 did result in the general's appointment as the consul in 535, an event that was celebrated lavishly. Soon however laws were issued to limit the spending of consuls and to end the subsidies given to eastern consuls to hold their games, no doubt because the cautious emperor had noticed that Belisarius was getting a bit too popular for his liking. This practice however had ended by 541, with the last consuls being the aforementioned Basilius and Justinian himself. As Alan Cameron has pointed out, the state was haemorrhaging money after this point due to the emperor's wars and the devastating impact of the plague, whilst previous consuls like Belisarius and John the Cappadocian were repeatedly linked to intrigues against Justinian. By then, there was no need for the consulship and probably no money for it either; even Justinian did not take the consulship for himself again. In Cameron's words: \n\n > If the emperor could not afford to be consul, it was clear that no one else could be allowed to.\n\nThe consulship was however revived in 566 by Justin II, a new emperor who wished to separate himself from Justinian's troubled legacy, especially the military and theological problems during the previous emperor's old age. However, from now on the consulship would be only the prerogative of the emperor, though even then they did not hold the office every year. This continued all the way to down to the reign of Constantine IV (668-685), though there is no direct evidence of him actually taking the office - the only evidence is his usage of post-consular years in his dating formulas, so presumably he, like his predecessors, also became the consul when he became the senior emperor.\n\nThere is something else to discuss as well, the 'consular' rebellion of Heraclius in 608, which was probably the last time someone used the idea of the consulship to bolster their political legitimacy. Heraclius, the governor of North Africa, had in that year revolted against the emperor Phocas and minted coins that depicted both he and his son, also a Heraclius, as wearing consular robes and with the inscription 'dominus noster Heraclius consul' - our lord Heraclius the consul. This was of course purely propaganda, since by then only emperors could be consuls, but it was no doubt part of the two Heraclii's strategy to draw on ancient Roman traditions to strengthen their rebellion's cause. It is a fitting end to the long history of the Roman consulship, as the younger Heraclius, the last non-imperial consul (albeit a self-proclaimed one), sailed from Carthage in the western half of the empire in order to seize power in Constantinople, which he achieved in 610, a bold move characteristic of the legendary consuls of old. Not too shabby for an office most people would have thought to have died out after 476, the year when Rome allegedly 'fell'!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1ulo33
|
How reliable are Kenneth C. Davis' "Don't Know Much About the Civil War" and Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"?
|
I'm about 100 pages into "Don't Know Much About the Civil War" and have enjoyed the writing style, but there are times when it seems really casual and perhaps a bit biased (although this is usually when exposing hypocrisy of the justification of slave-owning). I realize this may be Davis' way of making the book more relateable to a wider audience, but it throws me off sometimes. I will be going through Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" after I've finished this one, but wanted to know if there is any in particular I should look out for with these two authors. I always try to be a critical reader but history is something of a new interest and is pretty foreign to me since I was raised with a very biased Christian curriculum (homeschooled).
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ulo33/how_reliable_are_kenneth_c_davis_dont_know_much/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cejcoxn"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Before anybody else does it, allow me to direct you [to the FAQ for the Zinn portion of the question](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/us_history#wiki_historians.27_views_of_howard_zinn.27s_.22a_people.27s_history_of_the_united_states.22"
]
] |
|
17zyt0
|
What was the diet of an English/Scottish peasant in the 1100's? What about in hundred year increments, up to the 1700's?
|
I'd be happy for any information anywhere within the time period. I can't imagine that it was just 'bread by the barrelful'.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17zyt0/what_was_the_diet_of_an_englishscottish_peasant/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8acpgw",
"c8agjv8"
],
"score": [
74,
6
],
"text": [
"~1300-1400:\n\nYou generally ate two meals a day, the main meal somewhere around 10-11am. Supper would be around 4-5pm.\n\nWhat you ate depended on what year it was, because if the harvest failed, or plague hit, it would change what was available. People would eat anything in desperation and that includes tree bark (desperation isn't new, the [poor Hatians have been eating mud](_URL_0_).) If you were unlucky to find yourself in a siege, then people would eat anything that moved including horses, cats, dogs, and rats. But this isn't the norm.\n\nThe *seasons* are important - the Church forbids eating meat during Lent, Advent, on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays, and forbids eggs during Lent. Harvest time will see you eating more fruit, more grain-based foods, and more meat, as animals were generally slaughtered before winter. Fish is available during summer months when the sea is calmer, but salted varieties (along with meat) will appear during winter. Food is often cooked outdoors in summer, and meat will be roasted. Winter will see you boiling your meat (which hopefully has not gone rotten). \n\nMeat would be made to last a long time because peasants didn't often eat meat, so it would be used for special occasions, and find its way into multiple dishes. You are unlikely to be allowed to hunt for meat, so if you do it on the sly, you can catch coneys, wildfowl, or hares. Peasants tended not to eat meat because a live animal can produce more useful things than a dead one, such a chickens. Live animals can also be drained of blood, Dracula-like, to make blood pudding. If you do it right, the animal lives and you have a scrumptious haggis-like meal awaiting for you, mixed with oats, salt and herbs. \n\nFish are a problem in that the trade routes make it difficult for fish to make it far inland and it's expensive. The other problem is that the Church forbids meat - so the nobility tend to claim the fish before it gets to you in your hovel. If you live near a lake or river, you can't go fishing as the Lord holds the rights. Still, you might find herrings, salt-fish, dried cod, and eels, depending on where you live.\n\nIt will also depend on the kind of peasant you are. You are likely to have a variety of breads, mostly rye, or *maslin*, a combination of wheat and rye. You might get white bread if you're rich enough. Barley and oats are also used to make bread. *Tourt* is a kind of wholegrain bread that is used as a plate, cut into slices known as trenchers and fed to pigs. Bread is *really* important and probably a guaranteed staple of a peasant diet. Pottage is another favourite, made out of oats, peas, or leeks, and mixed with legumes, herbs, onions, garlic and meat, depending on availability. \n\nGreen vegetables are thought to be healthy, but they are understood to be harmful if raw, so they tend to get boiled. Most likely the vegetables come from your own garden, where you're likely to grow turnips, which not only can be consumed in the event of a failed harvest, but you can feed your animals if necessary. You probably have a herb garden too, growing sage, spring onions, and parsley.\n\nFruits are also cultivated, including apples, pears, cherries, plums, grapes, damsons, and lower to the ground, strawberries, gooseberries, mulberries. Blackberries and sloe are common enough in the wild to not need cultivation.\n\nYou're probably drinking ale, made from malted barley or oats - if you add hops then you get beer which is another thing altogether. Ale prices are regulated by statute law (in England anyway). You can buy a 4 gallons for 1d, but it doesn't last very long and goes sour. Otherwise it's quite sweet tasting. The very poor will drink water, but everyone will try to avoid it as it's unhealthy. Cow's milk is for children, old women, and cooking. Cider is also drunk (1/2d per gallon) but a bit stronger than ale. Mead and Metheglin are the other honey-based drinks. You're unlikely to have access to wine, but drunkeness is still quite common.\n\n",
"This is a really stupid question but bread, how often would people have access to meat or vegetables? Or would bread be something that you eat by itself? Would bread be the most common thing peasants have to eat?\n\nAlso I'd love to talk about dehydration. In England for example peasants are drinking lots of alcohol which dehydrates. Are people drinking a lot of water to compensate? Or are people normally drinking beer or wine as their \"thirst quencher\"?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2008/01/080130-AP-haiti-eatin.html"
],
[]
] |
|
6i2a0a
|
Why is there so much supernatural content in Shakespeare's plays?
|
I'd heard of the ghost of Hamlet's father, the witches in MacBeth, and Julius Caesar's warning. But I'm surprised it's also present in Richard III (when the King fears that by G his family disinherited should be), Henry VIII, and so on. Wouldn't this look pretty disreputable for royal histories? I'd imagine the church would have some harsh words for it. Was everyone at the time sticking ghosts and visions into their historical dramas?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6i2a0a/why_is_there_so_much_supernatural_content_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dj58fm1",
"djzgluo"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The short answer to your question:\n \n- Supernatural events draw crowds\n- No the church did not like this\n\nThe longer answer:\n\nPuritanical Christians were certainly no big fans of the theatre. There was the very real concern that during times of plague, the theatre could hasten the spread of disease (and was usually closed during these times) but certain Protestant sects felt that the theatre allowed for thieves and pickpockets to proliferate (it kinda did...) and promoted lewd behaviour, deceit (in the form of acting) and immorality. The British Library has a great example of one of the pamphlets published at this time, which outlines the ways in which the author thought that 'Playes were first inuented by the Deuill' ([Philip Stubbes, *The Anatomy of Abuses*](_URL_0_)). The portrayal of supernatural events comes under scrutiny from such figures, in particular, in cases where devils were seen on stage (Marlowe's *Dr Faustus* is a particularly [good example](_URL_1_;)). So yes, there was plenty of objection to the London theatres *in general*, although accounts of responses to specific aspects of specific plays are considerably rarer than the general hubbub about the theatres on the whole.\n\nAs for whether it would be disreputable to put a ghost in a historical drama, this is somewhat dependant on context. *Richard III* is effectively a piece of propaganda, discrediting the last King of the House of York as a monster (which the Tudor royals were obviously quite invested in doing!). Having the ghosts of his victims come to condemn him only adds to his crimes, since his victims are denied a peaceful death. The appearance of the ghosts only serves to heighten the sense of Richard's crimes, so it certainly wouldn't be 'disreputable' to add supernatural events to a history play. Early modern plays were expected to provide a sense of spectacle, and the sense that history plays should be accurate accounts of events without elaboration is not really present here. Shakespeare uses *Holinshed's Chronicles* as a source quite often, and it is notoriously fanciful in places (see for example, Holinshed's account of [Macbeth meeting the witches](_URL_2_)).\n\nNot all history plays would include interludes with ghosts or the supernatural (Marlowe's *Edward II* comes to mind as a very earthy/earthly history play) but supernatural events are popular in Renaissance drama *in general* and turn up pretty frequently, as they were big crowd pleasers.\n\nGive me a shout if you have any questions!",
"Great answer from amandycat, but a couple of things to add:\n\nShakespeare didn't write plays in a vacuum. He is one especially famous playwright among a significant number during the playwriting boom of the era, including a couple of generations preceding him.\n\nIt's pretty well known that every play but one of W.S.'s (The Tempest) are largely based on stories which predate them (think Julius Caesar, or Hamlet, which is based on several old fools' and revenge stories, including Seneca's work and the Anglo Saxon stories of [Amleth](_URL_3_); I won't go into the specifics here, since honestly it's kind of a hotbed of debate). What is talked about less is the playwriting conventions Shakespeare wrote into. One of these is ghosts, especially in Revenge plays. As amandycat rightly pointed out, ghosts sell seats! But, more than that, is would have been considered truly odd [at that time](_URL_0_?id=MH7ADAAAQBAJ & pg=PA28 & dq=ghosts+revenge+tragedy & hl=en & sa=X & ved=0ahUKEwi86Nmzp_zUAhXBOj4KHZtLAVwQ6AEIQzAF#v=onepage & q=ghosts%20revenge%20tragedy & f=false) for Shakespeare to write a Revenge tragedy without a ghost--and Richard III can be considered an avenger, or at the very least has inherited much from the revenge genre.\n\nAnother way to think about this is that ghosts/supernatural beings are very convenient ( & , IMO, easy)plot devices, and have been present from Greek drama. An excellent example of this is Euripides' [*Orestes*](_URL_0_? id=OA4fLaEDdsQC & pg=PA110 & dq=apollo+deus+ex+orestes & hl=en & sa=X & ved=0ahUKEwimjJ_JofzUAhXDwj4KHVSHA4kQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage & q=apollo%20deus%20ex%20orestes & f=false) (*not* The Oresteia) in which Apollo arrives in a mechane and ties up the mess of a plot in a neat little bow. A ghost can do physically things which living people can't (which is cool to watch) but they can also act with relative impunity to reveal information we need or make us feel a certain way. It's no coincidence that Renaissance playwrights received [a classical education](_URL_0_?id=GvvFr8HJ0H4C & printsec=frontcover & dq=inventio+greenblatt+copying+latin & hl=en & sa=X & ved=0ahUKEwiGiKPkpfzUAhVDjz4KHW5OCIoQ6AEIMDAC#v=onepage & q=education & f=false) involving copying, memorizing, and adapting (inventio) Latin works (sometimes Latin translations of Greek plays; and, university educated men like Ben Jonson would have done the same with Greek). So while they were separated by a millennium, these works were very close to the literary minds of Shakespeare's time. \n\nSomething else which hasn't been explicitly mentioned: although in Shakespeare's time theatre was popular with all classes of English society (right up to and including the royals) they were still on the wrong side of the law--or, as you might say, the river. The playhouses were so ill-reputed (I mean, [they were also deeply involved with gambling and prostitution](_URL_0_?id=-XDUAwAAQBAJ & pg=PA14 & dq=playhouse+prostitution+gambling+south & hl=en & sa=X & ved=0ahUKEwj8tPe5qfzUAhVE2D4KHRJzBHcQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage & q=playhouse%20prostitution%20gambling%20south & f=false)) that they were banned from the city limits of London, and subsequently took up residence south of the Thames. So, sure, the 'Church' didn't like theatre, but Elizabeth did (privately). Since she was the head of the church, hey: It was a strange tug-of-war.\n\nTL;DR Ghosts were pretty normal in theater, and certainly not an innovation of Shakespeare. The Church didn't like ghosts or theater, but they also didn't control either."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/shakespeares-playhouses",
"https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Hu-IAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA42&dq=puritan+response+faustus+marlowe&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvsf6-hczUAhWCfFAKHTBTDkgQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=the%20visible%20appearance%20of%20the%20devil%20himself&f=false>",
"http://www.cems.ox.ac.uk/holinshed/extracts2.shtml"
],
[
"https://books.google.com/books",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=MH7ADAAAQBAJ&pg=PA28&dq=ghosts+revenge+tragedy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi86Nmzp_zUAhXBOj4KHZtLAVwQ6AEIQzAF#v=onepage&q=ghosts%20revenge%20tragedy&f=false",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=-XDUAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA14&dq=playhouse+prostitution+gambling+south&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8tPe5qfzUAhVE2D4KHRJzBHcQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=playhouse%20prostitution%20gambling%20south&f=false",
"https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/saxos-legend-of-amleth-in-the-gesta-danorum",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=GvvFr8HJ0H4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=inventio+greenblatt+copying+latin&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGiKPkpfzUAhVDjz4KHW5OCIoQ6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q=education&f=false"
]
] |
|
9xz8hd
|
When was France established?
|
[deleted]
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9xz8hd/when_was_france_established/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e9xel23"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"While I will admit that I haven't read about the earliest times of France, I will say this, I do not think that any Historian worth their salt would qualify a specific event or date would crown the establishment of a nation such as France for a variety of reasons.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nFirst and foremost, what is France? While the current concept of France has a specific border with specific lines about citizenship, it was different even sixty years ago, there were many that saw Algeria as a part of mainland France. It was different a hundred years ago when France was rebuilding and just regained Alsace-Lorraine... and so on and so on. As such, the idea of France, just as with any nation, is always changing and morphing depending on the culture and events it experiences. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nSecond, when is France France? Even if we went as early as those in r/France, France is a fractured and rough concept that doesn't properly comes into light until the Hundred Years War, and even then... it weakens and is only reestablished by Louis XIV. Is William the Conqueror a Frenchman or a Norman? When did Burgundy lose it's identity? How did Brittany become less weird? \n\n & #x200B;\n\nThird, what counts as French? Even if we determine France as a specific ethnic or linguistic concept, the former doesn't hold well as French ethnicities disappear by the mid 19th century and the French language doesn't become solidified by that time as well. While there are events that do establish these things (such as the French Revolution being a major part in the establishment of the French we know now), does this mean that the Gascon peasant isn't French because of his different French or different ethnicity? \n\n & #x200B;\n\nFinally, what is France? Back to this question. Many nations are tied by a general narrative or concept that has lasted throughout their time. Britain has had a strong monarchy that slowly weakened but still serves as a representative; the United States is defined by it's short but impactful time in history... One thing that does come to mind is a short section where Alistair Horn describes his own study of French history.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n\\ > \"Writing about the history of France has the elements of a love affair with an irresistible woman; inspiring in her beauty, often agonising and maddening, but always exciting, and from whom one escapes only to return again.\"\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThis short quite, while questionable in nature, I feel describes why it's impossible to define France, and therefore define when France starts. It is far from consistent (19th century France has no less than four serious revolutions and many minor revolts), experiencing a series of events that takes it from a fractured \"feudal\" Kingdom to the definition of Absolutism, to Revolution, Republics, Constitutional Monarchies, and then back to a Republic (and Fascist lapdog) that became the center of Culture to the entire world.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nAll of this to say, that France is far from any specific event or date."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4bq0ub
|
Do we know what Julius Caesar was up to during the Spartacus War?
|
I am aware that Caesar had returned to Rome upon hearing of Sulla's death (78 BC) and then was elected quaestor for 69 BC. But I haven't found much information about the years between, especially during the war (73 BC to 71 BC)
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4bq0ub/do_we_know_what_julius_caesar_was_up_to_during/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1bobys"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"[Caesar almost certainly did not participate in the war](_URL_0_), as it was all but over by the time he returned to Italy. Sulla died in 78 but Caesar didn't return to the city until 72 to stand for the military tribunate. Although technically speaking the Spartacus war was not yet over during his military tribunate it was pretty much wrapped up and he appears to have remained in the city, probably to canvass for the quaestorship--military tribunes frequently never actually saw a battle during their tenure. It's not technically impossible that he was military tribune in one of Crassus' legions (although at this stage in his career he had little connection to Crassus yet), but literally none of our sources mention it, they all mention instead his service on the staff of Thermus and against Mithridates. One wonders why, had he seen service against Spartacus, these relatively minor campaigns are mentioned in our sources over what must have been a vastly more important campaign against Spartacus, and (especially if he served under Crassus) a campaign which would've in all likelihood been quite formative. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2vp2be/did_caesar_serve_under_crassius_during_the/"
]
] |
|
eh1ouh
|
Was Robert E Lee's heart in the fight? Why did he fight for the South when he seems to have been so reluctant to?
|
I just heard part of this quote of Robert E Lee's in the Ken Burns Civil War documentary, from right before the Civil War started ([Source](_URL_0_)) (emphasis mine):
> The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression, and am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded.
>
> But **I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation.** I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. **It was intended for “perpetual union,”** so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession.
It got me thinking: was this guy's heart in the fight? Everything I've heard about him sounds like he was a reluctant warrior for the South to begin with and quick to reconcile when he was defeated. It does seem that he led the Army of Northern Virginia well enough to still be venerated, but I am having difficulty reconciling why someone would give up so much to command soldiers to die in a fight they didn't believe in.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/eh1ouh/was_robert_e_lees_heart_in_the_fight_why_did_he/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fcdv3oy"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"There is certainly plenty of room for a detailed original response here, and hopefully someone with a fuller knowledge of the Civil War period than I have will step in to provide it. While you're waiting, however, you might like to review [this earlier response](_URL_0_), led by u/Georgy_K_Zhukov, which assesses Burns's documentary series and cites James M. Lundberg of Lake Forest as pointing out that\n\n > Working in the soft glow of nostalgia, he manages to take a knotty and complex history of violence, racial conflict, and disunion and turn it into a compelling drama of national unity, \\[....\\] \\[and\\] perfectly calibrated to please most every constituency in the post-Vietnam culture wars.\n\nStressing Lee's reluctance to fight, and faith in the concept of union, certainly fits that narrative and so I would begin by wondering how fully representative of Lee's views throughout the conflict the quote selected by Burns actually is."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://loa-shared.s3.amazonaws.com/static/pdf/Lee_Evils_of_Anarchy.pdf"
] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/54zv3w/ken_burns_civil_war_series_i_love_it_and_have/d86qc8w/"
]
] |
|
1igscl
|
What is the general feeling in the proffessional historical community about Stephen Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature and its contention that violence has declined relatively consistently throughout history.
|
I admit I came away convinced, but I figured I should look for a second opinion.
Edit: Apologies for the typos, it's late.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1igscl/what_is_the_general_feeling_in_the_proffessional/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb4gz5b"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"Pinker's statistics are highly questionable. He tends to take ancient chroniclers at their word, which is never a great idea for big numbers. For instance, the numbers he cites as the death tolls of the Mongol invasions would mean that every individual Mongol soldier killed around 350 people. That's insanely high and doesn't match up with what we know about the demographics of the area at the time, before or after the invasions (as in, we would expect to see a much greater demographic collapse following such slaughter). For An Lushan, his candidate for the most disastrous outbreak of violence, he relies on Chinese census data, ignoring the fact that the civil war massively disrupted the ability of census takers to accurately count the population and he fails to account for the fact that there was a mass migration away from areas devastated by war, also leading to lower census numbers. Again, we see no evidence of what would be the worst demographic collapse in human history. Moving to an area that I actually know about, his crime rate statistics are based on incredibly fragmented population numbers and even more difficult to generalize crime statistics (essentially counting an extremely limited number of coroner's reports from very few locales). In short, he's extremely sloppy with his numbers and relies on almost no scholarly sources. I would not accept the type of work he puts in from an undergraduate.\n\nBeyond the simple sloppiness, there's the question of whether his method, of adjusting violent deaths for population, is a valid move at all. If there is a single murder in a town of 100 people is that town more violent than the south side of Chicago? Then there's the fact that he compares something like \"the Atlantic Slave trade\", something perpetrated by a huge number of different states over hundreds of years, to World War I, or the fact that he includes death by disease in his figures about European encounters with native American tribes (another \"event\" spanning hundreds of years and vastly different countries) but doesn't, for example, include Spanish Flu deaths in his totals for WWI. Again, extremely sloppy\n\n\n(there's also the issue, somewhat separate, that the arguments in *Better Angels* seem to directly contradict those he made a few years earlier in *The Blank Slate*, perhaps Pinker has simply changed his mind, although he doesn't explicitly refute his earlier work in *Better Angels* [I'll admit, I started skimming at a certain point though])\n\nedit; fleshed some stuff out.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1ryig4
|
Has there ever been a battle where soldiers have turned and started fighting against its original side mid-battle?
|
I don't mean where they had a pre planned decision, but more along the lines of some soldiers seeing they are going to lose turn sides. Or something out of a movie where someone gives a speech and wins the hearts of his enemies.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ryig4/has_there_ever_been_a_battle_where_soldiers_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cds6k9u"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"There are two examples that I can give to this. One isn't exactly what you are thinking but another is more similar to what you wanted.\n\nThe Battle of Nations (or Leipzig) was defeat that clinched the end of Napoleon. In 1813, most of Europe was at war with France and Napoleon's allies were dropping off like flies as British funds flooded the allies' banks while pressure from the combined military powers of Russia, Austria, and Prussia came against Napoleon. Thus, being an ally of Napoleon wasn't looking very good nor profitable. \n\nSo during the Battle of Leipzig, Napoleon's Saxon allies were ordered to march forward against the enemy. They did so, but then half way across the field, they turned around and started to march on Napoleon's troops, firing on them once they were in range. The loss of the Saxon troops caused the battle to turn very much against Napoleon to the point that it is considered to be one of the major reasons of his defeat.\n\nAs for the other battle that doesn't exactly fit it, I bring in the Battle of Karansebes (1788). I play games with friends whom are of the Prussian/Austrian loving sort that are more defensive in nature to my more French style of tactical combat. So when I need to remind them of how Austria doesn't win wars, I bring out this battle.\n\nDuring the Austro-Ottoman War of 1787-91, the Austrian army had moved to face an Ottoman army invading Hungry. This war was to be in concert with Russia as they were trying to take Ottoman lands near the Crimea. So the Austrian army had settled down for the night and created their camps, but some horsemen (Hussars if I remember correctly) had found some schnapps and horded it. The rest of the army wanted it (it was enough quantity to warrant distribution) but the horsemen refused, already drinking the schnapps. So the horsemen started to make a small fort around the barrels of schnapps, which escalated the situation to the point that the soldiers started fighting the horsemen for the schnapps.\n\nThis is where it gets bad. This is the Austrian army, a multinational army with at least five different major languages within it's borders. So when the officers started yelling to stop, they ignored it or confused the german \"halt\" with \"allah\" (again, not everyone would have understood German, most likely a majority of the troops spoke different languages that weren't German). So the troops started thinking other troops were Ottoman troops attacking in the night. \n\nThe battle resulted in ten thousand dead Austrians and no Ottoman soldiers even hurt."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9ghbg3
|
Collapse of Macedonia.
|
I was assigned to the collapse of Macedonia. I'm a history student in Indonesia. Books about it are very rare. Can you give a reference to a book or journal about that?
or can you explain it to me?
Thankyou.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9ghbg3/collapse_of_macedonia/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e64rg9d"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Hello there, fell like I'm awake and ready to answer this with resources and tips for your next step as well as some background. But I must ask when you say collapse of Macedonia what exactly are you after. The fall of Macedonian Empire after Alexander or the collapse of the Kingdom under Philip V and then Perseus his son."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7ywrkz
|
In American popular culture, the Pacific theater of the World War II is portrayed as being more brutal (and is mythologized less) than the European theater; did this reflect the reality "on the ground"? Why?
|
I'm thinking of "Band of Brothers" versus "The Pacific", specifically, but it seems a general trend (can only really think of 'Catch-22' and 'Slaughterhouse-Five' emphasizing the horror of war, whereas between Iwo Jima and Peleliu, it seems like most depictions of the Pacific seem to emphasize the senselessness and horror of war)
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7ywrkz/in_american_popular_culture_the_pacific_theater/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dul1jyc",
"dull0e0"
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text": [
"*Band of Brothers* did take place in the European theater but more specifically the combat took place on the western front and the characters were American. The American experience of the \"European theater\" is different than say the Polish/Soviet or even occupied countries like France/Netherlands. \n\nOne example that comes to mind is the treatment of POW's. Nazi's generally treated Western POW's comparatively well and the rates of POW death for example are very low when compared to POW death rates of Japan. The rates of death for non-western POW's under the Nazi's is very high. So by POW deaths there is \"brutality\" in both theaters but the Western front is less brutal than the Pacific. There were also factors like Japanese cultural attitudes towards surrender which led to very high casualty rates among the Japanese and a lack of trust in surrender. There are cases of fake surrenders by Japanese soldiers being used to kill Americans, and Americans executing surrendering Japanese soldiers.\n\nSo it depends on your question, asking about the contrast in the experience of an American soldier between \"BoB\" vs \"The Pacific\" is different than asking which theater is more brutal, Eastern theater vs Western theater. From what I've read the Pacific is more brutal in the first sense but not necessarily in the second. ",
"One simple answer to this is racism. While there was extreme anti-German sentiment into the First World War, and definitely continued in some degree to the second, America was highly populated by German-speakers, and people with German ancestry. Compared to the Japanese, Germans had an \"understandable\" culture. Not to mention the many in America who sympathized with, or even supported the Nazi party initially. \n\nWith the Japanese, however, the animosity goes back much further. (See: Yellow Peril and the Gentleman's Agreement). Anti Japanese sentiment was prolific in the US for 40 years and more prior to Pearl Harbor, especially on the West Coast. Added to that, is that as the war began, we had been *personally* targeted by Japan. Americans saw other Americans being killed and wounded at Pearl Harbor, knew of them being marched to prison camps in the Philippines, and knew of the valiant stand at Wake Island. Putting all of that together by 1942 meant many Americans have something of a grudge against Japan more so than Germany (See Max Hastings, *Retribution* for a good take on this leading to the use of the A-bombs).\n\nAdded to this, is a fundamental difference in the way the way is tactically conducted on the ground. I've read very few accounts of Germans committing mutilations on *American* prisoners. u/Soft-Rains is correct in this, that BoB only shows you one front of the war. Going back to the Pacific, American (as well as British) soldiers and Marines found themselves combating an enemy that did things they would not have dreamed of doing: tying themselves into tree tops as snipers, knowing they'd be killed, with no means of escape; lying in a pile of dead bodies waiting for a large enough group to pass by before detonating an explosive; gathering in a cave and committing mass suicide; suicidally charging (sometimes armed with only *swords*) against entrenched heavy machine guns; deploying into untenable positions; the list goes on. To combat this, US forces had to take a different approach. Bayonet bodies, just in case. When Japanese surrendered, which wasn't often, they often didn't make it to the rear. Few American soldiers and Marines were unfamiliar with how the Japanese treated their prisoners, and many were fine with somewhat returning the favor. With German POWs, they were generally trusted after surrendering. Some who were brought back to the US had many freedoms here, and enjoyed decent accommodations, even desiring to stay when the war ended. Meanwhile people of Japanese descent in America were put into internment camps for fear of their real \"loyalties.\" \n\nCulturally speaking, the less you understand of your enemy (language, religion, customs, or tactics), the easier in becomes to dehumanize them. The further down this path you go, the closer you get to things like souvenir hunting for teeth or other body parts (something we see happen often enough in the Pacific theater than it becomes associated with it). Heck there's even a Wiki page devoted specifically to this. \n\nSo, the theaters are generally depicted differently because they *were fought* differently. Even on a logistical scale, the fight in Europe might be taking one town, and moving across several miles of ground to engage the enemy again. In the Pacific, especially the Island-hopping campaigns, you might fight for a week to gain a single hillside. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2c3vew
|
Suppose in 1940 you asked a normal Japanese person if it was right or wrong for the army to take Korean and/or Chinese women as sex slaves. Would they be aware of and believe what you were asking about actually takes place? If "yes" what answer would they most likely giver and why?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2c3vew/suppose_in_1940_you_asked_a_normal_japanese/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjborv1",
"cjbto5m"
],
"score": [
17,
5
],
"text": [
"The amount of propaganda that inundated wartime Japan was rather astounding. Even senior civilian officials lacked an accurate picture of the front lines. This isn't to say that they were unaware of the brutality of the Japanese advance-for instance, [here](_URL_0_) are several contemporary newspaper articles referring to a contest where two Japanese NCOs had a contest on who could kill 100 people with a sword first-but it was sanitized substantially. For instance, it is implied that the above contest was of two soldiers seeking to emulate their ancestors and reject modern warfare in favor of hand-to-hand combat, rather than an outright slaughter of random people. \n\nIn that line of thinking, your typical civilian, if they were aware of the presence of Japanese, Korean, or Chinese women serving as comfort women in the front lines, they likely would have assumed that they were merely prostitutes that have been organized by the military to help care for the soldiers at the front. Some civilians may have even stated that it was necessary to reduce the amount of rape (which one only needs to look at what happened to Nanjing to see how ridiculous this is) by providing a legal alternative-one need look at the post-war Japanese government's establishment of the Recreation and Amusement Association during the Allied occupation. This organization was established primarily to reduce the incidence of rape by instead essentially coercing some Japanese women to serve as prostitutes for the occupying troops. Sadly, it may have even been somewhat effective-the amount of reported rape rapidly increased after the system was basically shut down a few months after its inception. It is also important to note that the typical Japanese person viewed the entire China campaign as not a campaign of conquest, but a campaign to restore peace in China and to overthrow the corrupt and fragmented Chiang Kai-Shek regime. \n\nSource:\n\nDower, Embracing Defeat, Japan in the Wake of World War II",
"They would say yes, it was a good idea, because it would cause the troops to behave in a better manner. You have to understand that at the time, women had no right to their own bodies. It was legal and quite common in Japan for a parent or guardian to sell their daughter into sexual slavery. That's how most prostitutes became prostitutes. The practice was only made illegal after the war by the U.S. when an American woman, who happened to be a feminist, Beate Sirota Gordon, was put on the committee to draft the new constitution, and insisted upon including women's rights in there. You have to also understand that in Japan, as in the West, if a woman was a prostitute, regardless of how she became one, she was considered to be a slut and disgusting--rather than regarding her as a young woman who was perhaps kidnapped and raped on a daily basis. Sort of like how, in many areas of the Muslim world, even in advanced areas such as Dubai, a woman who is raped is a criminal and will be jailed for adultery at best, or killed by her family at worst as having betrayed their honor. Indeed, right wing apologists in Japan still regard comfort women as disgusting, lying whores whose seeking for economic redress today is just another form of prostitution. Check out this video: _URL_0_ Please understand the context--these are right-wing extremists, not the general public, who are making these claims. You'll note that a key point of these right-wing imperial apologists is that the women (many were girls, age 12 or even younger) were sold into prostitution by a parent. As if the Japanese military buying a 12 year old and enslaving her into having sex with 20+ men per day was somehow OK if they gave her parent money. Which in most cases isn't true, anyway--many girls were grabbed off the street or coerced in some way. \n\nThe point is that a Japanese person in 1940 wouldn't even have a framework to use to see the situation as wrong. They would understand that it sucked to be a prostitute, but that was just the way of the world, they would think, just as it was men's duty to be forced to join the military and fight far away from home. People in Japan had been oppressed by a terrifying and powerful dictatorship for decades by that point. Our understanding today of the mindset of people living in those circumstances, like in Stalinist Russia or modern day North Korea, is that they're unable to articulate the words to complain or protest. They can't think in those terms, having never been allowed to. Certainly now, if you stop someone in the street in Japan and ask those questions, most would be strongly against it and horrified at how wrong it was. But ask someone in 1940, and they first of all wouldn't want to say anything critical of the Emperor or the military because they could be killed for doing so. Second, they would be fully indoctrinated, most likely, in agreeing with whatever logic was given to them about how to think."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.geocities.jp/pipopipo555jp/han/nich-mai-hikaku.htm#t-1"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrNqBV6Rxkk"
]
] |
||
1878mx
|
How long did it take for the gang violence to die off after prohibition ended?
|
I see a lot of people saying that ending the war on drugs will reduce gun violence in America and cite the end of prohibition as an example of what to expect. But how exactly did its end affect gang related violence?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1878mx/how_long_did_it_take_for_the_gang_violence_to_die/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8c9zsy",
"c8ccco1"
],
"score": [
13,
42
],
"text": [
"IIRC the prohibition era whiskey running rackets evolved into crime syndicates that stuck around as protection rackets/drug rings etc... which lasted some time after the end of prohibition.",
"[Not very long](_URL_0_) at all. Murder was back to pre-prohibition levels by 1940, despite a dramatic increase in urbanization."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/12crime1.htm"
]
] |
|
39co9z
|
Why wasn't communist Mongolia absorbed into the Soviet Union like other Central Asian states?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/39co9z/why_wasnt_communist_mongolia_absorbed_into_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cs2h3yr",
"cs2ib8e",
"cs2k8v2",
"cs2mxcp"
],
"score": [
173,
606,
20,
17
],
"text": [
"To the responses stating that Mongolia was a buffer country. That's technically true, however the truth was Mongolia simply wasn't a priority to Russia. They had China under their sphere of influence, so there was little need to have a buffer country on China's northern border, especially since that northern border is sparsely populated, half mountainous non arable land and half subdesert semi arable land. Mongolia looks big on a map and big in a history book, and their mineral resources could have provided a great resource if China or the Soviets decided to industrialize the infrastructure, however they chose not to. Russia has numerous reserves underneath their own country that they still to this day haven't bothered to mine. To the Soviet Union, Mongolia offered little strategic value.\n\nEdit: Dug up a text that I read in college about the subject. [Source](_URL_0_)",
"Mongolia's existence as an independent state offered more to the Soviet Union than it did as a direct part of that union. In the years immediately following the Bolshevik Revolution, there was a belief within Russia and among socialists internationally that Russia's revolution would trigger others around the world. Until the end of World War II, however, there were only two communist nations in the world: the Soviet Union and Mongolia.\n\nIn 1921, Mongolia had been overrun by the Red Army and a protectorate was installed. As the Mongolian People's Republic, it became in 1924 the world's second communist state. Officially it was independent, an example of the revolution exported. In fact, it was a Soviet satellite not dissimilar to those seen in eastern Europe following WWII.\n\nFrom the 1920s through his death in 1952, Mongolia was ruled by Horloogiyn Choybalsan, who slavishly followed Stalin's example and earned the title \"Stalin of Mongolia.\" Mongolia was predominantly agricultural, but that didn't stop Choybalsan from instituting a series of five-year industrial plans akin to those of the Soviet Union.\n\nIn 1946, in negotiations with Stalin, Chiang Kai-Shek obtained an understanding whereby China would recognize Mongolia as an independent country. It was an attempt to convince Stalin to keep Mao's communist Chinese forces in check, and internal documents reveal that it may have worked: Stalin encouraged Mao to stay in northern China and not press into the south, the better, perhaps, to create an easily controllable puppet. Mao didn't listen, of course.\n\nAs an independent country rather than part of the Soviet Union, Mongolia was the Soviet Union's useful tool for trade and diplomacy. Though landlocked, it could participate in international relations and give the Soviet Union an easily controllable voice in that theater. Mongolia's largest trading partner was the Soviet Union, and some evidence of the closeness between the two countries can be found in the fact that soon after the fall of the Soviet Union, Mongolia's communist government followed suit.\n\nThe last sentence of the 1979 constitution of the Mongolian People's Republic states: \"In the MPR, the guiding and directing force of society and of the state is the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party, which is guided in its activities by the all-conquering theory of Marxism-Leninism.\"\n\nFor more reading on this topic, see Milan Hauner's *What is Asia to Us? Russia's Asian Heartland Yesterday and Today* and the third volume of E.H. Carr's *The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1923*.",
"Much of Central Asia was absorbed into Russia or put under de facto Russian rule prior to the October Revolution. The timing is important for understanding how Russia became involved in Caspian Central Asia. Russian expansion into Central Asia from the 1860s onward arguably had two goals:\n\n1.) Defense. This has two levels. On the one had, it was defense against the Central Asians, and, yes, the decedents of the Mongols. The one successful ground invasion of Russia (before it was even Russia) was by the Mongols in the Thirteenth Century, proceeding from the Central Asian steppes westward toward Kievan Rus'. Russian leaders saw the plains surrounding the Caspian as a potential highway into the motherland. On the other hand, southward expansion became a defense against Great Britain. Britain's position to command both the North Sea and Central Asia (via India/Pakistan) provoked Russian fears of encirclement. This led to considerable imperial competition over Central Asia between Russia and Britain, tending to center on Afghanistan. Mongolia's terrain and position kept it out of Russian sights during this period. Russia was not concerned with Chinese aggression in the same way it was with the British, and Russia collaborated with the Chinese to push Britain out of Central Asia.\n\n2.) Prestige. Russian foreign policy has generally been primarily oriented toward the West. When westward expansion was possible, imperial Russia usually took that route. Since Peter the Great, Russia longed to compete with Western Europe and prove itself an equal. When possibilities for westward expansion were unavailable, Russia would expand southward instead in order to prove its imperial chops and position itself for further westward expansion when the European situation was more favorable. The largest period of southward expansion into Central Asia occurred at the end of the Nineteenth Century, as Germany was united, Russia was bested by the Ottomans in the Crimean War, and European great power competition was fierce. Meanwhile, Persia was in decline under the Qajars. Russia's at-the-time chancellor, Alexander Gorchakov, recognized Russia's limited possibilities in Europe and accordingly maneuvered Russia to expand into the emerging power vacuum in Turkestan. This allowed Russia to preserve its imperial glory while awaiting a time at which the European situation was more favorable, and it could pivot westward once again. Mongolia afforded neither the ease of conquest, nor the strategic location of the other Central Asian territories.\n\nRussia's Central Asian conquests were a response to the challenges of a particular time, not a greater strategy of Asian expansion. In addition to the natural border of the Altai mountains, a Mongolian conquest was deterred by the country's irrelevance to Russia's defensive and imperial strategies.\n\nPartly from *Tournament of Shadows* by Karl E. Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac.",
"The answer lies within the development of Tsarist Central Asia. Expansion into Mongolia was not a part of the drive to colonize the frontiers of the Imperial Russian state, nor did its population have any relation to the Turkic peoples of colonial Turkestan. For the Imperial Russian anthropologists who originally developed an ethnographic map of Central Asia, Mongolia was out of their orbit. The establishment of titular national republics in Soviet Central Asia was built on the original colonial data established by the imprint of colonial rule, which dates back to the Russian conquest of Samarkand in 1867. By contrast, Mongolia only became a satellite state of the Soviet Union in 1924 - hardly enough time to establish a comprehensive ethnic mapping of its populace."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://books.google.com/books?id=tPMUm0idWw8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Stephen+Kotkin+Mongolia+twentieth+century&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAGoVChMIvLnEv7eGxgIV6iWMCh0GJQ7g#v=onepage&q=Stephen%20Kotkin%20Mongolia%20twentieth%20century&f=false"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1kwgl7
|
How did the Spartans treat soldiers that were crippled in battle?
|
Having read pressfield's Gates of Fire I am fascinated with the Spartans. Could someone tell me what happened to those that were wounded, and no longer fit for battle?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1kwgl7/how_did_the_spartans_treat_soldiers_that_were/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbtamxt",
"cbtwpxx"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Specifically concerning the Spartiates.",
"Enemy combatants, or their own wounded?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1c1hvw
|
To what extent did Stalin's purges affect Soviet performance in the Winter War with Finland?
|
I've also heard that the soldiers on the Soviet side were Georgian; was this a greater cause of their failure?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1c1hvw/to_what_extent_did_stalins_purges_affect_soviet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9c59ac"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Stalin's purges had devastated the officer corps of the Red Army; those purged included three of its five marshals, 3/4 of its 260 division-level commanders or higher, and 36,000 officers of all ranks. Fewer than half of the officers remained in total. They were commonly replaced by soldiers who were less competent but more loyal to their superiors. Furthermore, unit commanders were superseded by a political commissar, who ratified military decisions on their political merits, further complicating the Soviet chain of command. This system of dual command destroyed the independence of commanding officers... In regards to what extent did the purges affect Soviet performance in a war that was supposed to end with the soviets conquering Finland and installing a puppet government to put the soviets in range of crippling the Nazi nickle and iron mines in Norway.. I would say UNIMAGINABLY EXTENSIVELY .... the Soviets attacked without a FORMAL declaration of war violating three different non-aggression pacts: the Treaty of Tartu signed in 1920, the non-aggression pact between Finland and the Soviet Union signed in 1932 and again in 1934, and also the Covenant of the League of Nations, which the Soviet Union signed in 1934. Stalin purged very intelligent figures in his officer corps that could have advised him to take different measures.. These events and the fact that Mannerheim was able to ward off the full force of the soviets... and did not allow them the victory that was originally planned crippled Soviet prestige on all political forefronts."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4pk8ye
|
Are there any scientific treatises or texts in older languages (such as Latin, Greek, Babylonian, etc) that hold relevance to the world of science today?
|
Hi,
I didn't know how else to phrase this question. I am aware that Greek and Latin were used as the language to record much scientific research over hundreds/thousands of years.
Has all this knowledge been translated by now? Are there still engineering/scientific mysteries of Roman and Greek constructions and methods that we do not fully understand? If so, is it possible that they may still be found in untranslated texts?
I'm asking this partially because it seems to me that Latin and Old Greek are no longer heavily emphasized in schools today. Is this because we have gotten all the knowledge out of older texts by now and it's just not useful anymore ( in the realm of physical sciences, that is...not linguistics, religion, poetry, and assorted histories).
I came to think about this when reading about things such as the Antikythera mechanism (quasi- steam engine in ancient Greece) and when I was reading about Roman concrete ( as well as taking a look at De Architectura). I was also looking at this interesting post on Quora (_URL_0_).
A lot of the information on this seems rather bland, fringe with litte evidence, or just invented. Is there any serious research or attempts to try to restore "lost technology"?
tl;dr
What kind of ancient methods/techniques do we not understand?
May any of this still be in untranslated texts?
How useful is this to the promotion of technology today?
THANKS!
EDIT:
Preferably trying to find out more outside of "Damacus Steel", "Greek fire", and "Roman Concrete". These seem to be the only three I can find information about, but I find it over and over again. There has to be something else outside of these three inventions, right?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4pk8ye/are_there_any_scientific_treatises_or_texts_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4mdgap"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You've got a lot of questions going on here! I'll try to answer a few.\n\n1) Just for clarification, the Antikythera mechanism is an astrological calendar.\n\n2) The disappearance of Greek and Latin is unrelated to the utility of old texts. Latin was the common language of education until the late 19th century. Up to this point, dissertations and medical treatises were often written in Latin, and many classes were taught in Latin. The national languages gradually took over, and by the early 20th century, Latin was dead as the language of education.\n\nGreek and Latin stuck around because they were one of the foundations of a classical education. That was true until the mid-20th century, when the surge in college admissions resulted in more vocational training and less critical thinking and brain development.\n\n3) Everything in Greek and Latin that we can read has been read. Not necessarily translated, but accessible and legible to classicists everywhere. There are charred scrolls from the library of Philodemus at Herculaneum that are finally being read with the aid of advanced imaging techniques. But he was a philosopher, and they're all boring (in my opinion) philosophy.\n\n4) When it comes to the mixing of ingredients and modes of manufacture, there are bound to be things that we can't fully replicate. Just like looking at a picture of a cake and not knowing what's in it. Or testing the organics embedded in a cooking pot to identify the ingredients, but not knowing the recipe. It doesn't mean that we don't understand or can do better. It just means that that's inaccessible information.\n\nSo I'd say that the pursuit of lost technology is more of an academic exercise. There were brilliant people with incredible understanding of how the world works. But we generally can (and have) done better than what they've done. Our version of Greek fire is (probably) basically napalm. We can make better (or at least as good) sword blades, and our building materials are better or as good.\n\nWe can learn more about them and their technical skills, their capabilities, and their methods. And that information is interesting. But we're unlikely to discover technologies that we haven't thought of or heard of ourselves. Especially not in a philosopher's library."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.quora.com/History-Is-there-such-thing-as-Lost-Technology-or-is-that-a-myth"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
55d90u
|
Did the Confederates make any attempts to woo European nations apart from France and England?
|
Searched through the sidebar and found some interesting facts about global reactions to the Civil War (such as Prussia having observers on the ground to keep abreast of what was happening), but it didn't really answer this question specifically.
Most of what I've listened to in history podcasts or read about online focuses solely on the Confederates' attempts to win the support of France or England. But did the Confederates approach any other European nations seeking support? If so, which ones? And do we have any accounts of how those meetings went?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/55d90u/did_the_confederates_make_any_attempts_to_woo/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d89lfk4"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Jefferson Davis personally wrote a letter to Pope Pius IX. \n\n[Wikipedia has its text, reproduced below](_URL_2_)\n\n > Richmond, September 23, 1863.\n\n > Very Venerable Sovereign Pontiff: The letters which you have written to the clergy of New Orleans and New York have been communicated to me, and I have read with emotion the deep grief therein expressed for the ruin and devastation caused by the war which is now being waged by the United States against the States and people which have selected me as their President, and your orders to your clergy to exhort the people to peace and charity. I am deeply sensible of the Christian charity which has impelled you to this reiterated appeal to the clergy. It is for this reason that I feel it my duty to express personally, and in the name of the Confederate States, our gratitude for such sentiments of Christian good feeling and love, and to assure Your Holiness that the people, threatened even on their own hearths with the most cruel oppression and terrible carnage, is desirous now, as it has always been, to see the end of this impious war; that we have addressed prayers to heaven for that issue which Your Holiness now desires; that we desire none of our enemy's possessions, but that we fight merely to resist the devastation of our country and the shedding of our best blood, and to force them to let us live in peace under the protection of our own institutions, and under our laws, which not only insure to every one the enjoyment of his temporal rights, but also the free exercise of his religion. I pray your Holiness to accept, on the part of myself and the people of the Confederate States, our sincere thanks for your efforts in favor of peace. May the Lord preserve the days of your Holiness, and keep you under his divine protection.\n \n > Jefferson Davis\n\n\nYou can find the letter from Pius IX to Jefferson Davis [here](_URL_0_) (scroll down). Here is the text:\n\n > Illustrious and honorable sir, greeting:\nWe have lately received with all kindness, as was meet, the gentlemen sent by your Excellency to present to us your letter dated on the 23d of last September. We have received certainly no small pleasure in learning both from these gentlemen and from your letter the feelings of gratification and of very warm appreciation with which you, illustrious and honorable sir, were moved when you first had knowledge written in October of the preceding year to the venerable brethren, John [Hughes], archbishop of New York, and John [Odin], archbishop of New Orleans, in which we again and again urged and exhorted those venerable brethren that because of their exemplary piety and episcopal zeal they should employ their most earnest efforts, in our name also, in order that the fatal civil war which had arisen in the States should end, and that the people of America might again enjoy mutual peace and concord, and love each other with mutual charity. And it has been very gratifying to us to recognize illustrious and honorable sir, that you and your people are animated by the same desire for peace and tranquillity, which we had so earnestly inculcated in our aforesaid letters to the venerable brethren above named. May it please God at the same time to make the other peoples of America and their rulers, considering seriously how cruel and how deplorable is this internecine war, would receive and embrace the counsels of peace and tranquillity. We indeed shall not cease with most fervent prayer to beseech God, the best and highest, and to implore Him to pour out the spirit of Christian love and peace upon all the people of America, and to rescue them from the great calamities with which they are afflicted. We, at the same time, beseech the God of pity to shed abroad upon you the light of His grace, and attach you to us by a perfect friendship.\n\n > Given at Rome at St. Peter’s on the 3d December, 1863, in the eighteenth year of our pontificate.\n\n > Illustrious and Hon. Jefferson Davis\n > President of the Confederate States of America, Richmond\n\nThe main point of contention for some is that the pontiff addresses Davis as \"\"Illustrious\" and more importantly \"President of the Confederate States of America.\" Some go so far as to assert that this statement signifies diplomatic recognition of the Confederacy by the papacy, as well as support for the Confederacy. The reality is much more mundane: the pontiff wrote a form letter to Davis. In the text, the pontiff deplores the civil war and makes an appeal for peace. Then he signs the letter by copying what Davis wrote as his title. In no way does this constitute diplomatic recognition or a statement of support for the Confederacy. Another reason against this assertion is that Pius IX wrote similar letters to Abraham Lincoln. If we are to take a letter as an endorsement, then the pontiff would have to be endorsing both sides of the war--an obvious self-contradiction.\n\nThe Confederacy did get a lot of propaganda usage out of the pontiff's letter, but that is quite a different story. Given the Confederacy's hostility to Catholicism it is implausible in my opinion that Pius IX would have endorsed such a government (which isn't to say that the Union was all that pleasant toward Catholics either). \n\nA number of other letters are [reproduced on this forum thread](_URL_1_), if you are interested.\n\nAnother note: the Papal States were unable to do much of anything other than try to deal with the ongoing process of Italian unification, and had lost the great majority of its territory in 1860-61--only controlling Rome itself at the time of Davis' letter. Outside of the propaganda value there was little to be gained from any potential papal endorsement."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2443#Letter2",
"http://civilwartalk.com/threads/jefferson-davis-and-pope-pius-ix.22780/",
"http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_Pope_Pius_IX"
]
] |
|
1vxm20
|
How great was Churchill's role in achieving allied victory in the second world war, and does he deserve his reputation as a great war leader?
|
Sources would be greatly appreciated.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1vxm20/how_great_was_churchills_role_in_achieving_allied/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cewryyz"
],
"score": [
72
],
"text": [
"Churchill's main accomplishment, in my humble opinion, was to keep British morale up and the British people willing to continue to sacrifice and endure while standing alone against Germany June 1940 to June 1941 and during the times of the great Soviet and British defeats in 1941 and 1942.\n\nHe was stubborn, a trait which is viewed as folly and idiocy if you are wrong and the the shining example in the darkness if you are right. He was a superb speaker and an excellent PR man, knowing how to grow his image and to sell the war to the citizens of the Empire.\n\nHe focused a bit too much on secondary or tertiary fronts and miscalculated the Japanese threat and mismanaged the Bengal famine 1943.\n\nHe did however, realise the absolute importance for victory that the Soviets remained in the fight, and the (highly needed at home) supplies, fighters and tanks he sent to the Soviets through dangerous routes (the Murmansk convoys suffered horrible casualties). I think it is a mark of a good leader that he can see past his own prejudiciers (Churchill was a staunch anti-communist) for the bigger picture. It was not until late 1943 that the US lend-lease to the Soviets exceeded the British one.\n\nThe British (and Canada) delivered 7 000 aircrafts, 5 000 tanks, 5 000 anti-tank guns, 15 million boots and 4 million tons of other war supplies to the Soviets.\n\nIf the British had not been in the war, would the Soviets have been able to withstand the German onslaught? Probably, but could they have taken the fight to Berlin? I doubt it. Would Germany have declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour without Britain in the fight? I doubt it again. And the US would have a very hard time to bring the fight to Europe without Britain to base off."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1tgwey
|
Could anyone tell me anything about modern Syria from between the Napoleonic Wars and the end of the Cold War?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1tgwey/could_anyone_tell_me_anything_about_modern_syria/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce7up8a"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Could you please repost this with a more specific question in mind? Your current question is very vague and you won't get any answers because of it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6dlrhu
|
Did ancient Egyptians really make Trans-oceanic travels that reached as far as the Americas? where was the furthest confirmed place they reach?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6dlrhu/did_ancient_egyptians_really_make_transoceanic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"di3o7tj",
"di3vbli"
],
"score": [
19,
7
],
"text": [
"The Egyptians were notorious for not having great wood, and consequently they could not build large, sturdy ships. There were only two different kinds of trees native to Egypt during that time. One was too soft for shipbuilding, the other was too small for larger ships. They built rafts instead for use in the Nile River.\n\nThe Egyptians instead hired the Phoenicians for their sailing expeditions. One famous example was during the reign of the pharaoh Necho II. During his reign, the Egyptians were under attack by the Babylonians, and he wanted to find a way to attack southern Babylonia by sea. He first wanted to build a canal between the Nile and the Red Sea, but discovered that he was giving free access to his enemies too. Instead, he hired Phoenician sailors to find a way to circumnavigate Africa at circa 600 BC.\n\nNecho II asked for Phoenician assistance because the Phoenicians (who lived in modern Lebanon) were excellent sailors and had several colonies in the West, such as Carthage and the islet of Mogador opposite modern Essaouira. The Phoenicians must have been happy to help the Egyptians, because they shared the Babylonian enemy. Here is Herodotus' account of the vovage, in a translation by Aubrey de Sélincourt.\n\nHerodotus' story:\n\n > Libya is washed on all sides by the sea except where it joins Asia, as was first demonstrated, so far as our knowledge goes, by the Egyptian king Necho, who, after calling off the construction of the canal between the Nile and the Arabian gulf, sent out a fleet manned by a Phoenician crew with orders to sail west about and return to Egypt and the Mediterranean by way of the Straits of Gibraltar. The Phoenicians sailed from the Arabian gulf into the southern ocean, and every autumn put in at some convenient spot on the Libyan coast, sowed a patch of ground, and waited for next year's harvest. Then, having got in their grain, they put to sea again, and after two full years rounded the Pillars of Heracles in the course of the third, and returned to Egypt. These men made a statement which I do not myself believe, though others may, to the effect that as they sailed on a westerly course round the southern end of Libya, they had the sun on their right - to northward of them. This is how Libya was first discovered by sea.\n\nThe reason Herodotus gives for disbelieving the story is the sailors' reported claim that when they sailed along the southern coast of Africa, they found the Sun stood to their right, in the north; Herodotus, who was unaware of the spherical shape of the Earth found this impossible to believe.\n\nMost modern historians claim that the Phoenicians did in fact successfully circumnavigate Africa. If it is true, then they would've been the first to circumnavigate Africa 2,000 years before the Portuguese. The journey was extremely difficult for the Portuguese. The fact that the Phoenicians were able to do it is a testament to their sailing capabilities. Further, because the Phoenicians circumnavigated Africa, it is very likely that they were also the first to know that the Earth was a sphere.\n\nAs far as most legendary Egyptian expeditions go, the circumnavigation of Africa is their greatest. Of course, they couldn't have done it without Phoenician expertise.",
"There's always room for discussion, but perhaps the section [Travel and contact across the Atlantic before Columbus](_URL_1_) from our FAQ will answer your inquiry. \n\nYou may also be interested in this previous topic regarding the supposed evidence of tobacco and coca found on Egyptian mummies.\n\n* [Over on /r/todayilearned there's a big thread right now about coca found in Egyptian tombs as evidence of contact with the Americas. What's actually going on here?](_URL_2_)\n\n* [Was there tobacco in Eurasia before the Columbian Exchange?](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4t6htu/was_there_tobacco_in_eurasia_before_the_columbian/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/nativeamerican#wiki_travel_and_contact_across_the_atlantic_before_columbus",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1wlujw/over_on_rtodayilearned_theres_a_big_thread_right/"
]
] |
||
3gx7p5
|
Were there every plans by the Allies to deal with Fascist Spain during or after WWII?
|
I know Franco did support the Axis powers with material support after German and Italian support during the Spanish Civil War, was there ever any talk by the Allies to stop this from happening, or even the possible overthrow of Franco's regime? Were there worries of another Republican/Left-wing revolution (Soviet Union had supported Republican Spain, anarchists and socialists had just fought a very bloody revolution)? Or was this more a pragmatism/worry about opening too many fronts?
(Sorry for the typo, I mean "ever plans")
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3gx7p5/were_there_every_plans_by_the_allies_to_deal_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu2euh3"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Spain's contribution to the Allies was largely in the form of the *Blue Division*, a unit or Spanish Volunteers that served on the Eastern Front. However, Spain did make it evident that it wasn't interested in aiding the Axis militarily or officially when Franco pulled the Blue Division and all other Spanish advisers and troops back to Spain, and then refused to officially enter the war on the side of the Axis. He also significantly rejected Operation Felix, a proposed German plan to seize the British territory of Gibraltar. Franco simply believed that Spain was too weak after its Civil War and could not wage a war unless tremendous amounts of food and material was provided by the Axis powers to feed and maintain any Spanish forces that would be contributed. This helps put the state of the Spanish economy a bit into perception. \n\nThe amount of financial, economic, or resource aid that Spain gave to the Axis wasn't enough to make the Allies consider a war with Spain. Spain did not really provide any of those anyways, and if it did, it would have been in very, very low amounts. It's only contribution was the Volunteer divisions, which Franco explicitly stressed could and would only be allowed to be used to fight against Communists on the Eastern Front. Spanish Volunteers weren't exactly *that* numerous either, and there was no need to go to war over the issue either when the Allies were able to simply diplomatically pressure Franco into withdrawing any and all troops helping the Axis on the Eastern Front. They negotiated with him in the spring of 1943, and Franco began to pull out Spanish troops by October 10th of the same year, ending any sort of Spanish involvement in the Second World War.\n\nThe fact that Spain helped the Axis wasn't seen as a reason to \"punish\" or attack Spain anymore than Sweden selling lots and lots of Iron Ore to Germany throughout WW2 made the Allies want to \"punish\" or invade Sweden. There was no real reason to declare war on Spain unless Spain became an aggressor herself. Most importantly, Spain was rabidly anti-communist, and in the 1950's, Spain was a prominent anti-communist country, with Franco himself being one of the world's most important anticommunist figures. Combined with the fact that Franco's regime gradually became less extreme and less of a dictatorship, the United States became a close ally of Spain and Franco in the 1950's as part of the containment policy of America. Spain fell into an agreement with the States in 1953 with the signing of the Pact of Madrid, and joined the United Nations in 1955."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1hk99t
|
How did the people and governments in China, Japan, etc, react when they learned of the New World to the East of them?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hk99t/how_did_the_people_and_governments_in_china_japan/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cav5bfm",
"cav6wuc",
"cavb53n",
"cavcvmx",
"cavizbg",
"cavkptb",
"cavkrq9"
],
"score": [
229,
44,
63,
122,
6,
8,
10
],
"text": [
"In the 17th century Japan was only vaguely aware in the context of \"here is another place that is being completely overrun by Christianity\". Whether that played a role in the closure is uncertain.\n\nThey did continue to update their maps of the world with the assistance of the Dutch, and were apparently aware of the existence of the United States by the time Perry arrived.",
"Well China had been over in North America back in the 1600's, and pretty much right after our revolution we were doing some form of trade with China.\n\nChina was, if I remember right, fairly amped about this. I mean it's a new country with a lot of possible use as a barrier between them and Europe, they wanted to be our buddies and we wanted to be theirs. Still, most of our relations with them were trade and, of course, missionaries. We didn't see a ton of Chinese immigrants and such until fairly into the 19th century.\n\nOf course a major factor in this is that the Qing Dynasty outright banned oversees immigration and trade because they wanted to tell Ming loyalists to eat all the dicks in the world and not let them establish any overseas bases to fight from. It wasn't until the Burlingame Treaty in 1868 that the US and China officially became friendly and immigrants were allowed to come over.\n\nBasically their reaction was 'oh neat, those guys settled that land the Spanish had or whatever, let's be buddies with them but I don't really want to live there'.\n\nJapan, like already said, didn't give much of a shit. It was basically a 'huh? Oh, ok, another land full of white Christians, yipee' and a map update until Perry came.\n\nFor the rest of the Asian/South Pacific area I believe, and I could be wrong, they fell in the Japanese thought school of 'meh whatever it doesn't affect me'.",
"IMO comments here are a few hundred years after the fact. \n\nI'd be curious to know when knowledge of the new world reached the east, and their reactions to that. I think that's what the post is asking, not what they thought of the US or the colonies. I'd think early 1500's not 1600's or 1700's.",
"The Chinese had trade routes and were obviously aware of the world around them to some degree, but I also think it's important to point out the extent to which the Chinese rulers held European powers in contempt. Here is the [Qianlong Emperor's letter to George III after the Macartney Embassy to China in 1792:](_URL_0_)\n\n > You, O King, from afar have yearned after the blessings of our civilization, and in your eagerness to come into touch with our converting influence have sent an Embassy across the sea bearing a memorial [memorandum]. I have already **taken note of your respectful spirit of submission**, have treated your mission with extreme favor and loaded it with gifts, besides issuing a mandate to you, O King, and honoring you at the bestowal of valuable presents. Thus has my indulgence been manifested.\n > \n > Yesterday your Ambassador petitioned my Ministers to memorialize me regarding your trade with China, but his proposal is not consistent with our dynastic usage and cannot be entertained. **Hitherto, all European nations, including your own country's barbarian merchants, have carried on their trade with our Celestial Empire at Canton. Such has been the procedure for many years, although our Celestial Empire possesses all things in prolific abundance and lacks no product within its own borders. There was therefore no need to import the manufactures of outside barbarians in exchange for our own produce. But as the tea, silk and porcelain which the Celestial Empire produces, are absolute necessities to European nations and to yourselves, we have permitted, as a signal mark of favor, that foreign hongs [groups of merchants] should be established at Canton, so that your wants might be supplied and your country thus participate in our beneficence. But your Ambassador has now put forward new requests which completely fail to recognize the Throne's principle to \"treat strangers from afar with indulgence,\" and to exercise a pacifying control over barbarian tribes, the world over.** Moreover, our dynasty, swaying the myriad races of the globe, extends the same benevolence towards all. Your England is not the only nation trading at Canton. If other nations, following your bad example, wrongfully importune my ear with further impossible requests, how will it be possible for me to treat them with easy indulgence? Nevertheless, I do not forget the lonely remoteness of your island, cut off from the world by intervening wastes of sea, nor do I overlook your excusable ignorance of the usages of our Celestial Empire. I have consequently commanded my Ministers to enlighten your Ambassador on the subject, and have ordered the departure of the mission. But I have doubts that, after your Envoy's return he may fail to acquaint you with my view in detail or that he may be lacking in lucidity, so that I shall now proceed ... to issue my mandate on each question separately. In this way you will, I trust, comprehend my meaning....\n > \n > Your request for a small island near Chusan [a group of islands in the East China Sea at the entrance to Hangchow Bay], where your merchants may reside and goods be warehoused, arises from your desire to develop trade. As there are neither foreign hongs nor interpreters in or near Chusan, where none of your ships have ever called, such an island would be utterly useless for your purposes. Every inch of the territory of our Empire is marked on the map and the strictest vigilance is exercised over it all: even tiny islets and far-lying sand-banks are clearly defined as part of the provinces to which they belong. Consider, moreover, that England is not the only barbarian land which wishes to establish ... trade with our Empire: supposing that other nations were all to imitate your evil example and beseech me to present them each and all with a site for trading purposes, how could I possibly comply? This also is a flagrant infringement of the usage of my Empire and cannot possibly be entertained.\n > \n > The next request, for a small site in the vicinity of Canton city, where your barbarian merchants may lodge or, alternatively, that there be no longer any restrictions over their movements at Aomen [a city some to the south of Canton, at the lower end of the Pearl (Zhu) River delta] has arisen from the following causes. Hitherto, the barbarian merchants of Europe have had a definite locality assigned to them at Aomen for residence and trade, and have been forbidden to encroach an inch beyond the limits assigned to that locality. . . . If these restrictions were withdrawn, friction would inevitably occur between the Chinese and your barbarian subjects, and the results would militate against the benevolent regard that I feel towards you. From every point of view, therefore, it is best that the regulations now in force should continue unchanged....\n > \n > **Regarding your nation's worship of the Lord of Heaven, it is the same religion as that of other European nations. Ever since the beginning of history, sage Emperors and wise rulers have bestowed on China a moral system and inculcated a code, which from time immemorial has been religiously observed by the myriads of my subjects [the reference is to Confucianism]. There has been no hankering after heterodox doctrines. Even the European (missionary) officials in my capital are forbidden to hold intercourse with Chinese subjects; they are restricted within the limits of their appointed residences, and may not go about propagating their religion. The distinction between Chinese and barbarian is most strict, and your Ambassador's request that barbarians shall be given full liberty to disseminate their religion is utterly unreasonable.**\n > \n > It may be, O King, that the above proposals have been wantonly made by your Ambassador on his own responsibility, or peradventure you yourself are ignorant of our dynastic regulations and had no intention of transgressing them when you expressed these wild ideas and hopes.... If, after the receipt of this explicit decree, you lightly give ear to the representations of your subordinates and allow your barbarian merchants to proceed to Chêkiang and Tientsin [two Chinese port cities], with the object of landing and trading there, the ordinances of my Celestial Empire are strict in the extreme, and the local officials, both civil and military, are bound reverently to obey the law of the land. Should your vessels touch the shore, your merchants will assuredly never be permitted to land or to reside there, but will be subject to instant expulsion. In that event your barbarian merchants will have had a long journey for nothing. Do not say that you were not warned in due time! **Tremblingly obey and show no negligence!** A special mandate!",
"American ginseng was our first export to China way back in the 1700's, so that's something.\n\n_URL_0_",
"The most salient example of Chinese exploration comes from the historic story of [Zheng He](_URL_0_), who led enormous seafaring vessels (~20,000 person capacity) around the South China Sea and westwards to Africa. He took these voyages 7 (?) times, each time kind of dallying about in some port or another before deciding to either carry on or go home. That was in the 14th century during the height of the Ming dynasty's power. The Ming histories show an acute awareness of other cultures, most notably that other cultures were inferior to Chinese at the time. \n\nThis is the most interesting aspect of the Zheng He expeditions, because these enormous vessels were not designed to increase trade with any of the areas visited. Instead, the voyages were designed to represent Chinese strength and technological prowess. This mentality carried on until the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1911.\n\nThe Chinese perspective of the Americas was effectively \"so what.\" Until the Boxer Rebellion and the burning of such monuments as the Old Summer Palace in Beijing, Chinese people were largely despondent and apathetic towards America as a power. The Opium wars were marked by conflict throughout the coastal regions, but the Chinese aristocracy was convinced (rightly or wrongly, you be the judge) that the strength of China was largely intact and only hindered by the rampant state of opium addictions. [Lin Zixu famously wrote a letter](_URL_1_) to Queen Victoria in 1839 denouncing the British practice of trading Indian opium to the Chinese in exchange for silver. Even when the US, England, French, and Russians were destroying port cities in battles, Lin still used very bold language that regards China as the highest power on earth. He opens by saying:\n > The kings of your honorable country by a tradition handed down from generation to generation have always been noted for their politeness and submissiveness. \n\nLin then continues by saying that \n > But after a long period of commercial intercourse, there appear among the crowh of barbarians both good persons and bad, unevenly. Consequently there are those who smuggle opium to seduce the Chinese people and so cause the spread of the poison to all provinces. Such persons who only care to profit themselves, and disregard their harm to others, are not tolerated by the laws of heaven and are unanimoly hated by human beings. His Majesty the Emperor, upon hearing of this, is in a towering rage.\n\nThis letter is a pinnacle example of how China viewed the rest of the world. Great Britain, the great colonizer, was viewed as a mere peon compared to the grandeur that Lin (and others like him) saw China as. \n\nOver time this attitude led to the deterioration of China from the inside out, leading to the creation of the (soon to fail) nationalist party and the CCP in a very interesting and organic process of intellectual extension. \n\nI know that this was a bit sparse on detail, but I hope that it may have elucidated the overarching theme that China viewed itself as the bee's knees when America came onto the international scene.",
"It appears that the Chinese were aware of the Americas at least in 1602 when Friar Matteo Ricci printed the Kunyu Wanguo Quantu mappa mundi for the Wanli Emperor. The Jesuit order was responsible for desiminating a lot of European knowledge practices around the world, such as phonetic writing in the Americas, and geometric cartography in China.\n\nAs for the Chinese reaction to this, I could not be more ignorant."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/2c/texts/1792QianlongLetterGeorgeIII.htm"
],
[
"http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ginseng.html?c=y&page=2"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He",
"http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/com-lin.html"
],
[]
] |
||
cj42mg
|
With common thinking being WWI tactics were outdated compared to the technology of the time, has there been a modern review into a more optimum way to approach warfare of the time? Would different tactics have made a substantial difference to the outcome of the war?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cj42mg/with_common_thinking_being_wwi_tactics_were/
|
{
"a_id": [
"evctszr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Not to discourage any new answers and lord knows more can be written on the subject, but I wrote a little bit about tactics [here](_URL_1_) which partly answers your question, and also another answer on technological innovations [here](_URL_0_).\n\nIn short, no, tactics were largely a product of and by extension limited by the available technology. Tactical innovations developed hand in hand with technological innovations, with the additional constraints of gearing up for mass production of these new technologies, as well as the discovery (often through trial and error), and promulgation of the new doctrines that allowed mass armies to leverage said technology. \n\nThus the 'common thinking' is somewhat detached from reality."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/buyiog/why_were_soldiers_sent_over_the_top_in_ww1/epmdh9x/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bxecaq/how_come_commanders_in_both_sides_of_wwi_didnt/eqe7cve/"
]
] |
||
85oz3v
|
Can you recommend a good, well rounded and possibly impartial book on different political ideologies? (At least the most common ones, communism, socialism and capitalism. And their different "branches")
|
I am looking for a book that explains political ideologies and their branches (because I find confusing how can there be a anarcocommunism and anarcocapitalism for example or a liberal libertarianism, liberal conservative, etc).
I know its probably a very hard question to answer with just one book. One if preferable, but more recommendations are welcome.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/85oz3v/can_you_recommend_a_good_well_rounded_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvzk6nu"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"For the second year of my government and politics A-level we used Political Ideologies: an Introduction by Andrew Heywood. It gives quite a comprehensive explanation of the main political ideologies as well as a number of other political thoughts. Its primary use is as a a-level textbook aimed at those aged 16-18 but as i said it is surprisingly comprehensive. The book explores the origins, key individuals and theorists, history, modern uses, key ideas and tenets, and branches of each ideology. \n\nThe ideologies it covers (in the 4th edition) are liberalism, conservatism, socialism, anarchism, fascism, nationalism, feminism, ecologism, religious fundamentalism, and multiculturalism (I checked the newer 6th edition online and it seems to have slightly different ones such as 'green ideology' as opposed to 'ecologism' and 'Islamism' rather than fundamentalism). As you can see, some of these may not strike you immediately as a \"political ideology\" in its own right but it still gives a relatively detailed explanation of the development and uses of each nonetheless and also gives a 'further reading' list at the end of each ideology. \n\nCapitalism is explored in liberalism, and communism (and it's various forms) in socialism. As a textbook widely used in schools it would be expected to be almost entirely impartial and unbiased. \n\nIt should also be noted that there would be alternatives to this book given that it is a school textbook however, it is the most widely used text book on ideologies used in British schools. But even though it is a textbook, it will certainly serve your purpose and the introduction gives an explanation of 'right' and 'left'."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3l4lvz
|
Regional variations of medieval helmets?
|
When I watch videos or read about late medieval armor (1300-1500), many of them talk about the different helmets ( armets, bascinets, sallets, etc.). I can identify all these ones, but sometimes the author or video maker also makes comments on the region, saying that they can find similarities in the armor attributed to a certain region/power/kingdom/country of Europe (e.g. a Milanese variation pigfaced bascinet visor in comparison to an English one). While I can see different variations from antique helmets when I search them up, I can't tell what is what. Is there any info on how to identify certain helmets from certain regions? Any fashions specific from one kingdom to another's visors/shape/etc. in helmets? Are there any good books that you would recommend that would help identify these?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3l4lvz/regional_variations_of_medieval_helmets/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv47isx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"For books, the two I would recommend that are generally available are:\n\nClaude Blair - European Armour Circa 1066-1700 (available from well-stocked libraries or online sellers)\n\nEdge and Paddock - Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight\n\nThey are both general introductions, and Edge and Paddock honestly take so much from Blair that they are fairly similar in content, though Blair is more focused (Edge and Paddock have better pictures, though). Tobias Capwell at the Wallace Collection has written a book on English Armour 1400-1450 that should provide much better information on English helmets specifically. In addition, a thorough online collection like that at the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Metropolitan Museum of Art can show you different styles of helmet if you search by country of origins, though this is more of a supplement to the books above.\n\nThat said, some generalizations, focused on the 15th century, my main area of study:\n\nTypes of Helmets:\n\nBascinets - 14th and early 15th century - Used throughout Europe. The main regional difference is in the way the visor is attached - the Germans use a single pivot in the center of the helmet (a 'Klappvisor') after the Italians and others have moved to a side-pivoted visor in the later 14th century.\n\nGreat Basicinets - (IE, those which replace the maille aventail with metal plates) - 15th century, most popular in c1420-1450 or so - Primarily used in Germany and England, France and the Low Countries; Italians seem to prefer armets to great basinets in the second quarter of the 15th century. German examples are close fitting to the skull, while examples from England/France/Flanders etc. are bulkier.\n\nArmets - 15th century - in the second and third quarter of the 15th century they seem to be most popular in Italy, so earlier armets are probably Italian. Toward the end of the century they seem to be more widely used. Flemish and Spanish armets in particular often have bellows-like fluting on the visor.\n\nBarbutes - 15th century - These helmets (with their t-shaped face opening) are almost always Italian.\n\nKettle Hats - 13th-15th century* - These are widely used, though I see limited evidence for the English using them very much, at least after 1400. Some types of German kettle hats had a brim turned around evenly all around the head with sallet-like vision slits; other nations didn't seem to use these much. Many 15th century kettle hats have brims turned down at the sides but up in the front and back (kind of like a later morion); the Spanish in particular seem to have favored this with a bevor that covered the entire face, even including vision slits within the bevor (many examples are illustrated in 'The Medieval Armour from Rhodes' by Karcheski and Richardson).\n\nSallets - 15th century - Every nation in Western Europe used sallets. They are nearly ubiquitous from 1450-1500. \n\nSallets in Germany - Generally, the Germans were later to adopt sallets and eventually developed sallets with very deep skulls and very long tails (occasionally the tail is articulated). Some 'black sallets' are left rough from the hammer and often painted. Around the turn of the 15th-16th centuries Sallets with very deep skulls, short articulated tails and visors that cover nearly the entire face appear, often with both vision slits and breath-slits near the mouth (the overall effect is that they look like Iron Man).\n\nSallets in England/France/Low Countries - Generally these are less deep than German sallets, with somewhat shorter tails. Sometimes made in Italy for export.\n\nSallets in Italy - Toward the end of the 15th century deep sallets with bellows-shaped visiors appear; these are almost always Italian.\n\nClose Helm-Sallets - 1480-1500 - Sallets with a bevor that is attached to the helmet and can pivot up. These are generally from England or the low countries. EDIT - However there are some German examples, following the broader German sallet styles.\n\n\n*Even later if you include Morions."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1nfwj0
|
How effective were medieval or renaissance doctors, really?
|
Obviously they had to be successful some of the time, otherwise they wouldn't have a job. But how often did they have success? What kinds of illnesses could they treat?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nfwj0/how_effective_were_medieval_or_renaissance/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccis2dk",
"cciewzk",
"ccify9l",
"cciihj2"
],
"score": [
4,
57,
22,
3
],
"text": [
"It has been estimated that 1911 is the first year when a patient was objectively likely to benefit from being treated by a doctor. \n\n\n > (L.J Henderson: \"somewhere between 1910 and 1912 in this country, a random patient with a random disease, consulting a doctor at random had, for the first time in the history of mankind, a better than a fifty-fifty chance of profiting from the encounter.\"\n\n > John Bunker (2001) *Medicine Matters After All: Measuring the benefits of medical care, a healthy lifestyle, and a just social environment* (Nuffield Trust)\n\n\nWhy go to the doctor then?\n\nPlacebo effect is extremely powerful. If a doctor gives your a pill you will usually feel better. Even if the patient is told it is a placebo, it still works. ([*Placebos without Deception: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Irritable Bowel Syndrome*]\n(_URL_0_))\n\n\nIn addition to the placebo effect, most people tend to go to the doctor when they are on the point of recovering anyway. The patient's own immune system deals with the problem and the fake pill or leech gets the credit. The Hawthorne Effect and other upward biases apply. ([*The Hawthorne Effect And The Overestimation of Treatment Effectiveness*, Psychology Today](_URL_1_)).\n\n\n\nBecause of these barriers to seeing anything resembling a clear and simple cause and effect in medical phenomena, it took a long time to develop the intellectual tools and financial resources to do proper medical studies. It is extremely difficult to figure out what works. Modern double-blind medical studies with 3 stages of human trials and large groups of statistically significant data are at the very top-end of the most complex and difficult scientific studies to accurately carry out. It typically takes around 10 years and billion dollars to successfully test a drug and get it to market.\n\nThis was way beyond anyone's comprehension or resources before the Victorian era, so it's no wonder that medical science didn't acheive very much before that. \n\nPasteur's rabies vaccination, established around 1870, was the first medical treatment based on scientific evidence.\n",
"The breadth of knowledge and depth of training would probably surprise you.\n\nTo name a few things they would have known how to do: suture wounds, disinfect (sort of), set broken bones so the limb doesn't shorten, deal with compound (i.e. open) fractures, dislocations, perform amputations. \n\nThey knew the importance of cleanliness (even if they didn't know about germs), they knew about gangrene and debridement of dead flesh.\n\nThey knew about cancer, and knew that you could cure it by amputation and excision in some cases (much as we do now).\n\nNot only that, but much of this knowledge dates back to the Classical era and possibly before.\n\nSource: largely Paulis Aegineta's *De Re Medica Libri Septem*, a sort of medical encyclopedia written around 700CE.",
"It also depends upon WHERE the doctor in question was. For instance, living in Cairo or Baghdad, the doctors would have been fairly well versed not only in Greek and Indian medical theory, they would also have had some pretty good Arab texts to refer to as well. Some of the medicine, as hydrogenjoule noted, could definitely surprise you then; medieval Baghdadi physicians were able to make reasonably good prosthesis and even reconstruct the nose on your face after that unfortunate sword-fighting accident. Some Medieval Arab medical doctors also studied mental illness and its treatments as well as the effect of diet upon the health of the subject. \nIn Europe, the quality varied; Italian doctors who had access to medical texts from around the world were generally pretty good given the circumstances; the iconic 'bird face' plague masks were good, if inadequate, attempts to prevent the spread of plagues to doctors (and thus diminish their effectiveness). Doctors in other regions, such as Russia or England were less well trained, often combining superstition with on the job training, so medicine was basically a crap shoot, though some herbal lore did make a difference in expunging infections and assisting in the healing of wounds. That being said, the wealthy could afford the best and often got them, regardless of location, while the poor often turned to folk remedies or village elders for treatment.\nRemember, a lot of the medical advances we take for granted are barely 150 years old; Joseph Lister [1827 - 1912] (after whom Listerine was named) was derided for his views on preventing infection by sterilization of hands and equipment as late as the 1860s.",
"One important thing to keep in mind when talking about medieval (at least, *early* medieval) medicine is that in this period the borders between Religion, Science, Magic, and Medicine were far more...permeable than they are today. \n\nIf you want a better idea of how the medieval world conceived this sort of stuff, you might consider checking out Dr. Stuart D. Lee's \"Medieval English in context\" free lectures available through iTunesU or through the Oxford website; he has a lecture which gives a broad overview of how the Anglo-Saxons conceived of medicine, science, magic, and religious healing which might answer some of your questions. \n\nIf you're looking to get your hands dirty, why not try thumbing through [Bald's Leechbook](_URL_0_) for some cure-alls?\n\nThat being said, other posters are right; the amount that Medieval doctors *could* do, given their circumstances, was impressive."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015591",
"http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/overcoming-pain/201011/the-hawthorne-effect-and-the-overestimation-treatment-effectiveness"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://archive.org/download/leechdomswortcun02cock/leechdomswortcun02cock.pdf"
]
] |
|
e8mmyb
|
Why didn't Florida become part of Mexico if it was part of New Spain when the Mexican War of Independence broke out?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/e8mmyb/why_didnt_florida_become_part_of_mexico_if_it_was/
|
{
"a_id": [
"faeacb1"
],
"score": [
20
],
"text": [
"This is an excellent question. I think it would be appropriate to outline the administrative districts for a moment. You are right that in the first two decades of the 19th century Florida was under the jurisdiction of the Vice Royalty of New Spain. This designation, however, does not mean that it shared the same cultural, economic, social, or political problems. When the Spanish Crown first began to consolidate power in the early 16th century, they created the Audiencia of Santo Domingo. These court systems were the foundation for political and legal control in the region. Overtime, the Santo Domingo courts could no longer govern effectively and additional audiencias were created. Overtime and through trial and error, the Spanish Crown realized that it needed greater political control. This led to the creation of the Viceroyalties of New Spain and Peru. Still, political and economic control did not mean that each viceroyalty’s dominion was homogeneous. New Spain had power over the Caribbean but also Central America and California, areas that were not alike. Peru controlled the Andes, but those areas were just as diverse geographically as they were demographically. Curiously, Venezuela was not put into a viceregal unit until the early 18th century, when it was removed from the jurisdiction of the Audiencia of Santo Domingo. This is a long way of saying that the viceregal state and its subjects were never on the same page at the same time.\n\nWorking to limit Creek trade networks and Spanish control in the western part of the colony, President Thomas Jefferson and his administration worked for years to subvert Spanish control in the region. Some of his antics would no doubt have fit right in with American foreign policy ideas in the 1970s and 1980s in Latin America. Jefferson urged the Governor of New Orleans to send in bandits and irregular militia into Spanish areas of Biloxi and Mobile. This drew Spanish security forces away from Pensacola and the Creek frontier and disrupted trade and settlement. American ships even worked with British Royal Navy vessels to capture Spanish and even Creek-controlled shipping, which the Americans would then buy off the British and press them into American coastal service. Despite his best efforts, Jefferson was unable to provoke the Spanish colonial or royal authorities into a war, but he certainly tried. Unfortunately for Jefferson, colonial Florida in the 1800-1820 period was perhaps the freest place in North America. Religiously, Catholics were free to settle in the area but protestants were not prevented from settling in the Spanish colony as long as their services were not advertised. Taxes and trade benefits were better in Pensacola and St. Augustine than in New Orleans and Charleston. Land was virtually free to any settler that wanted it and promised to serve the Spanish Crown and pay their low taxes. Spanish authorities attracted a few thousand American citizens after the war who took advantage of the land and financial freedoms. Most of them settled alongside former British subjects who had no rebelled during the war and had not evacuated the colony once the Spanish took control in the 1780s. In the east, the situation was similar. Spanish authorities ruled over a mixture of Spanish, British, and American subjects who moved or stayed in the area after the war to take advantage of the economic climate.\n\nWith the rebellion led by Hidalgo, central and southern New Spain were clearly in the middle of a major conflict zone. Northern New Spain and California, as well as what is now Central America, were not as active in what was clearly at first an indigenous uprising in a specific area. Florida fell into a similar predicament. What did they care if the indigenous peoples of central New Spain marched on Mexico City? Spanish relations with the Creek nation were on a slightly more equal footing than with the indios of New Spain. By the time Morelos died in New Spain in 1815, American expansion into the Florida colony included Mobile and they even occupied a fort north of St. Augustine. Finally, after American raids into the colony hunting down Seminole and Creek forces, the “accidental” capture of Pensacola and the panhandle by Jackson in 1817, and the understanding that the US would ignore territory belonging to New Spain proper, the Spanish ceded Florida in 1819. Royal authorities in New Spain negotiated a treaty with rebels there signaling the end of the Mexican Wars of Independence in early 1821. Florida became an official possession of the US a few months after that.\n\nSo to answer your question more briefly, Florida’s political, economic, and social makeup was so different than New Spain’s that locals in Florida were not bothered by social and political unrest there. Once the revolt became something larger than an indigenous uprising, the Florida colony was still not in a position to help in any way nor did it have the ability to so if they did. Once the Mexican state was created in the 1820-21 period, Spanish Florida was no longer an entity that Mexico could claim.\n\nJ. A. Brown, “Panton, Leslie and Company Indian Traders of Pensacola and St. Augustine” in FHQ, Vol. 37, No. 3/4 (Jan. -Apr. 1959).\n\nL.N. McAlister, “Pensacola during the Second Spanish Period” in FHQ, Vol. 37, No. 3/4 (Jan. - Apr. 1959).\n\nDavid H. White, “The Forbes Company in Spanish Florida, 1801-1806” in FHQ, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Jan. 1974).\n\nGilbert C. Din, “A Troubled Seven Years: Spanish Reactions to American Claims and Aggression in “West Florida,” 1803-1810” in Louisiana History, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Fall 2018), pp. 409-452\n\nPeter Zahendra, “Spanish West Florida” PhD diss., (University of Michigan, 1976)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
57utud
|
Were Native North Americans egalitarian?
|
It goes without saying this include many diverse societies. Any info is appreciated.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/57utud/were_native_north_americans_egalitarian/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8v5ulw"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"I was writing something up for your previous submission. Thankfully, I saw you deleted it before posting, haha.\n\nWhat often determined how egalitarian a society was is the societal structure and resources. Many Native American communities were hunter-gatherer societies. Some were farmers. Some had a combination. However, most were communal. This caused them to have a more egalitarian society than what we see today because the \"wealth,\" so to speak, was distributed more evenly because life was organized around kinship ties and reciprocity for the well being of the whole community. This lifestyle was rooted in both cultural value as well as economic value.\n\nIn terms of cultural value, sharing, gift-giving, and trading were all highly valued because what was given was expected to be repaid in some way later in the future (hence the \"reciprocity\"). This was because resources were often limited and the gaining of resources required community effort, more than what one person could provide.\n\nThis leads into what we could consider the economic value. Because many hunter-gatherers were nomadic or semi-nomadic, they were not able to keep vast reserves of food on hand. They needed to carry what they needed. This means that they could not sustain a population beyond a certain size. Thus, many native societies were balanced in number of births and deaths. And when there isn't a surplus of food, you are more dependent on others of your community who have also gathered enough food. This indicates that not one person was in charge of all the food. It was all shared and \"owned\" by the community. Unlike in agricultural and industrial societies, structures where mass production of resources can be carried out by a few, hunter-gatherers had to share everything in order for everyone to survive. This meant that resources, particularly food and shelter, were distributed equally. Individual wealth and prestige might differ, but not so much as to offset the balance of the society.\n\nAs other societies changed into more mass production societies, a greater inequality developed. For example, in a mostly agricultural society (this is assuming most people are not farmers in this society), one farmer is providing for a large amount of people. He might \"hire\" other workers, but he pays them enough to survive. If there is any surplus, it now belongs to the farmer and he earns a \"profit.\" He now has more \"wealth\" than his workers and the rest of the community because he owns the means of production, people are dependent on him, and he keeps the surplus.\n\nNow the above example also depends on other variables such as ideology, religion, and culture, but it is a straightforward example of how inequality grows with increased wealth. The above, however, is more of a general consideration. It starts to change when we consider specific tribes. We'll go with my tribe for an example.\n\nI am from the Nez Perce Tribe. We are a Plateau tribe and, in the past, semi-nomadic. We had a class system in place. It consisted of three levels: upper class, lower class, and slave class. The tribe was split into individual \"bands\" that would move around and establish villages. The upper class was mainly chiefs and their families, medicine men, and other important figures. The lower class could be warriors and your average citizen of a tribe. The slave class was, obviously, the slave class. While there exist this hierarchy, the other classes were not completely disadvantaged. Those of the upper class could marry anyone from another class and the lower class would enter the upper class. Those of the lower classes were not despised, but were cared for just like any other member of the tribe, including the slaves. A person from the lower class could even become a chief through a more or less democratic process and join the upper class. It was not completely wealth based and it was more fluid than one might think. Now, someone couldn't just decide one day to switch classes, but they were not treated like the poor and impoverished of today's world.\n\nPeople were provided for. If they had nothing, they were given things. If they had low quality things, the customs of the tribe could get them higher quality. So in the end, I would say on average, yes, Native American tribes were at least *more* egalitarian than people give them credit for and even when compared to situations in our modern world.\n\n**Edit:** Two words."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
aqt00t
|
Were there ever Christian plans to continue the Reconquista into North Africa, the Levant and Mesopotamia after the Reconquista?
|
The Reconquista ended in 1492. Contrary to what Spain says about the Reconquista, the Reconquista specified the period from 722 to 1492. The Reconquista was made by Christians to recover the Iberian Peninsula from Muslims.
& #x200B;
Without Spain, there is no Reconquista. When the Reconquista happened, there were Christian plans to reconquer Spain by 1492. The Muslims managed to take over the Iberian Peninsula, North Africa, the Levant, Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Cyprus and parts of South Asia, Central Asia, Georgia and Turkey during the expansion of the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates.
& #x200B;
Were there ever Christian plans to continue the Reconquista into North Africa, the Levant and Mesopotamia after the Reconquista?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/aqt00t/were_there_ever_christian_plans_to_continue_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eglyptc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"/u/Hussein_Sonic, see this [post](_URL_2_). \n\nThe monarchs, nobles, and enterprisers of Spain's composite monarchy in the early modern era did have designs to continue the Reconquista to north Africa. There were various plans and attempts to realize this, with widely varying degrees of success. And just like with other endeavors, there were ebbs and flows. \n\nIn the 1500s, Spain was able to conquer several key positions and maintain a string of garrisons in North Africa, the idea being to disrupt Ottoman galley operation and enable that of the galley fleets of their allies. [Galley warfare](_URL_1_) was the dominant marine and coastal way of war, and it was very resource extensive as one has to maintain and replenish crewmen. As such, maintenance of friendly outposts and denial of enemy access to their own outposts was vital. \n\nThe high watermark of Spanish expansion into North Africa was in 1511, when they controlled string of outposts (*presidios*) from Melilla, Mers el-Kebir, Oran, Budia, and going as far east as Tripoli. The Spanish were able to force local rulers into vassal status. Of course, Portugal also had expanded into North Africa, taking Ceuta and Tangiers among other outposts. For example, here's a [set of stunning photos of the *presidio* on Peñón de Alhucemas in Morocco](_URL_4_). And here is a photo of the [Melila *presidio*](_URL_5_) of which some walls and redoubts survive today even as a city grew around it. \n\nUnfortunately for Habsburg Spain, the Ottoman empire and her agents were able to push back, leading to the loss of most of these outposts. This is why the Ottomans were hell bent on taking Malta, even if the [Knights of Malta](_URL_0_) heroically defended their island outpost in 1565. \nAll this spectacularly coming to a head in the [Battle of Lepanto](_URL_3_) in 1571. \n\nIn between, there were major attempts to re-take lost outposts, one of the most important was Charles V's attempt to take Algiers in 1534. He assembled a large galley fleet, but was beset by poor weather that led to the loss of a significant portion of his force. Notably, a disgraced Hernan Cortés -- having been denied the vice-royalty he sought in the Americas -- was part of this expedition, even if he was not invited to the war council. His sense of honor slighted, Cortés asked to be allowed to make a last stand to the death, but this too was denied. \n\nBut why did Spain fail to achieve her goals in north Africa? As I wrote [here](_URL_3_), a lot of Spain's plans were thwarted by heretics in Germany, in the Low Countries, and in England. Over time, low level warfare and raids continued in the Mediterranean coasts, both sides raiding for loot and captives. The continuing enmity and lack of security in the western Mediterranean eventually led to further and further pressure on Moriscos in Spain, culminating in the expulsion of Moriscos in 1609. \n\nThe history of Spain's north Africa is truly overlooked but has been asked about twice here recently. I wonder what triggered the interest. \n\nReferences? This is a bit complicated. You can start with the highly readable *Pirates of the Barbary Coast* by Tinniswood which covers the conflict at large but little on the *presidios* themselves. There is a recent collection of academic essays *Spanning the Strait* which covers many aspects of what I wrote above, and is probably the best starting point. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3cad61/why_did_the_king_of_spain_want_a_falcon_from_the/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/37mpi4/how_did_naval_warfare_look_like_in_the_high_and/croaz5e",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/63k6bi/why_did_the_reconquista_stop_at_spain_why_didnt/dfuwqfy/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5v60xw/why_the_holy_league_didnt_try_take_down_the/de0slko/",
"https://www.google.com/search?q=Pe%C3%B1%C3%B3n+de+Alhucemas&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJ3pWnvI3TAhXJKyYKHT9iCkAQ_AUICSgC&biw=1057&bih=833",
"https://conocemoselmedio.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/1-melilla-la-vieja1.jpg"
]
] |
|
2615yl
|
Question about maces and war hammers in medieval warfare.
|
I'm a medieval knight in full plate armor, dismounted, in the middle of a battle. An enemy knight walks up, rears back and smashes me full in the chestplate with the blunt end of his heavy iron war hammer. What exactly happens to my armor? What effect does the blow have on my body?
Note, I'm currently trying to design a realistic combat system for a videogame I'm working on. The game involves several types of weapons, including some blunt medieval style weapons like war hammers, sledgehammers, maces... I need to figure out what kind of damage these sorts of weapons cause, and how they interact with different forms of armor.
Thanks in advance for any help.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2615yl/question_about_maces_and_war_hammers_in_medieval/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chmntwe",
"chmukvv"
],
"score": [
25,
38
],
"text": [
"It really depends on how good your armour is. A nice expensive southern German suit of armour c. 1500 would have been carefully tempered and \"proofed\" by having every large plate shot by high draw-weight bow or crossbow, leaving a characteristic round dent which could be shown to the customer before being lightly pressed back out. The real point of armour in my opinion having made and worn quite a bit is to defend from the attacks you aren't expecting, like arrows and bolts. You would hope to defend from melee weapons primarily with your own weapons by parrying and such. A really nice armour would probably have been strong enough to shatter the shaft of any arrow that wasn't of the highest quality. However, being struck by a mace on the chest would probably deliver more force than an arrow and would probably have been purposefully directed at striking a particular point. I have never tried hitting my armour that hard as I have put a lot of time into making it nice and it isn't tempered, but I assume that it would leave a deeper dent from where the flanges hit the armour. The force would probably be multiplied greatly if the horse's rearing follows the motion of the hit, or if the horse is charging you. If he wasn't using a mace but instead a longer blunt weapon, this would also contribute to more force. \n\nNow, what would that do to your body? if the attacking edge of the weapon was spiked and passed through your armour at all you would probably be dead. There is a modern conception that knights wore many layers of armour on top of each other. This is not the case, as tempered thick plate like that would be really heavy, only supplemented by maille at joints. Beneath you would have a padded jacket, but even these couldn't have been to thick as they constrict motion a lot and are really hot! So you would only have maybe half an inch of cloth and maybe so air space between the plate and your actual body, so basically any breach in the armour is a KO. If got hit the force would also probably break your bones and seriously bruise your body, because that is a lot of force that the armour isn't going to absorb, but is going to transfer to your padding and then to your body. On a horse, a knight would most easily hit you on the head, and that would be the most advantageous to him, as you would hopefully be knocked out. Then he could kill you, but since you have really expensive armour, you would probably get dragged out of the battle by your opponents so they could ransom you. \n\nIn the end, anything other than the best armour would mean death if you were attacked by a mounted knight. \n\nTL;DR Your armour would be dented if not wrecked if they hit you with excessive force from being on horseback or using a longer weapon, you would be seriously bruised if not dead, and the blow would probably knock you to the ground. ",
"There are a couple of different kinds of plate armour and the effect would inevitably vary depending on what you were wearing. There are also several factors to consider when taking an impact from a weapon. My expertise is pretty limited with regards to types of war hammer and mace which would affect this as well so sadly I'll be neglecting that. I'm not familiar with any good works on that last subject either, sadly. \n\nWhen we're talking about breastplates we really have three distinct groups. We have the first wave of breast plates which historian Claude Blair refers to as White Plate. This was so called because apparently it was often worn without any covering tabard so the light could reflect off of the breastplate. This would be mid-late 14th century and generally the weakest of the types. Suits of it are relatively rare, however, so we know less about how durable this armour was. Italian Plate is the next kind, this was primarily made in Milan, and then the third and final is German Plate, generally made around Nuremburg and Innsbruck. German Plate came last, sometime around the middle of the 15th century, and is the best of the lot. Alan Williams has done extensive metallurgical testing of suits of German plate that show they were quenched and tempered to be extremely sturdy. Most suits of Medieval Armour weren't tempered, instead they were slack quenched (quenched in a liquid other than water, often oil) which makes for a weaker steel but is easier than tempering. Poor tempering could ruin the steel and when working on a piece as expensive as a breastplate you generally didn't want to risk ruining it just to learn a new technique. Italian plate was further weakened in the late 15th century as it was increasingly gilded and experiments with medieval plate have shown that reheating the steel to gild it weakens the overall structure. \n\nSo that said, all three kinds were worn in battle and Italian plate certainly didn't go out of style when German started being made. If you were to take a blow from a war hammer onto the chest you would have a few things to worry about. \n\n1. Does the weapon penetrate the armour and just kill you? Probably not. Hammers and maces aren't made for penetration, your armour is far more likely to buckle than it is to simply collapse in. Breastplates were also designed with curvature and grooves on it partly to look nice and partly to make landing a solid blow difficult. Landing a solid blow straight on to someone's breastplate without glancing off was surprisingly difficult. \n\n2. Does your armour absorb the impact? Even if your breastplate buckles instead of collapsing you're taking a lot of force straight on to the chest. You might actually want your breastplate to collapse some and absorb the force of the blow as much as possible rather than just transmit the force to your ribcage. Better a broken breastplate than a few broken ribs. You would also be wearing several layers of padding beneath your breastplate (as much for comfort as protection) so that would help. \n\n3. Is the force sufficient to damage you anyway? Just taking an impact of sufficient force can cause damage to you even if it doesn't obviously break your armour. This is most often observed when people test bullet proof vests and while a war hammer has nowhere near the force of a modern firearm it's still a concern to some extent. This force will hardly ever kill you at the relatively low impact we're talking about but it could cause serious bruising or possible crack a rib in a really bad situation. That kind if injury could make avoiding a follow up blow much more difficult, though. \n\nThe breastplate is the place with probably the thickest layer of steel in a suit of full plate, though, so that is worth keeping in mind. The only place that could arguably compete is the helmet but there seems to be a lot more variation between helmets than with breastplates. A blow to a limb would often be a lot more disabling than one to the breastplate even if there's a lower chance of it being fatal. In either case, though, killing someone in full plate with a single blow is highly unlikely. That's not to say it couldn't be done, Robert Bruce famously cleaved an enemy charging knights head open through his helmet with an axe at Bannockburn in 1314. Bruce did have the advantage that his opponent was riding at him full tilt on a horse, though, so that's some serious extra force and it did shatter his axe handle. \n\nIf you move into the 16th century as gunpowder becomes more common the extra limb protection of full plate becomes rarer and instead extra durability is placed on the breastplate. 16th century breastplates are often much thicker than medieval ones and designed to take a much hardier blow but at the cost of being a lot heavier. It was a very different kind of warfare they were concerned about. \n\nWhen talking about the strength and durability of armour the book to get is Alan Williams' *The Knight and the Blast Furnace: A History of Metallurgy of Armour in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period* but that book is staggeringly expensive. I haven't even been able to afford a copy (we're talking $300 here, try and find a library with it) so I haven't exactly gotten to read it but I have read lots of Williams' research that led up to the publication of that book and it's all excellent. He's done extensive metallurgical analysis of medieval suits of armour as well as research on medieval forging practices. Claude Blair's book *European Armour: Circa 1066 to Circa 1700* is much easier to get your hands on but is more of a chronology of how armour changed over that time period than an account of how durable it was. His work is still probably the best general history of medieval armour though. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4uc9ec
|
In medieval records, are there any mentions of people who most likely suffered from OCD? If yes, then what kind of behaviours would become their compulsions, if they couldn't wash their hands excessively of check the stove?
|
*or check the stove
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4uc9ec/in_medieval_records_are_there_any_mentions_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5olksd",
"d5olmc5"
],
"score": [
15,
4
],
"text": [
"Just thought I should quickly mention that OCD is not just overt rituals. Plenty of OCD sufferers experience purely internal rituals and intrusive thoughts. So let me add to the question if I may: Is there any good documentation of internal religious experiences, like excessive and compulsive prayer or chanting, of people in relative seclusion (like a monastery) that could be analogous to a modern OCD, and perhaps is described by contemporary sourced as an actual problem for the sufferer?",
"To add, the question was inspired by a lecture on possible psycho-biological factors that might lead humans to develop religious thought, by Robert Sapolsky. Now, obviously, he's a biologist and not a historian, but he mentioned Martin Luther being quite probably obssesive, having written stuff like \"No matter how much I wash, I cannot get clean\" (paraphrasing). So I wonder if there are more probable cases and if they are indeed linked/attributed to religious devotion?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5y90sc
|
I'm a medieval infantryman. My unit is facing a full charge by heavily cavalry. What is the experience like? What are my chances of my survival? Will impact send me flying or will I be crushed? How would the outcome differ if my unit was equipped with swords, pikes or pole arms?
|
Apologies for the typo of heavy to heavily
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5y90sc/im_a_medieval_infantryman_my_unit_is_facing_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"deojqmm",
"deoni30"
],
"score": [
134,
14
],
"text": [
"Basically nothing like you'd expect from the most common interpretation. If you were in a dense formation with your buddies and were determined to stand your ground, you likely wouldn't be charged at all (from the front anyway). If you were a bunch of ragtag peasants looking terrified, you'd likely break at the first sign of heavy cavalry and be unceremoniously trampled into the dirt. The outcome relies almost entirely on the discipline of the infantry on the receiving end, their formation, and their armament.\n\nCavalry, even \"shock\" cavalry, were not used to plow into a prepared front of infantry. It would be suicidal for the horse *and* rider. *If* they went through with the charge, if the horse hit you directly it could very likely be fatal, and the following horsemen would have a good chance of trampling you to death if the initial hit didn't work. These riders would be in incredible danger though, assuming your brothers-in-arms held firm. Each rider would be incredibly vulnerable in melee combat until they could break through. The deeper/denser the infantry formation, the less likely it would work. Additionally, if the horse was wounded there was a high risk of being thrown, which in itself could be fatal.\n\nThe purpose of heavy cavalry was to engage other cavalry, threaten flanks, and run roughshod over unprepared/wavering infantry that would break in fear. Often heavy cavalry would feign a charge to see the reaction of the opponent. If they would start to break, they would charge home and send the opponent fleeing. Additionally, if a weak point in the enemy line presented itself, disciplined cavalry would often hammer that point to attempt to break the opponent.\n\nIn the case where the enemy's cavalry was absent or removed from the field, they would commonly attack the enemy's camp or the rear of the army and attempt to shatter it. Additionally, they were great for running off reserves/archers.\n\nThere are very few instances of super-heavy cavalry charging home against a solid wall of infantry, and it basically had very little effect. The most famous charges in this period almost all involved the enemy shattering in the face of the charge, rather than resisting it. A *successful* charge was capable of devastating damage to the opposing army.\n\nSome examples would be the Romans fighting against Parthian cataphracts. The dense blocks of Romans forced the Parthians to apply absolutely withering arrow fire for long periods of time before the legions were ready to crack before engaging with the cataphracts. These were infantry armed primarily with short *swords* for defense, showing that a spear was not necessary to deter cavalry charges. They also liked to chuck spears at charging cavalry to break up the momentum of a charge, but these would usually be spent early in the battle.\n\nCharles Martel at Tours also showed that heavy, well-disciplined infantry could not be broken by cavalry as long as they held to their tight formation and their flanks were protected.\n\nAt the battle of Hastings the Saxons repulsed multiple Norman cavalry charges by staying in formation, only failing when they broke ranks to pursue the enemy.\n\nAt the Battle of Dyrrhachium, the Varangian Guard successfully stood their ground against a Norman cavalry charge, but were run off by infantry attacking their flank. The cavalry would later be used to rout the rest of the army.\n\nAt Falkirk, the scots were able to repel English cavalry charges by holding to their schiltron formations. Similar result at Bannockburn.\n\nAt Golden Spurs, the French tried to rout the Flemish with cavalry charges. Although some of them managed to break through, they were summarily slaughtered, being surrounded by heavily armed infantry.\n\nThese failed attempts at a shock cavalry \"punch-through\" began the trend of European knights largely fighting on foot. This came with its own drawbacks, and charges would still be used from time to time, but the illusion of unbeatable cavalry charges was long dead. The rise of professional soldiery also added to this dilemma. The battlefield elite were not just the knights, but the professional infantry of the late middle ages wearing quality armor and thoroughly trained (and paid) to fight against cavalry.\n\nThat doesn't mean they stopped using them. It just means they were very carefully calculated. If an army had a very well disciplined and armed/armored cavalry contingent, they could be used to break an enemy very quickly given the right conditions. At the battle of Muret, a group of some 1300 crusaders defeated an army of 40,000 by smashing the opponents' cavalry in a charge and killing the opposing king, causing the entire army to crumble.\n\nSources:\n\n\nA History of Warfare – John Keegan\n\nEuropean Medieval Tactics, Vol. 1: The Fall and Rise of Cavalry 450-1260 - David Nicolle\n\nAnglo-Norman Warfare - Boydell\n\nThe Face of Battle - John Keegan\n\nWar in the Middle Ages - Philippe Contamine\n",
"As has already been mentioned, instances of cavalry of any type charging at full pace into a steadfast infantry formation are exceedingly rare. In fact the only one I can think of with a first hand account isn't a medieval battle at all, and was accidental. This charge occurred during the Battle of Omdurman in 1898. What makes this particular battle relevant is that there was a cavalry charge against a dense infantry formation AND we have a first hand account by none other than Winston Churchill who was writing for the Morning Post at the time, here is an excerpt:\n\n > Two hundred and fifty yards away the dark-blue men were firing madly in a thin film of light-blue smoke. Their bullets struck the hard gravel into the air, and the troopers, to shield their faces from the stinging dust, bowed their helmets forward, like the Cuirassiers at Waterloo. The pace was fast and the distance short. Yet, before it was half covered, the whole aspect of the affair changed. A deep crease in the ground---a dry watercourse, a khor---appeared where all had seemed smooth, level plain; and from it there sprang, with the suddenness of a pantomime effect and a high-pitched yell, a dense white mass of men nearly as long as our front and about twelve deep. A score of horsemen and a dozen bright flags rose as if by magic from the earth. Eager warriors sprang forward to anticipate the shock. The rest stood firm to meet it. The Lancers acknowledged the apparition only by an increase of pace. Each man wanted sufficient momentum to drive through such a solid line. The flank troops, seeing that they overlapped, curved inwards like the horns of a moon. But the whole event was a matter of seconds. The riflemen, firing bravely to the last, were swept head over heels into the khor, and jumping down with them, at full gallop and in the closest order, the British squadrons struck the fierce brigade with one loud furious shout. The collision was prodigious. Nearly thirty Lancers, men and horses, and at least two hundred Arabs were overthrown. The shock was stunning to both sides, and for perhaps ten wonderful seconds no man heeded his enemy. Terrified horses wedged in the crowd; bruised and shaken men, sprawling in heaps, struggled, dazed and stupid, to their feet, panted, and looked about them. Several fallen Lancers had even time to remount.\n\n > Meanwhile the impetus of the cavalry carried them on. As a rider tears through a bullfinch, the officers forced their way through the press; and as an iron rake might be drawn through a heap of shingle, so the regiment followed. They shattered the Dervish array, and, their pace reduced to a walk, scrambled out of the khor on the further side, leaving a score of troopers behind them, and dragging on with the charge more than a thousand Arabs. Then, and not till then, the killing began; and thereafter each man saw the world along his lance, under his guard, or through the back-sight of his pistol; and each had his own strange tale to tell.\n\n > Stubborn and unshaken infantry hardly ever meet stubborn and unshaken cavalry. Either the infantry run away and are cut down in flight, or they keep their heads and destroy nearly all the horsemen by their musketry. On this occasion two living walls had actually crashed together. The Dervishes fought manfully. They tried to hamstring the horses. They fired their rifles, pressing the muzzles into the very bodies of their opponents. They cut reins and stirrup-leathers. They flung their throwing-spears with great dexterity. They tried every device of cool, determined men practiced in war and familiar with cavalry; and, besides, they swung sharp, heavy swords which bit deep. The hand-to-hand fighting on the further side of the khor lasted for perhaps one minute. Then the horses got into their stride again, the pace increased, and the Lancers drew out from among their antagonists. Within two minutes of the collision every living man was clear of the Dervish mass. All who had fallen were cut at with swords till they stopped quivering, but no artistic mutilations were attempted. The enemy's behavior gave small ground for complaint.\n\nMorning Post – Thursday 29 September 1898\n\nChurchill mentions that this type of occurrence were rare during his time and this is generally accepted as true for most time periods. \n\nThere is one other type of charge that I am familiar with. Not quite the dramatic full speed, almost suicidal effort to break through the enemy line, but a maneuver of heavy cavalry, moving at a trotting pace, pushing their way through the infantry formation. This type of maneuver is described in the *Praecepta militaria* by Nikephoros II Phokas written in the tenth century AD. \n\n > At this point the commander of the prokoursatores must dispatch fifty of this men through the two intervals on either side of the kataphraktoi out to the right flank of the kataphraktoi and fifty out to the left to ride beside the kataphraktoi and keep the enemy away from their flanks so that they do not divert or disrupt the kataphraktoi and break up their charge. \n\n > The kataphraktoi and the two units on either side of them must remain in formation while our units make their attack against them, as soon as the enemy's arrows begin to be launched against the front of the kataphraktoi, our archers must strike back at the enemy with their arrows. **Then the front of the triangular formation must move in proper formation at a trotting pace and smash into the position of the enemy commander** while the prokousatores on the outside encircle the enemy as far as possible and the and the other two units of proceed on both flanks with perfect precision and evenness with the rear ranks of the kataphraktoi without getting too far ahead or breaking rank in any way. With the aid of God and through the intercession of His immaculate Mother the enemy will be overcome and give way to flight. \n\nNote there is no mention of charging the flanks or rear of the enemy with the kataphraktoi or heavy cavalry. The kataphraktoi are to aim their formation where the enemy general is standing and push through the formation at a trotting pace, **not** a gallop. There is also no mention of feinting charges or pulling back if the infantry stand their ground, the intent was to break the enemy formation and run them off the field, regardless of whether or not the infantry stood and fought or not. I'm not saying these types of feints didn't happen, just that Nikephoros doesn't make any mention of them in his battlefield tactics. \n\nThe Praecepta also mentions how the Romans (you can also call them Byzantines but they're Romans dammit) defended against heavy cavalry charges. Specifically how special infantry called Menavlatoi (I've also seen this translated as Menaulatoi), were used. \n\n > [the Menavlatoi] must have thick menavlia with a length of one and a half or two ourguia while their points must have a length of one and a half or two spithamai, so that, when battle begins, the units will calmly move out through the intervals and engage the enemy.\n\nThe maneuver Nikephoros Phokas is describing is when heavy cavalry are preparing for a charge against the Byzantine formation, the Menavlatoi take position in front of an extra rank of spearmen (for a total of 3 ranks of spears + 1 rank of Menavlatoi) to stand firm against the cavalry charge. Their purpose, along with the description points to some type of pike or halberd, maybe a bill sort of weapon. Regardless of what it was, it was the front line of defense against a heavy cavalry charge.\n\nNikephoros Phokas continues:\n > Their menavlia must not be made from wood cut into sections but from saplings of oak, cornel, the so called artzekidia, of from another hard wood. if trees in one piece cannot be found, let these menavla be made from trees cut into sections, but they have to be of hard wood and as thick as hands can wield\n\nThis is also interesting, if the Romans didn't expect heavy cavalry charges, why bother with cumbersome Menavlia? Why not just use normal spears like the majority of the infantry? I believe this is because the enemy would charge into well ordered ranks of infantry, likely not at a fast pace but charge nonetheless. The menavlia were essentially small trees with blades on the end, designed to completely stop this type of advance in its tracks and protect the rest of the infantry formation. \n\n*edits for spelling and formatting*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1207x7
|
What did Vikings and other people living up north eat in these climates that are not so hospitable to agriculture, say, Iceland? Lots of fishing and hunting? Typical meal?
|
I think the title says all. I just wonder how can you "breed" many efficient warriors in a climate that is not too hospitable to agriculture.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1207x7/what_did_vikings_and_other_people_living_up_north/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6r1tyq",
"c6r29qe",
"c6r60mo",
"c6r8ltp"
],
"score": [
14,
21,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I am not a historian, I just happen to come from Iceland and from a farm.\n\nNot many warriors came from Iceland, most of them came from areas in Scandinavia who are much more hospitable when it comes to winter food.\n\nMilk products have been the core of everything in Iceland since the Viking era, Mysa (sour leftover from making skyr) was used to \"sour\" meats and thus preserving them over winter. We have Þorrablót every winter where we eat this \"traditional\" food, it is an acquired taste...\n\nSour food (súrmeti) were from lamb, horse and bovine.\n\nOther than that it is traditional stuff, berries, fish, wild eggs, apples in the few areas where they grew. Skyr is traditional millk product which has been a part of the Icelandic diet for over 1000 years and is mentioned in many of the old Icelandic sagas.\n\nFor winter the conservation methods were mostly drying and the aforementioned sour process. It is worth mentioning that winters in Iceland can be rough and that it was not uncommon for certain households to suffer dearly or even die during winter, I believe the first settling efforts were hampered by this as many settlers simply died when winter came.",
"Well first off, remember that most 'Vikings' come from the habitable parts of Scandinavia, not the far north.\n\nJutland, the coastal fjords of Norway, the more southern areas of Sweden are all much more heavily populated than anything inland or further north. These areas are all perfectly arable, have good growing seasons etc. Look at a map, Edinburgh and Aarhus are practically on the same latitude, for instance. No one asks whether Scotland is habitable -- except maybe the scots ;) -- .\n\nIn terms of how those who *did* live farther North, check out [this](_URL_0_) thread for a description of the *Finna* by a Norwegian viking from the 10th century. \n\n",
"Norway is blessed with a combination of geographic and meteorological factors allowing them to grow grain in addition to typical hunting and fishing practices. While there are several factors involved in producing a strong warrior class, the relative well-roundedness of Norwegian food supplies was a boon to the physical prowess of the vikings.",
"A few hundred pilot whales here and there also provided a boost in calories for the coastal societies, like on Iceland and the Faroe Islands."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11pa2c/what_was_the_relationship_bettween_the_vikings/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
1a8916
|
When were the earliest records of actual courts of laws with a defendant and a prosecutor? And how "just" where they?
|
The thread about serial killers in history got me thinking about this: Were courts, for example, in ancient Greece fair? Did people have a fair trial with a chance to bring forth evidence to a jury?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1a8916/when_were_the_earliest_records_of_actual_courts/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8v04qx",
"c8v129g"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There isn't a whole lot of evidence regarding Jewish criminal courts actually functioning. But from at least the late Second Temple era (~2000 years ago) there was generally a presumption of innocence, which required extremely clear proof for conviction, especially in capital cases (such that the system described a few centuries later could never get a capital conviction, and it was unlikely in earlier times but perhaps possible). The format was somewhat different than a \"defendant and prosecutor\" in modern American law. A panel of judges (23 for criminal cases) would question witnesses, using the [Inquisitorial system](_URL_1_) rather than the [Adversarial system](_URL_0_). There wasn't really a prosecution or defense codified as now, but the judges would call witnesses either to testify for or against the defendant. So it's not the same system you're familiar with, but it probably was fair in determining guilt.\n\nWe know somewhat more about how civil law was decided in Jewish law, enough that one could adjudicate a case under Jewish law (which happens occasionally. Family law is adjudicated under Jewish law all the time). Each of the parties would call witnesses and could make arguments, as well as swearing oaths. The judges would rule on the facts of the case and establish what damages ought to be, a bit like a modern civil case, but with a panel of three judges instead of a jury.",
"I'd just like to add that the presence or absence of a jury isn't a measure of fairness. In fact the [vast majority of the world](_URL_1_) uses what's called the [\"Civil Law\"](_URL_0_) system which does not feature jury trials. The roles and powers of judges and lawyers are also quite different.\n\nI wanted to add this because the way you phrased the question seems to imply that only legal systems that feature [Common Law](_URL_2_) (the system used in Britain and its former possessions including America) aspects could be just and fair, when this is not so. There are and were other systems that also worked fairly."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_system",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Law"
]
] |
|
1fjqka
|
How much does the modern Bolivarian Revolution in Latin America compare to the politics espoused by Simon Bolivar throughout his life?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fjqka/how_much_does_the_modern_bolivarian_revolution_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cac749a"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"I think this question is challenging because both Bolívar and Chávez are slippery historical characters. Not slippery in a derogatory sense necessarily, but slippery is a sense of complexity. Both of these men are extremely complicated. To try and make sense of them and their respective revolutions perfectly is beyond the scope of a reddit post, but there are many fine biographies written about Bolívar and Chávez (and some documentaries available on Netflix) that can help illuminate some of the seeming contradictions of each man’s political ideologies and reconcile their words with their revolutions. To answer your question, I will try to explain just a couple of what I think are the most important similarities and differences. I’m sure other redditors can elaborate more if they find my interpretations unsatisfactory or incomplete.\n\nTo really be able to even try to answer this question, we have to look a little at each man and their revolutions. Bolívar is one of the most important Latin American heroes, and as frequently happens with heroes, his legacy is as much an idealized myth as it is reality. Over the centuries, his name has frequently been invoked across Latin America in a variety of situations and for many purposes. Yet when one looks at the historical record, it is possible to see many different, contradictory positions on many issues. In short, James Lynch in his biography of Bolívar explains that “Bolívar was an exceptionally complex man, a liberator who scorned liberalism, a soldier who disparaged militarism, a republican who admired monarchy.” In order to understand how this is possible, we have to remember that Bolívar’s political thinking developed over the course of his career and varies widely as he tried to reconcile his ideals with the realities that developed in the War for Independence. His positions represent his own internal struggles with the notions of enlightened liberalism during a period in which the merits and viability of democracy itself was very much still being hashed out. In the Bolivian Constitution, widely considered by historians to be the culmination of his political thought, he develops an authoritarian democracy in which the average person had very little say...at least until they were properly educated. It proved to be his downfall. \n\nChávez and his revolution are equally complex. He is a hero to some; a villain to others. For example, Michael Reid, in his book Forgotten Continent: Battle of Latin America’s Soul argues that Chávez is nothing more than a modern caudillo. Other historians see him and his revolution as another example of populism in the style of Juan Perón of Argentina.\n\nHowever, different people over the years have used Bolívar’s writings to foster Latin American patriotism and, in consequence, support whatever position that person was/is advocating, which is exactly what Chávez has done in the Bolivarian Revolution. He has taken one narrow historical interpretation of his hero. Chávez rooted the cult of Bolívar that had existed in many forms since Bolívar’s death into Venezuelan politics, and as a result, there are parallels between the ideals that Bolívar espoused and what Chávez implemented in Venezuela. For example, both Bolívar and Chávez were wary of the power and influence of the United States. They both espoused religious freedom and freedom from slavery. They both encouraged a pan-Latin American union of some kind. They both favored a strong president who hand-picked a vice president to become his successor.\n\nYet, to say that Bolívar would have been a Marxist or socialist, a significant portion of Chávez’s political platform, is a revisionist interpretation of history. These political ideas simply did not exist in Bolívar’s time. Additionally, Bolívar likely would have objected to Chávez’s limiting of the freedom of the press and the weakening of Venezuelan courts.\n\nBut the biggest difference of all between the Bolívar and the Bolivarian Revolution is the role of the people themselves. Bolívar has been criticized by many postcolonialism writers for his view of the common person. He, to some degree as an enlightened aristocrat, looked down on the common people who often came from mixed racial lineages. This, of course, was very common in the early 1800’s even among “enlightened” politicians (think of the American Founding Fathers and their views on slavery or their inclusion of an electoral college). He was the product of a community that saw “the people” as incapable of governing. Thus, while believing in liberalism, he also believed that democracy was inherently unstable. Bolívar argued in the Bolivian Constitution against “elections, which produce the scourge of republics, anarchy.” In some of his other writings, he argues that chaos in democracy resulted from the participation of “ignorant” and “rustic” people of the countryside. Thus, he advocated for a democracy which was republican in spirit but resisted the influence of the people themselves on the government. The Bolivarian Revolution, on the other hand, mobilized the people. It drew support from the backward countryside by promising to better their lives and end corruption that plagued the system. This is how Chávez won and held power.\n\nAnd I think it is in these last two paragraphs that we see that Bolívar and the Bolivarian Revolution are only similar tangentially. Chávez took a particular view of the past that has some merit but also some anachronisms. The most important thing that we can do is to remember that each was a product of the unique circumstances of the times in which they occurred. Thus, though the Bolivarian Revolution drew upon a symbolic and idealized interpretation of Bolívar, they are dealing with questions that are fundamentally different. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2smz47
|
Is the Axial Age a myth?
|
Is the concept of the 'Axial Age' a construct of modern thinkers or is it based in reality?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2smz47/is_the_axial_age_a_myth/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnr707p"
],
"score": [
26
],
"text": [
"First, all periodization of time periods in the past are categories created by scholars at some point. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, historians were particularly keen on \"ordering\" the past -- partially as a result of positivism (Auguste Comte, etc.) and the push towards an empirically defined world that agreed with ideas of empirically based science popularized by Darwin and company. The so-called \"Axial Age\" is a product of this, as is the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, Orientalism, and Western Civilizations (thought the history of the former two is quite a bit longer). What modern historians have come to realize is that placing strictures such as these onto the past oftentimes prevents people from recognizing that history is not broken up into nice, neat chunks that are independent of each other. One period did not simply end and another begin with a new set of ideas and goals, neither does a particular region stop at an imaginary border. The most important thing to understand is that history involves change over time -- sometimes that change is fast, sometime it is slow; sometimes it involves only a few people, sometimes many people; sometimes it moves from place to place, sometimes it stays put; sometimes it is viewed as good, sometimes as bad. Whatever the case, stuff changed, and it is the historian's job to investigate that change in whatever form it took and make some type of conclusion about it. \n\nIt is often easier (and usually more academically responsible) for a historian to consciously restrict their sources, time period, and other research parameters in order to make a valid conclusion about whatever they are investigating. Thus, particular sets of parameters (the Middle Ages, the Axial Age, the Middle East, or Colonial America, etc.) first became common in academia because of their utility, then made their way into the public where they were isolated and their broader context often ignored - which I don't think was ever the intention of chronologic periodization.\n\nHere are some books that may help.\n\n1. Marc Bloch. *The Historian's Craft*\n\n2. James M Banner. *Being a historian : an introduction to the professional world of history*\n\n3.Ernst Breisach. *Historiography : ancient, medieval, & modern*\n\n4. Georg G Iggers. *Historiography in the twentieth century : from scientific objectivity to the postmodern challenge*\n\n5. Edward Said. *Orientalism*\n\nHope this helps a little. Happy Reading!\n\n**Edit**: Something funky with the list of books, apologies."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2d4d0a
|
Teaching history in schools
|
I've asked questions on here about history education in various guises to no answer, so I'm going to try this in as vague a way as possible so that perhaps it could act as a springboard to further resources.
Do you guys have any go to resources, as in books or even better online discussion places like this, that cover the debates as to how history should be in taught in school?
I could ask a more specific question as I have done before on topics such as early years history or the relationship between history education and nationalism (if you have anything to say on those please do post), but I'm really looking for somewhere to begin to immerse myself in arguments to do with how we should approach history with children. Any advice would be appreciated.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2d4d0a/teaching_history_in_schools/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjmdvw9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Unfortunately, this subreddit is more geared toward academic history and research; the pedagogy of history education tends to play second fiddle. That's not to say that this isn't the right subreddit to ask such questions since there are a number of teachers, professors, and students who subscribe to it, just that getting responses can be kind of hit or miss. I’ve had modest success asking for teaching advice in the Friday-free-for-all when I was able to post early in the session so my answer wasn’t relegated to the bottom of the thread. You might also try posting in /r/teachers or /r/education. I’ve read some interesting discussions in both of those subreddits about history education.\n\nPersonally, I found *Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts* by Sam Wineburg to be fascinating. I also enjoyed *Teaching World History as a Mystery* by Jack Zevin and David Gerwin. Both of these books show an important trend in history education right now that encourages students to “do” history in the classroom as opposed to merely listen to an expert lecture about it. This includes working with documents, constructing arguments, and using evidence to support assertions. Research has shown that engagement with the content in this way helps students learn more. Additionally, it is more in line with what historians actually do and what students are expected to do in college. Wineburg also talks about some of the history behind history education, which might be useful to you. \n\nFor actual classroom resources that carry out these ideas, the DBQ project, Stanford history project, and World History for Us All all demonstrate how these changes in history can be carried out effectively at the secondary level, as long as students are given the proper training and support to begin developing those critical thinking skills. I know that there is also a push to begin developing these skills earlier in elementary and middle school, but I don't have much experience working at that level.\n\nIn terms of debates among educators in the United States, the debates over curriculum and standards (e.g. Texas's standards debate or the literacy standards in common core) stand out to me as significant in the field of history education. I don't think educators and politicians have adequately reached a conclusion about how history should be taught and what content should be emphasized. How much cultural knowledge should students have and what constitutes the \"correct\" culture emphasized in public for diverse populations? Take a look at some curriculum theorists like Jonathon Kozol, Paulo Freire, and E.D. Hirsch for a variety of perspectives (there are lots of others but those three popped into my head first). They provide varied perspectives about the role of dominant cultural discourses in school that translates to history education better than almost any other subject in my opinion. Stemming from this debate, another key change is to include more minority voices. Textbooks and standards are attempting to move away from one narrative of national history to include those whose voices are often not heard at the secondary level. One interesting book that comes to mind is *History Lessons: How Textbooks from Around the World Portray U.S. History* by Dana Lindaman and Kyle Roy Ward. I've also encountered a number of lessons that compare and contrast how different textbooks represent historical events, then have students debate the value of different books. All of these are wrestling with the cultural connections underlying history curricula and the place of multiculturalism in American historical discourses.\n\nEDIT: Expanded on a couple of my thoughts."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2fp9uj
|
If the Republic of Texas had successfully become an independent nation that still existed today, what kind of nation would it be?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2fp9uj/if_the_republic_of_texas_had_successfully_become/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckbg1qe"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Sorry, but your submission has been removed because we [don't allow hypothetical questions](_URL_0_). This sort of thing is better suited for /r/historicalwhatif."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_is_this_the_right_place_for_your_question.3F"
]
] |
||
1aqe6h
|
What is the standard of evidence to accept the existence of Jesus, and why?
|
Based on some comments on /r/DebateReligion recently, I made this post asking about the differences between the evidence for the [existence of Jesus versus the evidence for alien abductions.](_URL_2_)
Now I'd like to stress here that I'm not necessarily asking for what the evidence for the existence is. I've read [the popular questions](_URL_0_) section on the historicity of Jesus before, and I've seen what both Bart D. Ehrman and Richard Carrier have to say on the subject. I'm aware of Josephus and the other non-contemporary mentions of Jesus.
My question is about what many of the people in [this post](_URL_1_) on /r/badhistory seemed to be saying, and that is that the evidence for the existence of historical figures is necessarily very poor to begin with, and we should accept those claims because otherwise we would have to reject many historical existence claims.
So my question is why shouldn't we just reject all of these claims if they are as seemingly flimsy as the evidence for Jesus? Further, if we compare that level of evidence to the evidence for something like alien abductions or Elvis still being alive, I don't see much difference. In many ways there actually seems to be more evidence for those things than for Jesus (I don't believe in alien abductions or that Elvis is still alive, I should point out.)
So what are the standards of evidence for historical figures? Does Jesus meet those standards? If he does, do alien abduction claims meet those same standards, and if not why not?
Most of the responses I got on /r/DebateReligion so far were, "Because historians all agree he existed, and if you disagree it's because you don't know how historians work" which I would hope most people would agree is not a particularly good answer if you can't explain what I don't understand.
I'm looking for why those historians agree, and what those standards of evidence are. And if there happens to be some other evidence for the existence of Jesus beyond the Bible, Josephus, Tacitus and the other non-contemporary accounts, please do let me know about them. Or, if I'm incorrectly dismissing those accounts as being flimsy at best, please explain that to me as well.
**In short**: I'm not necessarily asking for the evidence of the existence of Jesus, I'm asking why I should accept that evidence and how that evidence differs from other claims that I see as equally lacking in support.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1aqe6h/what_is_the_standard_of_evidence_to_accept_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8zsae5",
"c8zu9rs",
"c9060ik",
"c90bs1n"
],
"score": [
29,
10,
4,
10
],
"text": [
"The evidence for the existence of Jesus isn't particularly flimsy: we have four biographies written within around 50 years of his death, two by ostensible eyewitnesses, we have letters written by a member of a religious group he founded written 15-20 years after his death, we have mentions in Josephus around 60 years later, and the existence of the religious group itself which claims to have been founded by him. I'm not certain there's a historical figure whom we have more or equal documentation for whose existence is ever questioned. I've certainly never encountered one, and I study folks whose lives are far less examined and documented than Jesus.\n\nOn top of this, we have to add the fact that history isn't simply picking holes in arguments, looking for \"ah-ha! this guy never existed.\" If you're going to suggest that Jesus didn't exist, you need to provide an alternative account for the foundation of Christianity, for what's going on in the Gospels, in Paul, etc. Why, if Jesus never existed, did all this happen? Why did no one call Paul, or whomever, on the subject? Those who suggest that Jesus didn't exist have utterly failed on this front, largely because most of them aren't actual historians, don't actually have any expertise in the subject, and basically misunderstand the historical method. \n\nI think the last bit is why you so often see responses like the, \"Because historians all agree he existed, and if you disagree it's because you don't know how historians work\" that you complained about. You're right, that's not a particularly good counter, but the problem is that the work of people like Carrier, who shockingly represents one of the best of his set, displays a basic misuse or ignorance of the normal tools and ends of historians. It's so pervasive throughout their work that it's almost impossible to properly criticize, this is common among all pseudo-history. You can also see this when evolutionary biologists or climate scientists confront the cranks in their respective fields, sure they can point out this or that error of fact, but the sheer breadth of wrongness, the way in which the authors seem to *miss the point* of the whole enterprise is extremely difficult to confront. \n\nIn short, it's not a question of \"accepting the evidence\". The evidence is there and is the same for the historian and for the dude on the internet who denies the existence of Jesus. Instead, the historian is seeking to create an account which accounts for the available evidence. The reason you should buy the claims of actual historians on this one, is because their account does this better, because the evidence does, in the end, point to the fact that there was really a historical dude, named Jesus (obviously not the English form of the name), who started a religion in first century Judea and was executed by the Romans. I think really the best way to understand what the Jesus-myth folks are doing wrong is just to read *good* history, it doesn't even have to be history about the historical Jesus. Read Robert Grant, Peter Brown, Carlo Ginzburg, Caroline Bynum, and read some historiography too, read Marc Bloch, G.R. Collingwood, Momigliano, Ginzburg, compare these guys to Carrier or Robert Price. The difference should be apparent. \n\n",
"Howdy, y'all. This is a friendly reminder from the mods that we are going to have to ask y'all to keep it civil, as per our rules. We're not interested in our debates sounding off in the same key as the debates in /r/debatereligion or /r/atheism or wherever else.",
"I am a high school history teacher. In my classroom I have a poster that says \"History is an Argument about the past.\" \n\nIn the situation you are asking about there two (at least) possible \"arguments\"\n\n1. There was a person named Jesus who did some of (if not all) the things mentioned in the bible\n2. There was no person ever named Jesus who did any of those things (Or something, I have read this thread and it is unclear what you are arguing) \n\nThen, you need EVIDENCE to back up your claim. People more educated in this particular area have provided ample evidence for Argument 1. In addition, there is no evidence to support Argument 2. Therefore, Argument 1 is the prevailing wisdom accepted by historians. This is not to say that Argument 1 is the only thing that could have possibly happened, just that based on the evidence this is the most likely scenario. Now, is it possible that something else happened, of course there is. But there is not enough evidence to prove another argument. This is where your analogies about Bigfoot and Aliens fall through. In these cases there is evidence that people PLANTED evidence about Bigfoot, or that people never left there home when they say were abducted and so on and so forth. \n\nSo is it possible that Paul made everything up, of course it is! But there is no evidence to support this claim. \n\nHopefully this helps! ",
"To your original question, I don't think we can throw out Socrates and Pythagorus or Diogenes just because the original sources are questionable and somewhat mythical or obviously fictitious in the eventual tales that grew up after the fact. \n\n(Any more than that I think that the Pseudo-Pauline epistles make Paul less likely to exist.)\n\nIn the same way, you have people you basically know existed. Lenin, for example, or Tutankhamun. We have bodies and biographies to match, although veracity is always an ongoing debate. \n\nThen you have people you're 'sure' existed, like Alexander the Great and Charlemagne. The holes in history they would leave would make their fictional nature reliant on basically all other history being false. Which is unlikely. \n\nAfter that, we have written works by people that could be pseudo-epigraphical, but in any case mark an actual mind still telepathically communicating with us (Meditations by Marcus Aurelius on one side, Ecclesiastes by Solomon on the opposite).\n\nI'd put Jesus in the next group with people like Buddha or Pythagorus. Surely they didn't do all the stuff they supposedly did or say all their quotes, but they did something that allowed or encouraged people to clump invented stuff around them. \n\nNext there's the possibly historical people like the characters in the Illiad or even Gilgamesh or just Herodotus' insanity that might mark something true but we're too far removed and the source as well to put them at better than unfavorable odds. \n\nFinally, you have the completely fictional characters, which even then we admit likely had someone or many someones inspiring them, as all fiction does. \n\nFor Jesus, I think if you toss out the almost certainly independently invented nativities of Matthew and Luke, the supernatural acts, and probably John and the fake epistles, Jesus looks like a real, if exaggerated, person. A Gospel of Thomas-ish Q didn't appear out of thin air, and I don't see why you'd attribute it to a recently invented mythical figure if so. You wouldn't have made a point to get in apologetic interpolations about what happened to Jesus' body in the tomb or whether his resurrected essence was also of a physical nature without some answer to aspersions that the Messiah was only figurative. \n\nThe hole that removing Jesus leaves is too large to say he never actually existed, and there's no dirt found yet to fill in the hole with a better explanation. It's possible he's fictitious, but doesn't pass into the 'probably made up' territory, along with many, many other people referenced in history. \n\nI think spite is the only real motivation at work. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/religion#wiki_did_jesus_exist.3F",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/1akuzp/ratheism_freaks_out_at_the_idea_of_a_historical/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1aq7s0/to_christians_what_evidence_is_there_for_the/"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2p4kko
|
Did Columbus really never realize he hadn't made it to the Indies or was it a public stance he maintained to ensure he kept his rights under his contract with the Catholic Monarchs?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2p4kko/did_columbus_really_never_realize_he_hadnt_made/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmtqiky"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is a tough question. The official line for Christopher Columbus was that he had found the Indies, the destination defined in the capitulacion he had with the Catholic Monarchs. From a legal standpoint, at least during his life, there was no hard evidence to prove him wrong since Europeans did not know the full extent of what they called the Indies. \n\nScholars, and most knowledgeable sailors, knew that he had not travelled any where close to the distanced needed to reach the Indies. Yet, they had no specific proof that the Americas were not part of the Indies. Eventually, well after Columbus' death, the preponderance of evidence made Columbus' claim moot. His heirs continued to press his claims based in the original contract, noting that even though he did not reach the Indies he did serve the monarchy by expanding the kingdom."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3bgq7j
|
What historical sites are known to exist in North Korea?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3bgq7j/what_historical_sites_are_known_to_exist_in_north/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csm57az",
"csm5bd5",
"csm8cn2",
"csm9gim",
"csmazu2"
],
"score": [
3,
20,
7,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I hope this is okay; I'm going to try to ping users with relevant flairs. I'm very curious, especially where Daoism in Korea is concerned.\n\n/u/AsiaExpert\n/u/Cenodoxus\n/u/DsagjiiggsScjjigsjsb\n/u/koliano\n/u/lukeweiss\n/u/MisterMomo\n/u/thanatos90\n",
"Hmmm. This is a really interesting question, but just to clarify -- what kind of historical site are you most interested in?\n\n - The historical sites that normal people would consider notable, and: \n - The historical sites that the *North Korean government* considers notable. \n\nThere's some overlap between the two, but a sizable percentage of what the government peddles as \"historical sites\" are what historians consider propaganda rather than history. \n\nFor example, Kim il-Sung's purported guerrilla camp on Mount Paektu is one of North Korea's holiest places. The Great Leader and Eternal President supposedly launched brilliant attacks against Japanese imperial forces from this camp, and his son, Kim Jong-il, the Dear Leader, was born there. Consequently the camp is the object of pilgrimage for the North Korean population even though the whole thing's fake from top to bottom. Kim il-Sung fought against Japanese forces as part of a Chinese-led army in Jiandao province (northeastern China), and then sat out World War II in a Soviet army camp in Khabarovsk. Jong-il was born there and not in Korea at all. Kim il-Sung didn't set foot back in Korea until September 1945.\n\nSo at face value, that \"camp\" has no historical significance at all. However, it's an excellent example of the lengths to which the regime went to construct a false history of Kim il-Sung's life in service to his personality cult, and how Jong-il was inserted into it when he was named heir apparent. That gave the regime the legitimacy it needed to control the country. Even when the government wasn't outright making stuff up, it had no problems using history and archaeology to its benefit by \"discovering\" ancient sites in oddly convenient places. Bolstering the country's claims of descent from a great civilization was largely in service to internal propaganda needs. \n\nAre you more interested in genuine historical sites within North Korea (e.g., the Goguryeo tomb sites, Kaesong city walls), the regime's \"historical\" sites, or both?",
"Alright. There are far too many to list, but here's a short list:\n\nNorth Korea has two UNESCO World Heritage Sites.\n\n* The Goguryeo tomb murals are famous, and of course tied to Daoism as /u/Cenodoxus noted. The *shenxian* or Daoist immortals and the Four Symbols (the Azure Dragon, the Vermilion Bird, the White Tiger, the Black Turtle) all make an appearance; [this](_URL_2_) for example is a restored depiction of the Black Turtle in one Goguryeo tomb. There's also a Buddhist element in the tomb murals as well (Bodhisattva, lotuses). \n* The city of Kaesong. There's a complex of Goryeo royal tombs in its environs, one of the best preserved being the mausoleum of [King Gongmin](_URL_0_) (and even that has been robbed). The series of Kaesong city walls, the observatory, and the schools and educational institutes should all be noted. Unfortunately the chief Goryeo palace complex [is just a shell of its former glory.](_URL_6_)\n\nThere are also many that are not World Heritage Sites but should still be mentioned. \n\n* The city of Pyongyang is a historic one, but a lot of it has been irrevocably ruined by the North Korean government. The city walls, the temples, the shrines...the [gigantic twenty-year-old pyramid](_URL_4_) isn't actually a historic site though NK claims it is, but it might well become one a few centuries later.\n* [Mount Myohyang](_URL_5_) was a major Buddhist center and it has a large number of Buddhist sites - [this](_URL_3_) \"thirteen-storied octagonal pagoda\" is my favorite pagoda, for example. The mountain is also associated with the Seon (Zen) warrior monk [Hyujeong](_URL_1_).^1\n\nThere are lots of other sites scattered throughout the country, like in the south. But I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Daoist sites, because Daoism never really had much of a presence in the peninsula compared to Buddhism or Confucianism.\n\n^1 A copy of the monk's portrait where he wrote his last lines at the age of eighty is displayed in the Geumgang Grotto; the poem starts with \n\n > 八十年前渠是我\n\n > 八十年後我是渠\n\n > Eighty years ago this was me,\n\n > Eighty years later I am this.\n\nWhat does it mean? Well, I wouldn't know. I'm not a monk.",
"In the town of Sinchon there is a war museum. Sinchon was the place of a massacre during world war two. The site includes a burial mound/monument and some of the bunkers where people were herded into. The place is seen as a major historical site in the country.",
"I visited North Korea back in 2012. Two places stick out in my mind, I'll include pictures I've taken:\n\nThe old town of Kaesong: _URL_0_. Many of the houses built here date back to the Joseon dynasty (which was from 1392-1897). The large building you see is a Children's Palace, iirc.\n\nPohyonsa. _URL_2_ _URL_1_ Located on Mount Myohyang, this is a temple complex with over a thousand years of history, unfortunately American forces bombed and destroyed over half of the buildings in 1951. That green temple I wish I knew more about, because I have traveled all over Asia and have never seen a building like that, and in green."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gongmin_of_Goryeo",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyujeong",
"http://contents.nahf.or.kr/goguryeo/gangseo/html/Gangseo-Daemyo-4deities_pop_09.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokka_Pagoda_of_the_Pohyonsa_Buddhist_temple#/media/File:Pohyon_Temple,_Mount_Myohyang.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum_of_Tangun",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myohyangsan",
"http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/field/image/Moon-Palace-korea.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/tZFc84A",
"http://imgur.com/6X1UaCq",
"http://imgur.com/HMDgsOY"
]
] |
||
19zptl
|
Why was Northern Germany (specifically Prussia) given to Poland after WW2?
|
Didn't they have a more Germanic history?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19zptl/why_was_northern_germany_specifically_prussia/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8srk72"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"The compensations paid by Germany after World War 1 ended rarely had anything to do with history. \n\nAfter world War 1 (yes, WW1) ended, Germany was forced to give some of its territory as a compensation to neighboring countries it had attacked. Here's a [picture](_URL_0_) depicting those changes. \"Historical connections\" rarely was an argument for these territorial changes. For instance, Belgium received some small pieces of land as well. To this day, those villages are united in the [German-speaking community of Belgium](_URL_2_) and (obviously) still speak German.\n\nSo when plans were made after WW1 ended, \"common history\" wasn't any of the worries the victors took into account when drafting the Treaty of Versailles. By claiming that piece of Prussia, Poland did gain access to the Baltic Sea which of course is immensely important.\n\nIn conclusion: the territorial changes included in the [Treaty of Versailles](_URL_1_) after World War 1 had nothing to do with the receiving countries seeking to \"unite their people\". They were just looking to expand their strategic position. Poland wanted Prussia cause that would give them access to the Baltic Sea."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:German_losses_after_WWI.svg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-speaking_Community_of_Belgium"
]
] |
|
1uzfec
|
Was it possible for a single kingdom to hold 2 electorates in the Holy Roman Empire?
|
Lets say the Duke of Saxony somehow inherited the County of the Palatinate, would the Duke of Saxony then have the voting power of two electos, or would a new elector have been chosen?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1uzfec/was_it_possible_for_a_single_kingdom_to_hold_2/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cen72wc"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In 1777 the Wittelsbach electorates of Palatinate and Bavaria were merged when the junior branch reigning in Bavaria died out. The senior branch still only retained a single vote and no new elector was appointed.\n\nThis is opposite to how voting rights in the Reichstag were determined as every territory was assigned a (partial) vote and whoever was the rightful ruler of the territory was able to use that vote."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3acfgl
|
It's 1825, suppose I asked an (English) military historian if Waterloo is a significant battle in human history. What will they (likely) say?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3acfgl/its_1825_suppose_i_asked_an_english_military/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csbicm2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Waterloo was a very significant battle, one that saw the British and other coalition members fighting the last remnants of Napoleon's military. \n\nBesides the Iberian campaign, it was the first battle that saw overwhelming British forces against that of a military commanded by Napoleon. \n\nA person from England, who asked this question in 1825 would likely agree that that it was very significant to defeat Napoleon, who was depicted in British press unfavorably. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7zl8pq
|
I have found an article with excellent citations that shows many musket formations broke down into a "fire at will" type fire after the initial exchange between lines; how many of those men were actually aiming at the enemy or firing with the intent to hit an enemy?
|
I've seen this question related to SLA Marshall's WWII study but I cannot find any topics related to this phenemenon before WWII. I know that, at Gettysburg, many muskets were found to have been loaded in excess of 2 times ( with one loaded somewhere around 17 times) which suggests many men were not firing.
I'm involved in F & I War re-enactment and I would like to know more about how comfortable people were with killing at the time; did they aim to kill?
the article I mentioned: _URL_0_
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7zl8pq/i_have_found_an_article_with_excellent_citations/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duoz3cz"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Civil War historian here. Coincidentally, I also grew up across the street from Lee’s headquarters at Gettysburg.\n\nIn the case of the Civil War, it’d be hard to say how many soldiers shot to miss vs shot to harm because there were no studies that systematically interviewed them about this issue. There are anecdotal examples of soldiers talking about picking targets, like Samuel Watkins of Tennessee who said he never shot at officers because the enlisted men were more of a threat.\n\nEarl Hess’s “The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat” might help you out. He argues that the rifle musket was so deadly during the war because soldiers preferred firing at short range, had gotten very good at killing soldiers via sniping and the skirmish line, and the parabolic trajectory of the rifle musket’s bullet (which created two kill zones instead of one).\n\nThis would suggest that most front-line Civil War soldiers were very willing to shoot to harm; however, panic, smoke, fatigue, and other battlefield impediments may have limited their ability to hit targets. This was the case at Gettysburg, where soldiers panicked and double, triple, and quadruple loaded their muskets.\n\nMy research suggests instances of deliberately missing a target were rare during Civil War combat. If a soldier wanted to avoid killing, there were other ways to do so. James McPherson writes about incidents of skulking in “For Cause and Comrades.”\n\nHope this helps."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://kabinettskriege.blogspot.com/2018/02/did-eighteenth-century-infantry.html"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
djwqi5
|
How did the early USSR handle classic Russian literature?
|
I'm currently reading *Everyday Stalinism* by Sheila Fitzpatrick, and in it she mentions the importance for the new elite to be "cultured," which in this case included, among other things, familiarity with classic authors (she specifically mentions Tolstoy and Chekov). Was this ever at odds with their ideology? It's a bit surprising to me that a government so opposed to people who were part of the old elite would still be so welcoming of older Russian culture.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/djwqi5/how_did_the_early_ussr_handle_classic_russian/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f4as1s1"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"An important aspect to remember about classic 19th century Russian literature is that even though much of it was produced by members of the upper class, those authors tended to be very critical of the social order of the time: Dostoevsky was arrested as a member of a group of cospirators, sentenced to death and exiled to Siberia after a stay in execution; Gogol was a Slavophile monarchist, but much of his work (like *Dead Souls*) lampooned tsarist society; Tolstoy was critical of the tsarist state and organized religion (*not* private religion), and opposed private land ownership; Chekov was harshly critical of conditions in penal colonies in Sakhalin; Chernyshevsky was a prominent member in the *Nardonik* movement and had a direct influence on Lenin.\n\nNone of which is to say that any of these authors identified with Marxism, let alone Bolshevism (most of them died before the latter became a political movement). But none of them were comfortable with or vocal supporters of the *status quo*, and would have regarded themselves as members of the *intelligentsia*, which is a group that saw itself as class apart, critical of society. \n\nThe concept of an *intelligentsia* carried forward into the Soviet period, despite it not really fitting into Marxist class analysis. The relationship between the intelligentsia and the Bolshevik/Communist party was a complicated and at times fraught one - at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution, the party, including Lenin, often saw the intelligentsia as ineffective and about to be swept away, but by the 1930s (as Fitzpatrick notes), the party tried to more or less identify itself with the intelligentsia, to the point that prominent cultural figures relied on the patronage of major players in the Bolshevik party (and therefore had the unfortunate tendency to fall from grace and even face execution if their patrons were purged in the 1936-1938 period).\n\nAnother important aspect about classic Russian literature and the Soviet regime is that prior to the 1930s, there very much was a debate whether to accept or reject this older literature. The issue was that in this period (which roughly coincided with the New Economic Policy era) the Bolshevik Party didn't have an official policy on the matter yet, so it was largely left up to different groups of writers and educators to debate what literature was appropriate or not. The group that came together as the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers was very much in favor of a new, revolutionary literature that would attack works and authors that it saw as being at odds with Bolshevik ideology - it was something like a literary paramilitary, if you will. However, this group (which operated between 1925 and 1932) was just one of many groups, another notable one being *Proletkult*, which was an independent artists' group funded by the state and which considered Anatolii Lunacharsky, the then Commissar of Education, as one of its patrons. This period of separate, somewhat independent unions of artists arguing for what was the proper use of art in the Soviet Union largely ended in 1931-1932, when these groups were merged into the Union of Soviet Writers, and the Stalinist line as to what was appropriate culture was enforced. A focus on classic Russian literature (especially as a sign of \"culturedness\") was acceptable: the USSR was promoting Socialism in one Country, after all, and Stalin was keen on demonstrating why Russian history made that country ready for such a unique experiment (although living authors were very much to focus on Socialist Realism in their work)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4pxtzq
|
World War I and II Memorabilia
|
Hey r/askhistorians. I posted this in r/history and didnt get much of a response.
Im out here visiting my girlfriend and her dad brought out box of WWI & II memorabilia, that belonged to his father (WWII) and grandfather (WWI). I was hoping for some help identifying some of the objects and medals.
The coolest thing he had thought was a piece of hardtack his grandfather kept from the Great War, over 100 years old!.
We were wondering what the medals were for and what the translation is for the german pass/note? Not sure whats in the box, its seems to be full of uniform accoutrements. They both served in the Canadian Army.
Any help would be greatly appreciated _URL_0_
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4pxtzq/world_war_i_and_ii_memorabilia/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4pa5e4",
"d4paj8m"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Thanks for sharing the pictures with us, sounds like you're having an interesting visit!\n\nThe box of items looks like it has a mix of First World War and Second World War items (buttons and badges), along with some civilian materials (some buttons look like they are marked \"H.M. Prisons\", which might make them part of a prison guard's uniform. There also seem to be some civilian shirt studs, cuff links, and tie bars. The enamel badge looks like it has the Canadian coat of arms on it; you should be able to figure out a date range for its manufacture from the details (design and number of provinces included).\n\nThe First World War medals are the British War Medal and Victory Medal. If they're the originally issued pair, the recipient's service number, name, and unit will be stamped on the rim. (e.g. 401167 PTE J.B. SMITH 2 CAN INF, for someone who served with the 2nd Canadian Infantry Battalion, CEF.)\n\nThe Second World War medals are, left to right:\n\n* 1939-45 Star\n* Italy Star\n* Canadian Volunteer Service Medal with clasp for overseas service\n* Defence Medal\n* War Medal, 1939-1945\n* Purple Heart: An American award, for those wounded or killed while serving with the U.S. military. He would have received it because the First Special Service Force was a joint American-Canadian unit. \n\nYou can find details on the First World War medals and the first five Second World War medals on the Veterans Affairs Canada website:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt looks like there's another Second World War medal set, consisting of the CVSM and the 39-45 Medal. This would be consistent with someone who volunteered for overseas service (\"went active\", to use a contemporary term), but who was not sent overseas. Was there another family member who served in the war?\n\nThe FSSF has been the subject of a number of books, a Hollywood film, and at least one recent TV documentary. A few books worth consulting are:\n\nHorn, Bernd, and Michel Wyczynski, *Of courage and determination : the First Special Service Force, \"the Devil's Brigade\", 1942-44*, (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2013).\n\nJoyce, Kenneth H., *Snow Plough and the Jupiter Deception : the true story of the 1st Special Service Force and the 1st Canadian Special Service Battalion, 1942-1945*, (St. Catharines, ON: Vanwell Publishing, 2006).\n\nRoss, Robert Todd, *The Supercommandos : First Special Service Force, 1942-1944 : an illustrated history, USA/Canada*, (Atglen, PA: Schiffer, 2000).\n\nWood, James A. *We move only forward : Canada, the United States and the First Special Service Force, 1942-1944*, (St. Catharines, Ont. : Vanwell Pub., 2006).\n\nHope this helps!",
"I'm afraid I'm unable to assist with the medals but I can help you out with the German pass. On the front it says Kriegsurlaubschein. A literal translation would be \"war holiday pass\". Every soldier who left the front line for any type of vacation got one of those. This one belonged to Karl Hirsch, ranking in the Wehrmacht as Obergefreiter. He was allowed to leave the front line in Africa from January 15th 1943 until some time between February 6th and February 9th (hard to read due to green tape) to visit the village of Gornsdorf (Saxony, Germany). \n\nThe cover also has some rules for his travels, such as taking the most direct route, no zigzaging and no round trips. He is allowed to travel for free though. The red stamp in the right upper corner certifies that he is free from any contagious diseases.\n\nThe next page lists some more rules and regulations. On top you can see someone scribbled \"Genesungsurlaub\", so it's a vacation with the goal of rehabilitation. He possibly got injured during fighting, as that's the most common reason for a Genesungsurlaub. \n\nThe first rule states that the owner of this pass is only allowed to show it to appropriate personnel (read as Wehrmacht, police or the train personnel). \n\nPoint 2 states that once he reaches his destination, he has to have someone stamp and sign it, namely the local Wehrmacht commander and if none is available, the local police. In this case, as it's a very small village, someone signed it in the name of the local mayor.\n\nPoint 3 is a regulation that says that he should not talk about any details in conversations.\n\nPoint 4: If he gets sick, he has to immediately inform a doctor. Either one from the Wehrmacht, a field hospital or a local doctor, depending what's available.\n\nPoint 6: If unsure about where to return to after the vacation, always contact the nearest Wehrmacht office, never any civil institutions.\n\nPoints 7 through 9 deal with the soldiers provisions. Since he's not self sufficient, point 8 defines what the Wehrmacht gave him in terms of money, food stamps, hygiene items etc. and for what time frame. For the duration of traveling to Germany he was also given some bread. Point 9 deals with a pass where the procurement of tobacco was logged.\n\nPoint 10 says he has to return this pass once his vacation has ended. \n\nPoint 11 is a field for additional notes. An example would be wearing civilian clothes during his vacation.\n\nThe right page is basically an attachment with additional information. The soldier was part of the aviation wing of the Wehrmacht and served in Africa. It also notes that he gets additional food stamps and stamps for use in restaurants, as he gets a Schwerarbeiterzulage. I don't know if the Canadians or Americans had this, it's basically additional benefits for doing hard manual labour. It also states that he will get two eggs per week. \n\nHope this helps. If you have more questions, feel free to ask."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://imgur.com/gallery/jf0bO/new"
] |
[
[
"http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/medals-decorations/list"
],
[]
] |
|
19o5xv
|
How did the Roman Numerals come about? (Why does "X" represent 10, "V" rep 5, etc.)
|
I am doing some extra credit for my Latin class, and it will be on the history and formation of Roman numerals. My biggest question is why? Who designed this system? Are there Latin words that correspond? I'm guessing that "C" is from "Centi", but do not know much outside of that.
Background + History + Meaning would be MUCH appreaciated!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19o5xv/how_did_the_roman_numerals_come_about_why_does_x/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8pzpex"
],
"score": [
28
],
"text": [
"In addition to Yellowtag's description of the actual symbols, I would like to add a bit about the numerals itself. Most of what I have is somewhat tertiary (Damian MacManus's \"A Guide to Ogham\" spends significant space discussing the differences between Ogham and Roman numerals and the different ways the systems were optimized).\n\nThe basic point is that the the Ruman Numeral *system* is an abbreviation of tally stick systems of counting. The basic approach, as MacManus describes, is to start with simple score mark, and then marking every 5 with a special mark. V might be here in part because it is easy to mark this way. You will note that the smaller numbers are all vertical/diagonal lines making marking on wood staves easy and durable. It isn't until you get to L and C that this changes. This doesn't contradict anything Yellowtag has said but it does suggest why certain symbols were selected for more common numeral identifiers.\n\nSo with a tally stick then you can mark:\n\nIIIIVIIIIXIIIIVIIIIXIIIIVIIIIXIIIIVIIIIXIIIIVIIIXIIIIVIIIIXIIIIVIIIIX etc.... Roman numerals then denote a position on the tally stick. For example IV is the I before the first V. XIIX is the I two places before the second X and so forth. Note that early inscriptions are a little flexible regarding ordering so sometimes you do see 18 written as IIXX (which is still \"two before twenty\"). This sort of tally stick system is that it is reasonably well adapted for addition and subtraction (unlike Ogham which is optimized as a reference to a phonetic system, which MacManus demonstrates is based on classical rhetorical and poetic theory and thus unsuited for numerical systems).\n\nIt's further worth noting that there are other tally stick numerical systems around in other ages. It is the most well known though."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1a2pgb
|
Why are most birds of prey featured on coats of arms eagles, but are eagles not commonly used for falconry?
|
If I had to guess the answer to my question, I'd be somewhere along the lines of 'the eagle on coats of arms express a symbol, while falconry is more practical and eagles are not practical to hunt with'.
If my assumptions are correct, then I have some follow-up questions:
-Wikipedia says: "Historically, falconry was a popular sport and status symbol among the nobles of medieval Europe, the Middle East, and Mongolian Empire." If so, why didnt they use eagles more then? Its a status symbol sport anyway so not meant to be practical, and eagles themselves are much more of a symbol then falcons. While more impractical/difficult, its certainly possible to hunt with eagles (see the Mongolians, they still do it).
Thanks in advance!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1a2pgb/why_are_most_birds_of_prey_featured_on_coats_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8tk7o9",
"c8toizr",
"c8twwh7"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Eagles are the strongest birds, every little kid knows that. Falcons are used for hunting, because they're best fit for this purpose. Same as with lions and dogs, lions are the strongest, but dogs are useful for hunting.\n\nThey used falcons simply because they're the best for hunting, no noble would want to suck at hunting and be laughed at by his oponents using falcons. Mongolians used eagles, because [falcons don't live in Mongolia.](_URL_0_)",
"For the same reason that lions are, even though dogs are better to hunt with. It's just the biggest, coolest-looking bird; plus there's the air of mystery and unattainable glory around it. Many people were familiar with falcons enough to not see them as terribly imposing. The falcon was the working man, but the eagle was the god on the cliff.\n\n > If so, why didn't they use eagles more then?\n\nEagles are more difficult to capture, more difficult to train, less successful in wooded lands when hunting with a falconer, and require more time investment. Their personality is much different than other raptors in general. However, they are perfectly suited to the vast wilds of the Mongolian steppes.\n\n > Its a status symbol sport anyway so not meant to be practical\n\nThis highly depends on the time period, location, and who is doing the falconry. Keep in mind that while there was a lot of posturing, \"falconer\" was still very much a practical vocation; it was said that a good goshawk could stock a larder all year, and the status symbol surrounding it had much more to do with the types of birds. A commonly referenced list of who-could-hunt-with-what listed vultures and eagles as only being birds that an emperor could use, and anyone else was forbidden. Vultures are terrible falconry birds, if they were used at all. The status was entirely built around how majestic or intimidating the birds were.\n\nEven though there is a lot of status symbol considerations wrapped up in falconry, the birds were not captured to sit around and convey the status of their owners- that type of thing was for manageries. In falconry, a bird that could not successfully hunt was an embarrassment, which is why accomplished master falconers had such high positions; so a bird that wasn't practical was of no use to the game of nobility.\n\nAlso, it wasn't the case of \"if you have an eagle, you are a Super Cool Guy in our eyes.\" Artificial constraints were put on- for example, the thing about only kings or emperors using eagles. If you were just some Knave and you tried that, in some times and places you could be cruisin' for a serious bruisin' for overstepping your position.\n\nFor these reasons, even if everybody with weight behind him was using an eagle, there would still not be many used.",
"Your guess is pretty accurate. Eagles as state and military symbols go back a very long time and became particularly common heraldic devices in continental Europe, but they're not particularly useful birds in falconry for *most* contexts. They're very large, very heavy -- no small consideration for a falconer that may have to hold them for long periods! -- require reinforced equipment to account for the greater weight and strength of the bird, and are actually just larger, slower versions of broadwings like common buzzards and red-tails. (Although Europeans/Africans/Asians didn't have access to red-tails until their contact with North America, as *Buteo jamaicensis* is native to that continent.) \n\n**Falconers/austringers select birds by terrain and prey:** Most eagles' natural habitat is in remoter and more mountainous places than the smaller broadwings, and they abuse terrain and their superior weight to bring down prey. The weight issue tends to make their flights less outwardly spectacular than you'd see with, say, a goshawk or a peregrine. Terrain is also a problem because humans get exhausted tramping over hills and mountains all day, and it also makes it much more difficult to find a bird that's made a kill. (They don't actually fly back to you -- you have to find them and lift them off the kill.) For a medieval falconer without access to the digital tracking methods that modern falconers use, that would have been a very real consideration.\n\n**Status and performance:** As you point out, there's an element of status to the sport -- the 15th century *Boke of St. Albans* literally assigned birds by social ranks in English society, although it was really more a more metaphorical commentary on class than a serious attempt to say, \"If you're an emperor, you should fly an eagle!\" -- but an eagle wouldn't necessarily have conferred much of it. Removed from their natural habit, they:\n\n - weren't likely to perform as well as a common buzzard on the game available in hill country (primarily rabbit) \n - they're poorly suited to the kind of forest flying that goshawks and sparrowhawks excel at\n - and they don't have the speed to go after game birds like falcons can. \n\nIt would have been enormously embarrassing to set out on a hawking trip with an eagle on your fist only to fail at kills that others would make with less \"prestigious\" birds. Actually, that would have made for a dismal trip all around, because anyone accompanying a monarch or noble on such a trip would have been acutely conscious that outperforming the highest-ranked person present was not necessarily a good idea.\n\n**A better alternative existed as both a hunting bird and a status symbol:** The real status symbol of the medieval and Renaissance period was the gyrfalcon, because the birds were (and are) confined to northern climates. They tend to be flown at the same prey as peregrines while also being slightly larger and -- especially if they're a white morph -- quite beautiful. They were common gifts between monarchs.\n\nA really good resource on this is Robin Oggins' *The Kings and their Hawks,* although I'd have to dig up my dissertation (still MIA) for a more complete bibliography. However, Frederick II Hohenstaufen wrote a very extensive work on medieval falconry, complete with research gathered from the more advanced Arab falconers of the day, the *De Arte Venandi cum Avibus*, or \"On the Art of Falconry\" that's an absolutely fascinating read. However, the English translation is appallingly expensive, so I'd borrow it from a library if possible."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PeregrineRangeMap.png"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
32ils8
|
How was Europe so readily able to populate for WWII after the major death toll in the first?
|
I was curious. We always hear about how in Europe in WWI a huge percentage of the population died, but then in WWII an even bigger part did. How did Europe manage to repopulate so quickly in 20 years, especially since the birthrate had slowed by this time?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/32ils8/how_was_europe_so_readily_able_to_populate_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqbmjqu"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"You're overestimating the population loss. Britain lost around two percent of its total population during the war. France lost just over four percent and Germany just under four percent. Tragic and horrifying, yes, but not large enough to totally disorder society."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4ardgh
|
Why are some state-implicated mass-casualty events known by their victims' names (e.g. Holocaust, Holodomor), while others are known by their propaganda name (e.g. Great Leap Forward)?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4ardgh/why_are_some_stateimplicated_masscasualty_events/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d133ep0"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"In the case of the Holocaust, this was not always so but rather a development over time. While the term had been around before WWII and had been used to refer to among other things the Armenian genocide, the genocide against the Jews was known until the mid-60s most commonly under the term the Germans used \"the final solution\" or as the destruction of the European Jews (in his first edition of the standard work \"The destruction of the European Jews\" from the 60s Raul Hilberg doesn't use the term Holocaust).\n\nThe term Holocaust as applied to the killing of the European Jews and Roma and Sinti was only first used in the 60s (Nora Levin's book The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry, 1933-1945 is one of the first examples). It was widely popularized by the 70s when the TV-series \"Holocaust\" starring among others Meryll Streep premiered on TV and was watched by thousands of people around the globe.\n\nSimilarly, the term Holodomor was one first used in the 70s by Ukrainian exile organizations in the US and Canada, partly because they felt in order to spread knowledge of this crime, it deserved a name. But in this case too, it took some time for the general public to associate the name with the crime.\n\nThis should answer the question to a certain extent: For some crimes, we use different names because very often victim groups push a certain diction in public in order to gain acknowledgment for the crimes committed against them and to anchor them in public memory and spread knowledge about it. We lack this for example in the case of the Great Leap Forward because either no such effort has been made yet or there are no victim groups in the Western world pushing for it. In case of the Armenian genocide for example, various Armenian organizations refer to it as the Medz Yeghern (the great crime) but that diction has not made it into official language yet - though some historians use it -, partly because knowledge about it is still limited in the public, partly because for official politics, there is still contention about using it because of a state's relation to Turkey."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1o2gwd
|
I just saw 12 Years a Slave. How common were kidnappings of Free Black Men from the North to the South?
|
Were there other cases of black men or women kidnapped and later winning their freedom?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1o2gwd/i_just_saw_12_years_a_slave_how_common_were/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccodgvf"
],
"score": [
38
],
"text": [
"To answer my own question, the problem was common enough that in 1840, the New York State legislature passed a law to provide a mechanism for the state to retrieve free blacks who had been wrongly kidnapped by human traffickers. Abolition societies in Pennsylvania and other border states were constantly on the look out for unscrupulous individuals who engaged in human trafficking of free blacks to the Deep South. Free blacks were either transported by land or via the Chespeake Bay river network, largely to deep south states such as Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi where the need for enslaved labor was greatest. \n\nThere were several methods by which free blacks were stolen into slavery. The first was by brute force, basically a traditional kidnapping where the freedman would be trapped and transported to be sold down South. Deceit was also used as vulnerable poor free blacks were the recipients of phony job offers by kidnappers who then lured freed persons into slavery. Another, more direct method, was to use federal and state fugitive slave laws to accuse a freed person of being a slave. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 for example, made defending oneself from those charges very difficult. \"The Fugitive slave law of 1850 said that a person could be 'accused' of being a fugitive slave and that person would have NO RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE, No right to speak on his or her own behalf. NO RIGHT TO A LAWYER, NO RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL.\" So blacks accused of being slaves had no legal recourse, especially if they were in the South where they did not have access to a courthouse and could not testify on their own behalf even if they could file a lawsuit. They had to rely on informing individuals in the north of their location, if they could and hoping that legal proceedings started in the North could result in a judgment that would be enforced in the state where they were enslaved. The Dred Scott decision made it even more unlikely that black people could successfully petition the courts for redress as Justice Taney ruled that Black people generally \"had not been, were not then, could never be citizens of the United States and as such have no rights which white men are bound to respect.'\"\n\nKidnappings took place largely along the border states. The reason, obviously is that proximity to slave states made human trafficking easy. Another factor was simple math. Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland had a combined free black population greater than the rest of the country from 1790 to 1860. And kidnappings increased after the nation banned the international slave trade and after most Northern states banned slavery in the early-1800s. But kidnappings have been recorded in places as far north as New Hampshire and as far south as Louisiana. \n\nConsidering that black slaves were the most valuable \"possession\" in the country after the cotton lands themselves, this was a very lucrative practice. \n\nIn the case of Solomon Northup, he was able to mail a letter via a friendly Canadian to a lawyer and family friend in upstate New York named Henry Northup, whose father had enslaved Solomon Northup's father. After locating Solomon Northup, Henry Northup was appointed the legal agent of New York Governor William Hunt, who successfully sued for Solomon Northup's freedom in 1853, 12 years after his kidnapping. \n\nAny other insight anyone might have would be greatly welcomed!\n\nSources: \n[Freedom at Risk: The Kidnapping of Free Blacks in America 1780-1865 by Carol Wilson](_URL_1_)\n[Slavery Transformed America Part Three: Seeds of Destruction By Jim Kirwan](_URL_0_)\n[Sojourner Truth's America by Margaret Washington](_URL_2_) FYI, Margaret Washington was my thesis adviser in college and I can't say enough good things about her. \n\nAnd 12 Years A Slave, Narrative of Solomon Northup, a citizen of New-York, kidnapped in Washington city in 1841, and rescued in 1853, from a cotton plantation near the Red River in Louisiana.\n\n \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://rense.com/general88/slavery.htm",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=ptFqye_hg54C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=iYrL_RKlkI4C&pg=PA395&lpg=PA395&dq=New+York+state+law+preventing+kidnapping+free+blacks+1840&source=bl&ots=ftEeqsGhvX&sig=k75rxfGoLoCd0gYpwpAvUz8kdeA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yqNVUrjUFofC9QSRr4HgBQ&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=to%20prevent%20kidnapping&f=false"
]
] |
|
154c3q
|
Why did the Catholic Church hold some pre-Christian ideas so highly? For example: Aristotle's geocentric theory.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/154c3q/why_did_the_catholic_church_hold_some/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7j5yuh"
],
"score": [
22
],
"text": [
"Because these weren't religious ideas, and thus did not come into conflict with the Christian doctrine. Ancient Greek and Roman scholars and philosophers were highly regarded even if they were not Christian, and their ideas were still considered true."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2qpend
|
In 14th-16th century England, how would a normal person get an urgent message to someone in a different city reliably?
|
I'm imagining a scenario where I'm in a small town in Yorkshire with my father, whose failing health is probably going to cause him to die in the next few weeks or months, but before that he desperately wants to speak to my brother - who lives in London.
Imagine we're not poor, but not really wealthy either. Would that be enough to hire our own messenger? Or ask a travelling merchant to pass a note? Who would I tell him to give it to, do I have an address, streetname and number? What options would I have to send him a message asking him to come as quickly as possible?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2qpend/in_14th16th_century_england_how_would_a_normal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn8nv12"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"To get a message speedily across the country you would most likely hire a courier or messenger if you were wealthy enough, for added speed you would have a fresh horse waiting for the messenger at coaching inns (with stables) along the route. For example the messenger who traveled from Elizabeth I of England's death bed to tell James VI of Scotland that he was to become king did so in about a week, changing from his tired horse to a fresh horse at each inn on the route.\n\nFor more humble people less is known, as sadly it is only the stories of the rich and powerful that tend to survive. The London mayoral rolls (records) and trade rolls (records) show that merchants and the like regularly sent messages between key cities like York, Bristol and London. Bishops and clergy also frequently lived in and visited cities like York and London to be near their Archbishops and would communicate back and forth with their rural and small town parishes. \n\nIt is entirely plausible that those wishing to send messages to less urban ares would pay a fee to get messages sent to destinations via the clergy or mercantile classes. In many cases these messages would trade hands in coaching inns to other travelers going the right way. St. Albans grew as a town as it was on the outskirts of London and news, criers and travelers would rest there, and mail would change hands there. \n\nIn consideration of addresses, In small communities you would know most individuals by name, though in larger cities a description of the area the individual lived, a description of the person, the trade of the individual, the master of the individual (they could be an apprentice or a servant) and sometimes the geographical birthplace or country of origin of the individual would be used (e.g Welsh John). For most ordinary people this would have got a message into the right hands.\n\nAn example of this could be: Welsh John with the odd ear, apprentice to Master Robert Smith, Blacksmith of Cheapside, London. \n\nThe gentry, wealthy, clergy, government and the royal household however tended to have mail sent to an address (for example the Guildhall, or Westminster palace) with the recipients name or rank clearly labeled. \n\nAn example of this would be: The Lord Mayor, Care of the Guildhall, London\n\nHope this helps! If you want to know any more or have any other questions I will try my best to help out, I'm enjoying it as it means I can actually use my degree for something!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6k89u9
|
Can a reigning king marry a reigning queen?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6k89u9/can_a_reigning_king_marry_a_reigning_queen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djk1zh4"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Off the top of my head a few examples:\n\nMary Queen of Scots and King Francis of France\n\nQueen Mary of England and King Phillip of Spain\n\nQueen Jeanne of Navarre and Phillip IV of France."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
133fbz
|
Arabs vs Persians in Islamic history
|
So a friend told me that Persians had more to do with the golden age in Islamic history than Arabs, is that true? I thought maybe it's a Sunni vs Shi'iite thing (he's from Iran) but thought I'd check here if maybe there's some truth to it
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/133fbz/arabs_vs_persians_in_islamic_history/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c70grpi"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Yes...and no. lol. Depends on how you define Arab. Most Arabs today define it as someone who speaks Arabic as their mother tongue. This is *not* the definition that would have been used throughout much of history. A \"true\" Arab would have been someone who could trace their lineage through their father to an Arab tribe. The problem is that only a fraction of people who consider themselves Arab today can do this so the popular definition reverts to the language one (bit more complicated reasons for this, but your question isn't about Arab nationalism). \n\nAs for Persians having more to do with the golden age, this is something that there's very little dispute about....if you use the original definition of Arab. Arab-speaking Persians (who many modern Arabs would claim are therefore Arabs) formed the bulk of the intellectual and scholarly class. There's a very famous incident that's found in the introduction to Ibn Salah's work on hadith where the caliph of the time, Hisham ibn Abd al Malik asks about the leading jurists in each of the major areas of his caliphate. Every time, the person he's asking tells him a name he asks, \"and is this person Arab or non-Arab?\" And every time, he says non-Arab. Finally, when he gets to the last city, the person says Arab and Hisham (who's Arab) says that if you had said non-Arab one more time I would have killed myself.\n\nThe point of this incident is that very early on (Hisham is Umayyad, within the first two centuries of Islamic history) the jurists across the Islamic world are non-Arab. This continued on with the Abbasids (who really only came to power relying on Persian support) where non-Arabs (keep in mind that in the eastern part of the empire, non-Arab was basically synonymous with Persian) played a very important role in political administration. \n\nNow, coming to the \"golden age\" I'm assuming you mean the flowering of science and philosophy in Baghdad. The Banu Musa brothers, Avicenna, ibn haytham, ibn Muqaffa, Farabi, and ar-Razi among others were Persian ethnically. However, pretty much all of them spoke and wrote in Arabic as that was the language of science at the time.\n\nFinally, and this just a side note, the tying of Iran to Shi'ism is relatively recent. During the \"golden age\", the area of Iran would have been primarily Sunni and many Persians were Sunni, not Shi'ite. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
aphpef
|
Did the USSR have any equivalent to the strange experiments that the CIA did like MK ULTRA?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/aphpef/did_the_ussr_have_any_equivalent_to_the_strange/
|
{
"a_id": [
"egc5ylv"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Probably. The CIA was certainly concerned with Soviet mind control programs, especially during and after the Korean War. I highly recommend [Marks' book](_URL_1_) on the American program, which is fairly reliable and very interesting. \n\n\nSerge Kernbach [released a document](_URL_0_) outlining some basic information about the Soviet ESP program. Much to my amusement, he claims that the Soviets started their version of MK-ULTRA as a reaction to the American program. Of course I'd view at least some of his findings as apocryphal; the Russians have not declassified documents and projects at nearly the same pace Americans have. I'm also a little concerned that while he's credentialed with the University of Stuttgart, most of his other research involves non-historical business. Not saying he's wrong or the information is not accurate, just that it's difficult to verify the author's background. And of course, most of his sources are in Russian. I only know Greek, Latin, and English, so I can't independently verify them, even with my access to university journals. \n\n\nBasically, we don't know the details about either the American or Soviet mind control programs. However, we know the Americans had one (and destroyed most of the good stuff before it could get before a Congressional inquiry), they thought the Soviets had one, and that some research suggests that the Soviets, in fact, did have one. Kind of confusing, but I hope that helps a bit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.1148v2.pdf",
"https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1953980-mk-ultra-the-cia-s-declassified-mind-control-program"
]
] |
||
6moldb
|
Batteries designs and cells have been found amongst ancient cultures, everyone gets stuck on how "they" though of it but I want to ask what were they powering?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6moldb/batteries_designs_and_cells_have_been_found/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dk3kpyh"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"There is basically no evidence that any of these \"batteries\" were actually used as such. A basic galvanic cell is so simple in design that it is quite easy to make one by accident. The items alleged to be galvanic cells (such as the \"Baghdad battery\") don't appear to have any *leads* that would make it easy to make use of the electricity, which makes their identification as a battery quite suspect. There were attempts to claim that such \"batteries\" had been used for electroplating but as it turns out the examples presented were not actually electroplated, besides which the \"batteries\" (even if configured with maximal effectiveness for use as batteries) would not have been very good at the job.\n\nAs for the claim of the description of a galvanic cell in an \"ancient indian text\", aka the \"Agastya Samhita\", there is no good scholarship establishing the existence of the text at the supposed date, and every indication that it was manufactured in more modern times.\n\nThere's simply no credible evidence for the existence of galvanic cells in ancient times."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
uemev
|
Did the wealthy of antiquity accumulate large reserves of physical currency, or was all wealth centered around land, goods, or slaves?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/uemev/did_the_wealthy_of_antiquity_accumulate_large/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4ur45z",
"c4us8wg"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Off topic but in Western Europe in the Middle Ages, it was mostly land, goods and serfs. The wealthy also needed to use their resources for armor and weaponry. I just heard that between 1200-1350 in England, 1/4th of the Aristocracy died violent deaths as they were the \"professional\" soldiers who would fight with kings or in struggles for thrones with whom they swore oaths in exchange for land. It was basically a constant struggle. We know their were probably no stashes because there simply was very little coinage around that time. As for antiquity, I do know that Athens had a huge silver mine close by when they were at their height so I would imagine that the wealthy had a cut of that but this is speculation. The Greeks sent a lot of coin East for exotic goods like spices and silks and didn't have much to trade back. Romans had tons of currency floating around but the Byzantine Empire during periods of decline coinage became scarce (i.e. there are no coins found from certain periods in the archeological record and they started transitioning to more of a feudal-like system.",
"It was said the Marcus Licinus Crassus had a total net worth equal to the annual operating budget of the entire Roman Empire of his lifetime, or 200,000,000 sestertii. While the actual physical currency he kept around was probably nothing to sneeze at, most of his wealth was in real estate, slave trafficking, and silver mining. He had a private fire department that basically operated like this; \n\nA persons house catches fire. Crassus or one of his representatives purchases the house at an absurdly low price. His fire men put it out as quickly as possible and whatever was left of the house was refurbished an resold. It was this kind of hypercapitalist thinking that made the richest man in all of Rome's history."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.