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
sequence | selftext_urls
sequence | answers_urls
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
184q31 | What is the best way to find original documents online, such as treaties? | In this case I am trying to find the original Italian edition of the Treaty of Kuchuk Kaynardji. I've obviously done a google search, but this has been fruitless. I feel like there must be an online resource where these documents would be available to the public.
Edit: Thanks a lot! You've all been very helpful. Best of luck with your future work. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/184q31/what_is_the_best_way_to_find_original_documents/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8bm3oe",
"c8bpb86",
"c8bqtyx",
"c8bqyr9"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
5,
6
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_ however only a minute fraction of archival repositories have been digitized. ",
"The generic answer for treaties is the UN Treaty Series website _URL_0_. It contains all treaties filed with the UN by member states, and it includes links to many national treaty databases, including the United States database of Treaties in Force. The WTO website is also a good source for economic treaties.\n\nFinding treaties that are older can be more difficult, however. The treaty you ask about isn't In the UNTS. And if you want the Italian version, that is even harder. I would suggest visiting the reference librarian at your nearest law school. It might be found in some print collection.\n\nWorldCat does show the Italian version on microfiche in three locations, if you are lucky enough to be in one of those areas: _URL_1_",
"The Italian version of this treaty can be found from page 606 onwards in *[Recueil des principaux traités d'alliance de paix, de trêve, de neutralité, de commerce, de limites, d'échange etc. conclus par les puissances de l'Europe tant entre elles qu'avec les puissances et états dans d'autres parties du monde depuis 1761 jusqu'à présent \\(1791\\)](_URL_1_)*.\n\n_URL_0_ really is an invaluable resource.",
"Yale Law School's [Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History, and Diplomacy](_URL_3_) is particularly good for full texts on stuff in the 19th and 20th century, but has some documents going back to antiquity. \n\nAnother good source for European history is [EuroDocs: Online Sources for European History](_URL_0_) from Brigham Young University. The Treaty you requested (which according to the Internets was an Ottoman-Russian treaty from 1794) can be found in the [Imperial Russian section](_URL_2_). It provided [this link](_URL_1_) (Russian language). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"Archives.org"
],
[
"untreaty.un.org",
"http://www.worldcat.org/title/articoli-della-perpetua-pace-tra-limpero-di-tutte-le-russie-e-la-porta-ottomanna-conchiusa-nel-campo-presso-la-citta-di-chiusciuc-cainargi-distante-quattro-leghe-dalla-citta-di-silistria/oclc/123471805/editions"
],
[
"Archive.org",
"http://archive.org/details/recueildesprinci04martuoft"
],
[
"http://eudocs.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Main_Page",
"http://www.runivers.ru/doc/d2.php?SECTION_ID=6778&CENTER_ELEMENT_ID=147026&PORTAL_ID=7174",
"http://eudocs.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Russia_1696-1796",
"http://avalon.law.yale.edu/"
]
] |
|
couhjj | Spanish Civil War: Red vs. White Terror | Thus far, my formative reading on this was has been Anthony Beevor, who left me with the following impressions:
1. The Red Terror was hyped by foreign press hostile to the political forces behind the Republic.
2. The Red Terror was generally a short, sharp expression of disorganized, popular anger against the clergy and wealthy classes, and unsanctioned by republican/leftist political leadership (some of which sought to curb or stop the violence); The White Terror was a coldly calculated purge of politically and socially undesirable elements, directly ordered by Nationalist leadership.
3. The White Terror killed more people than the Red Terror
Apparently, though, Stanley Payne thinks Republican/leftist leadership was directly involved in the Red Terror, and intended it as a Soviet-style purge.
Any thoughts? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/couhjj/spanish_civil_war_red_vs_white_terror/ | {
"a_id": [
"ewlrpt8"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"This is obviously a controversial question, and there's a fair degree of ongoing historical debate about exactly how to characterise and compare political violence and repression on each side. I'll give a slightly bare-bones answer here, as I'm travelling, but can try and at least clarify where there is certainty and uncertainty here.\n\nFirst of all, there was definitely violence on both sides. This is perhaps an inevitable outcome of a civil war along political lines - each side faced the reality that within their own territory, there was not going to be a homogenous population of supporters, but rather plenty of people who'd much be fighting for the other side. These real and perceived enemies within were a source of a great deal of paranoia, perhaps particularly on the Republican side, as the entire conflict stemmed from betrayal in the first place, and they were soon on the defensive in the war itself. On the Nationalist side, the whole point of the conflict for many of its leaders was the purification of Spain from the evils of Marxism, freemasonry and atheism (or all of the above), and they had no qualms about using violence to achieve this. So, circumstances, and the worldview of the key participants, leant themselves to widespread political violence.\n\nIn the Republican Zone, the most famous such violence was directed against the clergy. Anti-clerical violence was a traditional feature of Spanish politics, but it occured on an unprecedented scale in the early weeks and months of the civil war. More priests likely died in Spain than in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution and civil war. In some regions such as Catalonia, around a third of the pre-war clergy were killed. This widely-publicised violence - which, as indicated by Beevor, was further inflated and sensationalised by the foreign press - was a huge blow to the international legitimacy of the Republic. In this sense, Beevor is correct about the added hype, but it is worth noting that the violence itself was very real. Historians who are particularly sympathetic to the Republic (I'm thinking particularly of Paul Preston's recent *The Spanish Holocaust* here) tend to blame this violence chiefly on Spanish anarchists, who were indeed the most outspoken about embracing the need for revolutionary violence as a necessary response to the situation. However, I don't think this view is fully sustainable in light of new research over the past decade or so, which has highlighted the role of socialists, communists and others in initiating and carrying out political violence in these early months. There's an important degree of continuity between the perpetrators and organisers or Republican political violence in those early days, and the later Republican bureaucracy, police and intelligence services - those involved in reovlutionary tribunals, for instance, tend to go on to have wartime careers in the justice system. Indeed, participation in these events might even be taken as a badge of loyalty - they had proven their dedication to the cause, and could therefore be trusted participants in the war effort. These kind of continuities I think make it difficult to argue that it's easy to isolate Republican leadership and institutions from what happened. \n\nIt's worth noting here that it was these first few months of the war that saw the worst waves of repression and violence on both sides, until the situation stabilised somewhat and the two sides began to feel somewhat more secure (though paranoia about spies and enemies within never faded). However, what is notable is that the violence on the Nationalist side never really stopped, and reached a new crescendo in the final months of the war. This reflects the dynamic of the war itself - conquering territory meant needing to purge it, and it was the Nationalists who did most of the conquering over the course of the war. The final collapse of the Rpeublic, in turn, unleashed new waves of repression against those who had fought the hardest against Franco, including not only mass executions, but a huge system of prisons, concentration and labour camps designed to categorise and punish their enemies. This is one reason why just about everyone agrees - even those who are skeptical of the Republic - that many more (by a margin of tens of thousands) were killed by the Nationalists. \n\nI don't particularly like the comparison with Stalin's purges, personally. For one, the growth of a new security state (with secret police and so on) tended to focus rather than broaden political violence in the Republican Zone - most of the worst violence was a relatively spontaneous early reaction to the emergence of an open political enemy, rather than against largely imagined enemies within during peacetime. By this I don't mean that the violence wasn't deliberate or was justified, only that the particular dynamics of Stalin's purges don't seem to have been replicated beyond a very superficial level. Moreover, the old assumption that the Republican Secret Police were run by the NKVD seems also to be false - while communists played a role, and had their own power bases (especially in Valencia), other political groups maintained their own influence. \n\nIn terms of further reading about political violence during the civil war and its aftermath, I'd look into the work of Julius Ruiz in particular, perhaps alongside that of Paul Preston, who is more sympathetic to the Republican position."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
11rsi5 | Was Christopher Columbus re-discovery of the Americas a state secret for a while? | My title pretty much explains it. Was Christopher Columbus discovery a secret within the Spanish Crown or did Spain enemy's i.e. England found out right away because it was being mentioned everywhere.
I am eager to read your responses it is a question that I always wonder about. Thanks.
edit: Thanks for the reply. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11rsi5/was_christopher_columbus_rediscovery_of_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6p72b4",
"c6p7flg"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Columbus wrote a letter about his discovery on his way back in 1493.\nWhen he docked in Lisbon, the Portuguese crown demanded he report to them, which he refused, so there seems to be an effort to keep it a secret. \n\nThat being said, he likely realized that the Portuguese would get their answers from the sailors anyway, so he decided to send a courier with copies of his letter to the Spanish monarchs. These letters were full of wrong information, which causes some to speculate that he feared interception, and wrote down things that would lead the Portuguese astray.\n\nAnyway, his letter was reprinted, translated and distributed almost immediately after he reached Spain, so there is no way the other powers were in the dark. \n\n[Link to one of the letters](_URL_0_)",
"Although the fact of his reaching land was not a secret for very long, it is almost beyond doubt that his charts were absolutely secret. Any navigational details would have been kept tightly guarded. The charts and maps of Spanish (and Portuguese) ships were kept in books that were the first things destroyed when it looked like a ship might be taken; they were considered the key to unlocking the commercial networks, and thus were not only trade secrets but state secrets. So sailors and others may have mentioned they reached strange land, and even had an idea how far it was, but they were unlikely to be able to give anything navigationally useful. That's what was secret in the early modern world.\n\n(As an aside, at the time of Columbus's voyages, Spain and England were actually quite cozy. Hell, there was even an English detachment with the Castilian army that finally forced the last Muslims out of Spain at Granada. I don't think they had a full-blown military confrontation between 1385 and 1585, when the war we all know about involving Queen Bess broke out. Henry VIII--yes, that Henry--actually cooperated with the Spanish crown in the 1540s! Their major competitors and sources of worry, as TerrorShark implies, were actually the Portuguese.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.ushistory.org/documents/columbus.htm"
],
[]
] |
|
4g3i0l | Did allowing women to eventually enter combat roles (even if still limited in scope) give the Soviet Union a notable strategical advantage (e.g. in manpower) when fighting against Nazi Germany? | Also, any details about Women in combat roles in WWII would be of interest to me. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4g3i0l/did_allowing_women_to_eventually_enter_combat/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2eghhw",
"d2et7xf"
],
"score": [
147,
28
],
"text": [
"As a side question, were there issues with sexual assault between male and female soldiers in the Soviet military? Any statistics? Was it enforced or officially addressed? ",
"Hi, OP,\n\nOur FAQ has a section on [women's military history](_URL_2_) that might interest you. It offers a couple of great answers on WW2:\n\n* [What were some roles and responsibilities of women in the WWII Allied forced?] (_URL_0_) - *by /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov*\n* [What role did women play as perpetrators of the Holocaust?] (_URL_3_) - *by /u/commiespaceinvader*\n\nThis older thread, while the answers are not in-depth, contains some insight into German women's other roles:\n\n* [Were women used as soldiers in Nazi Germany?] (_URL_1_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ph125/what_were_the_roles_and_responsibilities_of_women/cmwqkwl",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/114o6j/were_women_used_as_soldiers_in_nazi_germany/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/women#wiki_as_warriors_.2F_in_combat",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/478tiz/what_role_did_women_play_in_the_holocaust/"
]
] |
|
3cjm1c | [META] AskHistorians Showcase Submissions [Ancient World] | Hello everyone! Today I come before you to ask for help on a little project: the AskHistorians Showcase!
What is the Showcase you ask? Well I'm so glad you asked! The showcase will be a page of some of Askhistorians greatest answers presented under 10 general categories. The purpose of this showcase is to show our readers, other historians, and interested people what exactly it is that we do here! Furthermore we will be linking it to a greater community page for interested parties to learn even more!
In order to do this however, we need your help in selecting and nominating some of your saved, favorite, or top quality answers from this subreddit!
How will we proceed? Well, I will make 10 separate nomination threads over the coming weeks for you to nominate your favorite answers in the ten categories below. Today's thread is for **Ancient World**!
So please give us your favorite Ancient World answers past and present!
Future Categories:
Europe, North America, Cultural History
Past Categories: [Military History,](_URL_2_) [Asia](_URL_5_), [Africa](_URL_4_), [Middle and South America](_URL_0_), [Middle East](_URL_1_), [Medieval World](_URL_3_) | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3cjm1c/meta_askhistorians_showcase_submissions_ancient/ | {
"a_id": [
"csw42bz",
"csw7eca",
"cswkgqa",
"cswxnx4",
"cswxz9x"
],
"score": [
3,
9,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"For definition, Ancient World runs until around or about 410 CE :)",
"/u/ursa-minor-88 answered [Did people buy apartments and condos in ancient Rome? What were housing laws like?](_URL_0_)",
"This ancient world one got less love than I'd expect. \n\n* /u/tiako [I am a man of wealth in Han China, would I be able to buy olive oil that came from the Roman Empire, or did olive oil not reach that far down the silk road.](_URL_3_); [Did the Romans believe in ghosts, and would their idea of a ghost be similar to ours?](_URL_7_); many others.\n\n* /u/heyheymse [What was dating like in ancient Rome?](_URL_6_); [What were fetishes like in antiquity? What were commoners \"into\" compared to today?](_URL_5_), several others.\n\n* /u/daeres [Did any significant pre-modern society NOT practice slavery?](_URL_0_); [Why did Buddhism not spread very far westward during the Classical era?](_URL_1_), many others.\n\n* /u/brigantus [life of Genghis Khan](_URL_4_) (maybe for a different section, actually); [what's wrong with our ideas about prehistorical peoples](_URL_2_), many more.\n\nThere are of course many more. It's bed time in my timezone, but all the people who've provided good answers on Biblical historicity need love, too, and I didn't get all the classicists or the people who do ANE or PIE or any of that stuff.",
"Oh boy, do I have a bunch! I would like to recommend:\n\n/u/Aerandir in [Did “barbarians” understand military formations?] (_URL_6_)\n\n/u/XenophonTheAthenian in [Was Literary Latin ever used in normal conversation?] (_URL_8_)\n\n/u/Astrogator in [Did civilizations conquered by the Romans retain their culture?] (_URL_0_)\n\nAlso by /u/Astrogator; [Who considered themselves Roman?] (_URL_2_)\n\nAlthough it’s his old account, /u/Polybios in [What was the constitution/structure of the Roman Republic like?] (_URL_4_)\n\nAnother excellent /u/Polybios post, in [How did people in the Roman Republic understand the concept of imperium?] (_URL_3_)\n\n\nAll of /u/Tiako’s responses in [AMA: The Economy of the Ancient Roman Empire] (_URL_10_)\n\n\n/u/Celebreth discussing Roman military medical care in [How likely was a Roman soldier to survive being wounded in battle?] (_URL_7_) and [You are a Roman soldier marching a long distance. Your leg breaks for whatever reason; what happens?] (_URL_9_)\n\n\nAn additional /u/Celebreth post, in [I have just joined the Roman army. What is my life going to be like from now on?] (_URL_1_)\n\n\n…perhaps pushing the time limit a bit, but I would also like to add /u/textandtrowel’s response in [Alcohol consumption in the Byzantine Empire] (_URL_5_) \n",
"I liked /u/Celebreth's answer to the question of [What are some examples of Roman infantry tactics being countered effectively?](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3b4qyb/meta_askhistorians_showcase_submissions/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3be954/meta_askhistorians_showcase_submissions_middle/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/39ax2o/meta_ah_showcase_dear_lovely_readers_of/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3bw3fz/meta_askhistorians_showcase_submissions_medieval/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3alovu/meta_ah_showcase_dear_readers_of_raskhistorians/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/39svf0/meta_ah_showcase_dear_lovely_readers_of/"
] | [
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2bcu6t/did_people_buy_apartments_and_condos_in_ancient/cj4ba0a"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16wgep/did_any_significant_premodern_society_not/c80010z",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bukf0/why_did_buddhism_not_spread_very_far_westward/c9a803z",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16i621/whats_one_glaring_historical_inaccuracy_about/c7wersk",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1b5986/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hk9rv/how_much_of_mongol_can_be_considered_an_accurate/cavbhnn",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ijs4r/what_were_fetishes_like_in_antiquity_what_were/cb59p98",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1at0pc/what_was_dating_like_in_ancient_rome/c90knz4",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/35poa5/did_the_romans_believe_in_ghosts_and_would_their/"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2kl7h9/did_civilizations_conquered_by_the_romans_retain/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/363rhp/i_have_just_joined_the_roman_army_what_is_my_life/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ahhfy/who_considered_themselves_roman/cscwz8h",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3842d5/how_did_the_people_of_the_roman_republic/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2qwy1e/what_was_the_constitutionstructure_of_the_roman/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2nkgcd/alcoholic_consumption_in_the_byzantine_empire/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2xz4an/did_barbarians_understand_military_formations/cp4zuxr",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1tn59a/how_likely_was_a_roman_soldier_to_survive_being/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2wni1m/was_literary_latin_ever_used_in_normal/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ov7s3/you_are_a_roman_solider_marching_a_long_distance/ccw3fiw?context=3",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2hc8rp/ama_the_economy_of_the_ancient_roman_empire/"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/39kf5y/what_are_some_examples_of_roman_infantry_tactics/cs4pyg0"
]
] |
|
410xvo | flair:Shark Week Where did the mermaid myth originate and why did it become so pervasive among the masses? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/410xvo/flairshark_week_where_did_the_mermaid_myth/ | {
"a_id": [
"cyz3ibu"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I recently published an article on this (which serves as a chapter on a book I am developing on Cornish folklore). Here is the source: Ronald M. James, “Curses, Vengeance, and Fishtails: The Cornish Mermaid in Perspective,” Garry Tregidga (ed.) Cornish Studies: Third Series, Volume One (Exeter, UK: University of Exeter, 2015). Your question can be taken to be addressing either the idea of mermaids or the common legend about mermaids.\n\nThe idea of half human half marine animal humans is ubiquitous. This is not surprising because all sorts of cultures imagined half-human half-animal supernatural beings. These traditions are not necessarily linked historically (or prehistorically). Indeed, they are probably not linked. They are more likely expressions of a common, shared human tendency to see the world in these terms. Here is an excerpt from my article addressing the idea of the mermaid:\n\n > The belief in sea-dwelling supernatural beings is ancient, and over the years, a number of scholars have examined the history of the motif. In 1880, Llewellynn Jewitt took a position that far-flung examples of half-fish, half-human creatures were linked in some way, and this idea was repeated, to a certain extent, by Arthur Waugh in 1960. Although fish-human deities appear in sources from ancient Mesopotamia, the more removed the examples are from nineteenth-century Northern Europe, the less convincing the connection. \n\n > The archetypal mermaid, with fishtail, beautiful form and face, and lavish golden hair, is at the core of the Northern European tradition, and this is precisely what one finds in nineteenth-century Cornish belief. Given the strength of the mermaid tradition in Cornwall, it is not unreasonable to see it as an important source for the image of the sea-going supernatural being in the English-speaking world. That is not to dismiss other inspirations: Hans Christian Andersen’s 1837 Danish literary story, “The Little Mermaid” – and especially its 1989 film incarnation courtesy of Disney – is arguably the most well-known contemporary expression of this type of supernatural being. Even though Andersen’s artistic invention adapted folklore in a distant way, his work has seeped back into popular culture. \n\nThen there is the question about the mermaid legend. That may not be what you're after despite the fact that your question asks about the \"mermaid myth.\" The common Northern European legend involves the abduction of a mermaid from the sea, forcing her to live as a human for a period of time until she can regain access to her original form and return to the ocean. This is widespread in coastal regions of Northern Europe. Like many of these stories, which are usually referred to as Migratory Legends,\" it is less possible to explain their origin than it is to discuss their distribution and apparent regional changes in the recent past."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
34aydn | When the Romans tried to get the Jews to worship roman gods, did they understand how much an anathema that was to them? | To us the idea of a monotheist easily accepting the idea of other gods, is ridiculous. The are probably millions of people around the world who would willingly die rather than worship any god besides God.
Did the Romans get that the jews felt that strongly about the issue?
| AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/34aydn/when_the_romans_tried_to_get_the_jews_to_worship/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqsyvc9",
"cqsz7r8"
],
"score": [
25,
43
],
"text": [
"The Romans *didn’t* try to force the Jews to worship Roman gods—Judaism was an officially-recognized legal religion in the empire since before Judea became a province. The conflicts between the Romans and Jews wasn’t over worship, but taxation and colonization.\n\nMaybe you’re thinking of the Seleucids?",
"The Romans didn't try to get Jews to worship Roman gods. Jews actually had special dispensation to practice their religion in Rome.\n\nThe Romans were actually very tolerant about religion and the name of the game was *inclusion*. On account of this, they found monotheism confusing or even atheistic. They had no problem with foreign gods, but they didn't really understand the denial of other gods. \n\nThey tolerated it in Judaism because it was ancient and because the Romans respected things that were ancient, but they didn't respect it in Christians because it was a new cult, was accused of secret rituals (secret organizations or religious practices were illegal under Jewish law) and was perceived as hostile and intolerant to other religions and gods. \n\nThey didn't really try to force them to worship other gods, but they did want them to honor the state cult - basically the cult of the Emperor - which to the Romans was not so much a religious thing as a patriotic thing. Somebody refusing to honor the state cult was sort of like refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
crftk1 | Why did Stalin recriminalize homosexuality in Russia after Lenin decriminalized it? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/crftk1/why_did_stalin_recriminalize_homosexuality_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"ex5rfbk",
"ex6v902"
],
"score": [
470,
129
],
"text": [
"This response by [u/plazmablu](_URL_1_) covers it: [_URL_2_](_URL_0_)",
"There can be two answers. One is why it \"really\" happened - namely, what stood behind the decisions of Stalin and Yagoda (e.g., social conservatism, personal homophobia...). On this one can only speculate. It can only be said that from the start the Bolsheviks in general were certainly no friends of gays, though they could tolerate them at first. In the 1930s the likes of Koltsov and Gorky tried to connect homosexuality to fascism (incl. Nazism). Acc. to Gorky there used to be a sarcastic saying: \"Destroy the homosexuals and fascism will disappear\" (he seemed to agree with it).\n\nBut one could also answer what sequence of events in particular led to the law in question, whatever the \"real\" reasons. And this was the pogrom of the alleged gay \"brothels\" by OGPU. A whole \"case of the Leningrad homosexuals\" arose from these and other raids, with about 150 men arrested.\n\nYagoda ascribed counter-revolutionary activity to these gay circles:\n\n[_URL_3_](_URL_3_)\n\n[_URL_2_](_URL_1_)\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\n\"The active front of the homosexuals, by using the caste-like isolation of homosexual circles for directly counter-revolutionary purposes, politically decomposed various social strata of the youth, in particular the working youth, and also tried to penetrate the army and navy\". (Here and everywere only male homosexuals are meant.) \"... homosexuals were engaged in the recruitment and corruption of perfectly healthy youth, Red Army soldiers, Red Navy and individual university students...\" Yagoda also pointed out that there is no law against male homosexuality, and proposed to introduce one.\n\nStalin's resolution was: \"It is necessary to exemplarily punish the bastards, and to introduce the corresponding governing decree into the legislation\".\n\nMolotov: \"Of course this is necessary\". Kaganovich: \"Right!\".\n\nSoon thereafter the infamous law appeared."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9ew04o/why_did_the_ussr_go_from_completely_legalizing/e5s9a2o?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x",
"https://www.reddit.com/user/plazmablu/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9ew04o/why\\_did\\_the\\_ussr\\_go\\_from\\_completely\\_legalizing/e5s9a2o?utm\\_source=share&utm\\_medium=web2x"
],
[
"https://a-g-popov.livejournal.com/1422055.html",
"https://www.gazeta.ru/science/2018/12/17_a_12097333.shtml",
"https://www.gazeta.ru/science/2018/12/17\\_a\\_12097333.shtml",
"https://cyberleninka.ru/article/v/kontrrevolyutsionnye-organizatsii-sredi-gomoseksualistov-leningrada-v-nachale-1930-h-godov-i-ih-pogrom"
]
] |
||
2kbhl7 | Does Gangs of New York accurately portray New York in the 1860s? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2kbhl7/does_gangs_of_new_york_accurately_portray_new/ | {
"a_id": [
"cljwfa8",
"cljwt2e"
],
"score": [
638,
19
],
"text": [
"For a major Hollywood production, it does a fairly good job. Major kudos to Martin Scorsese (a native New Yorker), his team and the movie's writers. They did a lot of research and included some great, mostly accurate portrayals (e.g. Hell-Cat Maggie, who did actually have a jar with pickled ears in it) and historic references (some of the scenes were deliberately reminiscent of Jacob Riis, whose monumental \"How the Other Half Lives\" would document the nearby area in the 1880s). When mentioning gangs, they included the names of real gangs that fought in and around the Five Points, and they were sure to underscore that the area held many brothels (although many of them were being shuttered by religious organizations such as the Five Points Mission, who had shuttered and demolished the [Old Brewery](_URL_4_) to build their mission house). One of the things they tried to do is give an idea of how filthy the area (and most of the city) was, but I think this was something they actually held back on. After all, residents of poor areas were used to knee-high mud, rotten garbage and the corpses of dead animals in various states of composition; area tenements often had open outhouses in the back, which overflowed when it rained, creating a thick sludge of refuse and excrement that coated the streets (ick).\n\nI happen to like their portrayal of Paradise Square (or, as it was known later, Paradise Park); the wooden fence replicates one seen in the drawing of the Old Brewery (linked above). In the background of some scenes, you can make out well-known characters such as the [Hot Corn girl](_URL_1_) (also known as a G'hal, compared to the Bowery B'hoys), which is a great touch. The set design was done well, and references actual sketches and views; compare [this](_URL_2_) set (Paradise Square in the middle) to [this](_URL_0_) 1859 view. Another thing that they did well was the portrayal of voter fraud and how certain groups (such as the Irish) voted in large blocs, with many people voting multiple times. In some shots, you can clearly see large outcroppings of rock; as the area was built on top of the poorly filled-in Collect Pond, there weren't rock outcroppings so I think this is a nod to the infamous tenements of Hell's Kitchen (as seen [here](_URL_3_)). \n\nThat said, they left quite a bit about the city's history out and condensed certain events or changed the dates of them. For example, the Old Brewery was demolished in 1852, William \"Butcher Bill\" Poole was murdered in 1855 and P.T. Barnum's museum burned down in 1865. They didn't directly deal with the city's copperhead (pro-Confederate) sympathies (the city was a major hotbed for Confederate spies), but they worked in the tumultuous relationship between different races and classes. They didn't get too much into local politics beyond Tweed (who had recently become Grand Satchem of Tammany Hall and provided a rallying point for Irish rioters) but obviously there's only so much they can include. \n\nThe fighting between the gangs was definitely bloody, but the movie seems to focus on it too much. While the elites of the city did go on slum tours and decried the area's violence, the Five Points was not as openly violent as they make it seem; a lot of the violence was behind drafty tenement doors and in windowless basements, not in the streets. That said, both the Dead Rabbits Riot (1857 in real life, where over a thousand people joined in the melee; this seems to be the inspiration for the 1846 fight, when young Amsterdam's father is killed) and the Draft Riots were brutal. The Draft Riots saw mobs of thousands coursing through the streets, lynching blacks (eleven in total), looting, destroying property and setting fires to targeted buildings (including an Orphan's Asylum). The police (many of whom were part of a policeman's riot in 1857) were outnumbered and unable to disperse the mob (if they weren't rioting themselves) and the firemen (most of whom were part of a gang, or formed a gang themselves) fought each other over fires; this was all portrayed nicely in the movie. \n\nOverall, I thought the movie did a good job of putting the story in context. It isn't perfect, but it definitely has generated interest in New York City history, which is always great. \n\n*Thanks for the gold!*",
"Are you asking about the movie or Herbert Asbury's 1928 book of the same name? Assuming you are asking about the movie, you should know that while it is loosely based on Asbury's work, it takes a lot of liberties. Probably the biggest difference between the two --leaving aside the many aspects that were completely invented for the screenplay-- is the fact that the movie is a single narrative story that's constructed with a coherent plot while the book is a work of journalism that Asbury put together through interviews and archival research. As such, the original work doesn't really follow a storyline or plot at all. \n\nSome people have accused Asbury of stretching the truth a bit in order to sell his writing, but if that is so, I haven't seen any convincing evidence of it and it is worth noting that he worked with and wrote for no less a luminary than H.L. Mencken himself. \n\nAs for your question, I am not qualified to answer it, I just thought it would be worthwhile to make it clear whether you are asking about the book or the movie since they are so very different. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.geographicus.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/L/NYCFivePointsBaxter-valentine-1859.jpg",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Hot_Corn!_Here's_Your_Nice_Hot_Corn!.png/200px-Hot_Corn!_Here's_Your_Nice_Hot_Corn!.png",
"http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/photogalleries/gangs/images/primary/Paradise_Square_n.jpg",
"http://i0.wp.com/www.retronaut.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Hells-Kitchen-and-Sebastopol-I.jpg?resize=750%2C561",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Old_brewery.jpg"
],
[]
] |
||
a9wool | Did a high Jewish population in some areas (like Poland) reduce or effect the spread of the black plague in medieval Europe? | I traveled in Eastern Europe in college and heard a story that, due to the religious cleansing practices of the Jewish population, some areas were far less affected by the plague. I think specifically Poland was supposed to have been less effected because they welcomed a large number of jews. Is there any historical documentation or evidence for this story? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a9wool/did_a_high_jewish_population_in_some_areas_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"ecn6dmr"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"There’s a very thorough look at the question of Poland and the plague:\n_URL_0_\n\nBy u/mikedash"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/79dwua/comment/dp1tiok?st=JQ6AV84C&sh=09b8f6db"
]
] |
|
4ahycj | Anti-insurgent traditions of the Habsburg Military | In my studies of WWII Wehrmacht COIN policy, a point that is brought up quite often is that the German/Prussian army had a particularly brutal anti-insurgent tradition going back to the Franc-Tireur shock of the Franco-Prussian War.
Can the same be said for the Habsburg Military? Did the COIN policy in the 1878 fighting in Bosnia constitute a similar tradition? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4ahycj/antiinsurgent_traditions_of_the_habsburg_military/ | {
"a_id": [
"d10jloe",
"d10y3fr"
],
"score": [
17,
3
],
"text": [
"The Bosnian insurgency, lasting between 1878 and 1882, and the response by the Austro-Hungarian military was the exception rather than the rule. \n\nWhat we first need to ask ourselves is whether or not we're using the wrong term in describing the Austro-Hungarian actions in this conflict as carrying out *counterinsurgency*. It is an active debate whether or not it would be fair to call what is essentially very primitive forms of counterinsurgency as just that, something which other historians might have been more comfortable calling *colonial warfare*. Counterinsurgency as we know it today is a very recent invention, born in the early years of the Cold War. Yet it's not impossible to say that there is such a thing as proto-counterinsurgency and that is something I'd like to explore in-depth below. It is also worth noting that Austria-Hungary had experience of fighting insurgents from a previous conflict: the 1869 Cattaro rebelion in the southern Dalmatia. \n\nThe war itself started out like many other conflicts which turned into an insurgency: a brief conventional campaign and a longer insurgency following. \n\nThe few months of fighting insurgents in Bosnia in 1878 didn't display anything different from contemporary colonial warfare: it was direct, conventional and not seen as different from fighting a conventional campaign. There were some adaptation to local conditions, such as a more mobile and aggressive approach to hunting down insurgents as well as a reliance on flexible employment of mountain artillery, yet these were all still conventional in theory and practice. The Habsburg forces met a very determined foe however and the war which many had expected to be a walk in the park turned out not to be so. Looking back at this phase of the insurgency, it reminds us of the use of brute force by the German/Prussian forces 7 years earlier yet not reaching the same levels of brutality despite facing franc-tireurs of their own.\n\nBetween 1878 and 1882, Austria-Hungary faced the second (late 1878-1882) and third phase of the insurgency. The second phase was a low-intensity phase in which the insurgents relied heavily on ambushes against conventional as well as paramilitary Habsburg allied forces. In late 1878, Austria-Hungary raised the *Serežner* (also known as the *Gendarmerie-Corps*), a para-military force that would function as auxiliaries in fighting insurgents. This force was perhaps the most intelligent and progressive counterinsurgency concept carried out during this particular conflict: while the officers were from Austria-Hungary, the ranks were a mix of Austria-Hungarians, Turks as well as native Bosnians of all ethno-religious groups. Those who were not from the region received instructions in learning the Serbo-Croatian language as well as local culture and customs. The Gendarmerie was first and foremost used as a rural security force while the army dealt with the larger outbreaks of insurgency.\n\nThe third phase was triggered by the introduction of conscription in late 1881. Forced military service into the Austro-Hungarian army did not sit right with the people and led to the outbreak of the largest insurgency since late 1878. The initial targets were static Gendarmerie posts and army barracks which found themselves besieged and in cases with the Gendarmerie posts overrun. The insurgents made great gains at first, but came to face very tough opposition during the Austro-Hungarian counteroffensive. It is during this counteroffensive that we see the Habsburg military at its perhaps most progressive and modern, adopting many aspects of what we today would call counterinsurgency. While the army did focus on conventional tactics and reliance on firepower just as in 1878, the mobility and strive to take the initiative meant that the insurgents could find themselves matched on a military level. Adaptation to local conditions, just as in 1878, came to play a part as well and lessons from the 1878 insurgency were widely implemented: for example, Austro-Hungarian officers, to avoid being targeted by snipers, would refrain from carrying their sabers and traditional yellow sash in the field - something which the office corps had to learn the hard way from being a clear target in 1878. Logistically, the Habsburg forces were meant to be self-reliant which increased their mobility in the mountainous regions they were going to fight in. More importantly in my opinion was the directives in how to treat civilians, and that by treating them just and gaining the trust of the civilians, they would acquire valuable local intelligence which would make it easy to hunt down the insurgents - a policy that in tandem with mobility and firepower came to have great effect on the course of the conflict. \n\nThe insurgency was defeated in the end and it marked the end of almost four years of fighting insurgents. Looking back at this conflict, one would not be wrong in considering it part of a 'proto-COIN', a hybrid conflict that mixes elements of modern COIN and 19th century colonial warfare. This conflict wouldn't be alone since other late 19th century insurgency conflicts can also be considered part of the same category: this includes the United States in the Philippines (1899-1902), France in Tonkin and Madagascar (1885-1900) and to some extent, the United Kingdom in South Africa (1900-1902). Yet the policies of Austria-Hungary in fighting the insurgency would give any student of Cold War counterinsurgency food for thought as to how successfully lenient they were in Bosnia: there were no retributive policies, there was a large amount of adaptation and mobility which gave the enemy no pause and there were some very interesting concepts of auxiliaries that were representative of the Bosnian population - a practice you wouldn't find out of place in a modern counterinsurgency today.\n\nAll in all, it would be fair to say that Austria-Hungary *did* have (or perhaps through this conflict created) a tradition of fighting insurgents and that the lessons from this conflict were passed on through the professional journals of the Austro-Hungarian military that would have been accessible to anyone interested in studying how to fight an insurgency. Interestingly, Austria-Hungary stand in contrast towards the brutal approach to fighting insurgents that Germany stuck itself to until 1945.\n\nSources:\n\n*Modern Insurgencies and Counter-Insurgencies: Guerrillas and their Opponents since 1750* by Ian F.W. Beckett (Routledge, 2004)\n\n*Defeating Balkan Insurgency: The Austro-Hungarian Army in Bosnia-Hercegovina, 1878-82* by John Schindler in *Journal of Strategic Studies* (2004), 27:3, 528-552",
"I hope you don't mind me intruding, but what exactly were the Franc-Tireurs that you're talking about?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2r83j0 | What is the argument against geographical determinism and its dominant role in the course of human development? | Whenever I see people bring up Jared Diamond in these threads, he seems to get discredited for his views on geography's primary role in shaping human progress. I tend to agree with many of his points, and I want to get the opposing point of view so that I can have a more informed outlook.
From what I've gathered, people think his theories reduce the possibility of human free will and individual potential. Is this correct? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2r83j0/what_is_the_argument_against_geographical/ | {
"a_id": [
"cndiax5",
"cndjyrm"
],
"score": [
4,
5
],
"text": [
"He has many points in the book, and geographical determinism is too large a topic to discard in a single post. You'll get better answers if you care to share some specific points you agree with him about.",
"hi! you may find some useful feedback in this FAQ section\n\n* [Historians' views of Jared Diamond's \"Guns, Germs, and Steel\"](_URL_0_)\n\nand it may be worth x-posting to /r/AskAnthropology, since they may have much more to say on this topic"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views#wiki_historians.27_views_of_jared_diamond.27s_.22guns.2C_germs.2C_and_steel.22"
]
] |
|
2w9jtm | Russian photograph medals and lady | Can anyone identify what these medals may indicate or what the writing on the back means?
_URL_1_
_URL_0_
Update: I've found based on a reply in a russian subreddit that it is a photo of Albina Ivanova but I can't find any info on her. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2w9jtm/russian_photograph_medals_and_lady/ | {
"a_id": [
"cop8ie9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The writing on the back says \"Veteran of the Second World War\", and an address in Khabarovsk."
]
} | [] | [
"http://i.imgur.com/dH34lhG.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/kcmNDrj.jpg"
] | [
[]
] |
|
28w36n | How were coins made in late medieval/Renaissance Europe and the Middle East? | During the 15th and 16th centuries, were coins made through a press? How would a coin elaborate as this [1480 dinar](_URL_0_) be minted? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/28w36n/how_were_coins_made_in_late_medievalrenaissance/ | {
"a_id": [
"cif1rlf"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This is a medal, not a coin. The difference is important because it explains the intricate detail you see. Medal-making was innovated in the Italian penninsula in the mid-late 15th century: a process of fine casting in bronze, among other metals. These casts could then be refined through engraving and polishing. They maintain their level of relief and detail because they were not handled like currency.\n\nIn this case, your medal of Mehmed the Conqueror was made by a student of the renaissance sculptor Donatello, [Bertoldo di Giovanni](_URL_0_).\n\nNotwithstanding the above, coins were struck by hammer and hand until the mid 16th century using two-part iron & steel dies. The 16th century saw the development of drop presses, screw-presses and striking and lamination combination dies. By the late 17th century 'automation' as we might recognize it today (screw press and fly press) was fitted into mills to produce coins at scale.\n"
]
} | [] | [
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Mehmed_II_%281432-1481%29.jpg"
] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertoldo_di_Giovanni"
]
] |
|
29hmmd | Has a territory ever purchased their independence from an empire? | I'm not a student of history, so please forgive me if this question has an obvious answer. I'm aware that many countries fought to be free from the empire that owned them. Are there any examples of countries/territories simply buying their freedom instead, with minimal or no military activity? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/29hmmd/has_a_territory_ever_purchased_their_independence/ | {
"a_id": [
"cil7lx9",
"cil7zrf"
],
"score": [
20,
33
],
"text": [
"Well, there was the slave revolution of Haiti... When the Haitian people revolted and won their independence , the French sued them for lost profits and those poor people had to pay restitution well into the late 20th century. That's one of the reasons why Haiti is in such a poor state now (that and the brutal Duvalier dictatorships - father and son). Not directly as you asked, but related I guess. One of the horrible injustices of colonialism of history. \n\nEdit: source _URL_0_",
"This may not be directly what you're looking for, but Nepal reached an accommodation with the British Empire that allowed it to basically maintain independence. In exchange for contributing a certain amount of Gorkha soldiers to the British military every year (a practice that continues to this day) and giving deference to Britain in some areas of foreign policy, Nepal maintained control over its domestic affairs (and some foreign matters as well). This was a result of several battles between the nascent Nepali empire and, first, the British East India Company, and later the British empire itself. No side was able to clearly defeat the other, though the British came out ahead on balance, capturing some lands held by Nepal at the time. The ceding of control of India from the East India Company to the British Crown caused considerable consternation in Nepal and induced the Nepali state to seek terms. An added incentive was the Rana takeover of Nepal several years prior (the Rana family, while keeping the emperor as a token figurehead, established a hereditary rule by killing off their rivals in the Game of Thrones-esque Kot Massacre). The Ranas pragmatically used British support to bolster their own domestic control, and occasionally were able to play the British off the Tibetans and Chinese when they wanted space for foreign policy initiatives.\n\nSo this isn't quite a \"Nepal bought independence with cash from Britain\" so much as \"Nepal negotiated a contract for maintaining independence with Britain.\" It's kinda interesting still, as most countries facing a colonial empire weren't so fortunate. \n\nSources:\n\nEast India Company, British, COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, 6th Edition 1. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (2013)\n\nNepal, ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA ONLINE ACADEMIC EDITION (MAR. 23, 2014), _URL_0_\n\nRajeev Ranjan Chaturvedy, & David M. Malone, A Yam between Two Boulders: Nepal’s Foreign Policy Caught between India and China, in NEPAL IN TRANSITION: FROM PEOPLE’S WAR TO FRAGILE PEACE 287, 288 (Sebastian von Einsiedel, David M. Malone, & Suman Pradhan, eds., 2012)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution"
],
[
"http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/409152/Nepal"
]
] |
|
4r1f1b | How did medieval nobles/royals understand their foreign brides? | I've been spending hours researching different medieval kings and emperors and their families. When you do that you start notice how often they married princesses and other noblewomen from other kingdoms and realms. I get why this was done but what has always bothered me is how exactly did they communicate with each other?
Holy roman emperor Henry IV had an ukrainian wife. His father Henry III had a Danish wife. Otto II was supposed to marry Zoë Porphyrogenita, a Byzantine princess. Several emperors of HRE married english princesses. Richard Lionheart and many other English kings had castilian and navarrese wives. The list goes on.
How did they understand each other? Did they need translators when they spoke to each other? Would the woman have to learn the language of her home?
Was there some kind of common language that they would know, like latin or something? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4r1f1b/how_did_medieval_noblesroyals_understand_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4xjg0e"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This answer from /u/dangerbird2 might help you: _URL_0_\n\nIn summary, rulers were still expected to be fluent in Latin until French took over."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1b1iu5/how_and_why_did_latin_die/c92zjbm?context=2"
]
] |
|
7ognxi | What happened when dismounted men-at-arms in full plate attacked pike formations? | It seems like it would be hard for the pikemen to hurt someone wearing full plate. Couldn’t the men-at-arms push their way through the pikes and attack the (usually poorly armored) pikemen with swords? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7ognxi/what_happened_when_dismounted_menatarms_in_full/ | {
"a_id": [
"dscewwa"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"According to most accounts it was dismounted men-at-arms who convinced the Swiss infantry to adopt pikes in the first place! At the Battle of Arbedo in 1422, the Milanese heavy cavalry dismounted and attacked on foot, using their long lances in both hands to outreach the swiss halberds and force them to flee. After the battle the swiss started to arm more and more of their infantry with pikes instead of halberds. During the 16th century, when men-at-arms did fight on foot it was typically as makeshift heavy pikemen up until lances fell out of use. At the Battle of Marigano in 1515, the French Gendarmes fought head to head against the Swiss pikemen either on foot or from the back of armored horses and eventually came out ahead.\n\nAs for how a pike square actually worked, the first thing to keep in mind is that until the very end of the 1500s a \"pike square\" wasn't made of pikes entirely. Generally it would look like a large square of pikemen surrounding a smaller square in the middle all armed with \"short weapons\"; i.e. halberds, greatswords, targets, etc. Aside from the standard bearers and their guards in the very middle of that square, the best armored and most experienced soldiers would all be placed in the outermost ranks and armed with pikes. The short weapons in the center generally had two roles. The first was to serve as a last resort in case the square fell apart and the battle devolved into a disorganized melee, the second was to pass through the ranks when the enemy started wavering in order to pursue and kill or execute downed enemies.\n\nA two-handed thrust with a sturdy pike had a lot of mass behind. Even if it didn't pierce the weaker parts of an enemy's armor it typically had enough power to stop him in his tracks or knock him down, leaving the few who made it through to be quickly surrounded and cut down by swords, daggers, and halberds. On flat ground a well-ordered pike square was considered more or less invincible against everything but gunfire and other pikemen.\n\nWhen two pike squares actually did come into contact it generally happened in one of two ways. The first was for both sides to slowly advance until the front ranks were close enough to \"fence\" with each other. This could go on for quite some time with individuals being replaced as they were injured or grew too tired to fight until one side had the upper hand. \n\nThe other method was for the pikemen to literally charge headlong into the enemy, making only a single, powerful thrust with their pikes before continuing forward with their swords. Blaise de Montluc described ordering his troops to do just this before the battle of Ceresole since he was concerned that the german infantry opposing him would be much more skilled at pike fencing than his Gascons. This tactic worked but with heavy casualties, as according to Montluc almost the entire front rank on each side was knocked down at the first impact and a large number of captains and other officers in the front ranks were killed or wounded.\n\nSo to sum up, men at arms certainly could serve very effectively on foot as heavy pikemen, though they might not be that much better armored than the front rankers of the pikemen opposite them. Even if they were on foot armed with pikes of their own though, they usually wouldn't be able to break a pike square in a single charge without taking heavy casualties of their own."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
axx49d | Were the nazis involved in the occult? | There's movies like Hellboy and Indiana Jones where the Nazis are involved in trying to summon the occult or use supernatural weapons. Is there any real evidence of this happening or is it just Hollywood needing a bad guy. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/axx49d/were_the_nazis_involved_in_the_occult/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehwwzpv",
"ehxlhzo"
],
"score": [
417,
122
],
"text": [
"While I'm sure there is lots that can be added, I would recommend perusing [this](_URL_0_) part of the FAQ about Nazis and the occult!",
"Part 1:\n\nDuring the late nineteenth century, before Hitler was born, a new wave of historical interpretation and spiritualism was sweeping across Europe. Charles Darwin’s *The Origin of Species* challenged the teachings of the Bible and proposed new evidence for evolution and biology. Around this time, popular occult writer Helena Blavatsky published *The Secret Doctrine* in 1888 and proposed the idea of an ever evolving races of super humans. Her popularity reached across Europe, which is important because it popularized occult beliefs, accumulated followers and admires. Vienna during this time was a major center for the occult, with many occult societies and individuals operating within it. One such admirer was a native Viennese named Guido von List. For forty years he studied German history, folklore and runes, which he used to conclude that a prehistoric race of men called the Aryans had once ruled over all other ‘slave’ races and were evolved from the ‘root’ races that Blavatsky describes. List spent his life creating his ideas around the Aryan master race, in his narrative the modern Germans were decedents from the prehistoric Aryans. The Aryan myth of master and sub races of men is a hallmark of Nazi ideology and many use List’s theories as a way to attach occult beliefs onto the National Socialist movement. \n\nList was much admired and was influential within Germanic oculist groups. His work influenced many groups in Austria and Germany; one of which was called the Bavarian Thule Society. This occultist organization dedicated itself to reviving old Germanic culture. The Thule Society is important because in 1919 it branched out into politics with its own party called the National Workers Party. This party would be renamed in 1920 into the National Socialist Workers Party, the same party Hitler took charge of. This is the sort of link that pseudo historians would use to connect occultism as having influenced Nazism but if we look closely we will find this is not the case. When Hitler took control of the party he showed complete disinterest in the ideas of ancient Germanic institutions and traditions. The Thule Society and the Germanenorden were devoted to an Aryan-racist-occult cultural complex but under Hitler the party stressed the defeat in WWI, the betrayal of Germany by politicians, and bitter anti-Semitism in their platform and propaganda. Also, there is no evidence that Hitler ever attended a meeting of the Thule Society. The link between List and Hitler is a speculative one, not grounded in any hard evidence. In any case, List’s racist and speculative writings had major implications on another man named Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels. \n\nList’s writings attached themselves to the ideas of Ariosophy, the subject of many Aryan-esoteric beliefs. Ariosophy can be defined more or less as a belief in a quasi-monist psychic energy, identical with God, which animated the entire universe but found its manifestation in the blond-haired, blue eyed Aryan and that all cultural achievement in the world could be traced to an Aryan origin. Belief in Ariosophy reinforced the ideas of superiority that Austrian and German racists held. Lanz von Liebenfels, an ex-Cistercian monk, championed the ideas of Ariosophy more than any other man. Liebenfels’s conviction to the goal of racial purity and Aryan mastery propelled him to publish a magazine called Ostara in Vienna. Just like List, Liebenfels ideas on the Aryan master race have similarities to those that were proclaimed by the Nazis. There is a suggestion that Hitler gained his racist views from the literature of Liebenfels. Liebenfel himself claimed in 1951 that he meet Hitler and a witness, Josef Greiner, claims Hitler had volumes of Ostara in his room. \nTaking the evidence that has been provided for a Liebenfels-Hitler connection, we must now put scrutiny to this charge and examine it closely. While it is true that Hitler was residing in Vienna at the same time as the publication of Ostara and it is possible for Hitler read the magazine but in Hitler’s own musings he portrays himself as an original thinker and impervious to the influences of others. While the two men share ideas about the Aryan master race such as the blond-hair and blue eyes and Aryans being the source of all progress while lesser \"races\" subverted and corrupted humanity; however they disagree on other matters. Liebenfels supported an Aryan state under Habsburg rule which was to be based in Vienna, Hitler on the other hand hated the Austrian dynasty and looked towards Germany for the center of his civilization. Libenfels was deeply inspired by Christian ideals like prayer and communion which did not appeal in the slightest to Hitler. Also, the Gestapo supressed Libenfels and other occultist from publishing their works which showcases a divide between the two competing racial theories. This evidence should express that Hitler did not entirely agree with Libenfels, the two men only truly agreed on the racial purity aspect. To return to the witness Josef Greiner, under closer scrutiny his story must be taken cautiously. Greiner published a post-war biography on Hitler but within it many historical inaccuracy have been found especially concerning dates and timetables. This has made Greiner's reliability questionable. The only evidence to bare any weight is Libenfels account of meeting Hitler but we do not know if Hitler gained his ideas of the Aryan master race from him or that they simply share some ideas. Libenfels claimed in 1932 that Hitler was one of his pupils. It is strange though for a man like Hitler, who claims to be the German messiah, to be some pupil of a marginalized mystic. The fact is that Hitler never mentions Libenfels in any documented form either in writing or speech.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/militaryhistory/wwii/nazigermany#wiki_the_nazis_and_the_occult"
],
[]
] |
|
28c7mh | Why was there no Luftwaffe in the air during the DDay and the rest of the Normandy Campaign? | Secondly, out of all the WW2 movies, documentaries, and books I have read it seems the German Luftwaffe was never around in any major battles like Battle of the Bulge, DDay/Normandy, and same w some of the major battles in Italy to support their own troops...my question is did the Luftwaffe have any presence in any of these battles or was the main use of Luftwaffe just to shoot down our bombers during bombing missions and to bomb London during the battle for Britian? Please I would really enjoy some extensive info...hopefully Im at the right place, I dont ever really post on reddit haha | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/28c7mh/why_was_there_no_luftwaffe_in_the_air_during_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ci9m982",
"ci9mlan",
"ci9qaz8",
"ci9wvux"
],
"score": [
41,
3,
6,
5
],
"text": [
"By June 1944, the Luftwaffe was losing both in the East and in the West. The Germans had only about 200 planes (of which 140 were ready for duty) in northern France and Belgium on the 6th of June.\n\nThe German plan was to keep their fighter units in Germany to fight the allied bombers until it had been established that the landing was not a feint and then \"surge\" west, if possible establish air superiority, if not at least deny the Allies air superiority while the ground forces threw the Allies back into the sea.\n\nDuring D-Day, two Fw 190 from I/JG 2 (Jagdgeschwader 2) armed with rockets attacked the landing site at Gold Beach. The Luftwaffe also sent up recoinnasance planes to fotograph the Allied fleet to establish the size of it.\n\nJG 2 fought P-47s and P-51s during the day, doing hit and run attacks on Allied planes caught low and strafing German troops and positions.\n\nThe landing beaches and the fleet was under a constant umbrella of fighters from the RAF and the USAAF, the AA cover was massive, not even talking about all the barrage balloons raised over the fleet to make navigation harder.\n\nThe Germans continued to do night-time attacks, single recoinnasance missions and attempting to whittle down the Allied superiority by pouncing on fighers and bombers in hit-and-run attacks.\n\nRight before the Battle of the Bulge, the German slaunched [Operation Bodenplatte](_URL_0_) in which they came out in strength and attacked Allied air fields in France and Belgium, destroying 232 Allied air crafts on the ground. However, the Allies lost very few pilots, and reserve stocks of planes could soon be brought in and the Allied air forces were back at their pre-operation strength very soon, while the 143 German pilots killed, wounded or captured during the operation were irreplacable, especially as many of them very experienced veterans. The Luftwaffe more or less ceased to operate during day-time after that (as every operation only caused them more casualties they could not afford). Nighttime operations continued for a while longer though.\n\nA German solder on the western front in 1944 is supposed to have invented the joke;\n\n\"If you see a white plane, it is American. If you see a black plane, it is the RAF. If you see no planes at all, it is the Luftwaffe.\"",
"Thank you all. This was very informative and exactly what I was looking for",
"To track back a little and explain why, as vonadler says, Luftflotte 3 had comparatively few aircraft to oppose the Normandy landings, the destruction of the Luftwaffe with a view to securing air superiority for an invasion of France was a key objective of the Allied strategic bombing campaign as set out by The Pointblank Directive of June 1943: 'The Pointblank Directive prioritized the Luftwaffe for destruction over all other German targets as the immediate objective leading to the D-Day invasion. The focus for the British and American air forces would be \"(1) the destruction of the German Air Force, its factories and supporting installations and its ball-bearing plants; and (2) the destruction of transportation facilities.\"' (L. Douglas Keeney, *The Pointblank Directive*.)\n\nEarly raids by unescorted USAAF bombers suffered crippling casualties, culminating in the October 1943 Schweinfurt raid where 82 of 291 B-17s were lost. The Allies were also failing to make a serious impact on German aircraft production, which rose steadily during 1943 and early 1944. The turning point was extending the range of US fighters to allow them to accompany bombers throughout their mission; in February 1944 Operation Argument or \"Big Week\" launched a series of raids with heavy fighter escorts, mostly P-47 Thunderbolts with drop tanks, inflicting considerable losses on Luftwaffe defenders. The arrival in numbers of the P-51 Mustang allowed both the escorting of bombers and offensive fighter sweeps deep into German territory, seriously damaging Luftwaffe capability, particularly pilots that could not be replaced as quickly as aircraft. (William R. Emerson, *Operation POINTBLANK: A Tale of Bombers and Fighters*).",
"One of the few stories my grandpa told me about his time in France was his first time ever seeing a jet airplane. It was German (of course) and flew directly over him while he was out trying to round up food for the troops. At the time he had no idea what it was other than some aircraft -- everything he has seen up until then that flew had a prop on it and this new craft sounded totally different, looked different and moved a lot faster. About a week later his group came across seven of them sitting on the ground at an airfield. He always assumed that at that point in the war they didn't have the fuel to fly these likely unmatchable aircraft, but maybe they just didn't have the pilots."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bodenplatte"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
fqfai1 | WW2 had numerous pieces of propaganda aimed at stopping from accidentally disclosing confidential information ("loose lips sink ships" etc.). Do we have a confirmation of either side gaining vital information sure to people failing to observe this? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fqfai1/ww2_had_numerous_pieces_of_propaganda_aimed_at/ | {
"a_id": [
"flqi2z7"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"Congressman May had some loose lips, and inadvertently informed the Japanese that their depth-charges were missing American submarines:\n\n* [Did loose lips really sink ships?](_URL_9_), with an answer by /u/[geothearch](_URL_6_)\n* [How true was the propaganda phrase \"Loose Lips Sink Ships\" in wartime?](_URL_1_)\n* [Did loose lips ever actually sink a ship?](_URL_2_)\n\nHowever, the information from May was reported by the press. Would gossip on a local level by civilians reach enemy intelligence? /u/[the\\_howling\\_cow](_URL_3_) has at least one example where German spies are present in the U.S., in [Were there actually these spies and did these spies cause harm to the allies?](_URL_4_)\n\n[Here](_URL_8_), /u/[white\\_light-king](_URL_5_) provides a broader answer to your question. And finally, /u/[Kiltmanenator](_URL_7_) claims [here](_URL_0_) that the propaganda was meant to prevent discussion of succesful enemy attacks, thus preventing a dip in morale."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2bjgkh/did_loose_lips_in_fact_sink_ships/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2p5p1s/how_true_was_the_propaganda_phrase_loose_lips/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1mhqeu/did_loose_lips_ever_actually_sink_a_ship/",
"https://www.reddit.com/user/the_howling_cow/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3p4c65/ive_seen_world_ww2_posters_with_the_message_loose/",
"https://www.reddit.com/user/white_light-king/",
"https://www.reddit.com/user/geothearch/",
"https://www.reddit.com/user/Kiltmanenator/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2rn08b/questions_regarding_world_war_2_posters/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a8lgtu/did_loose_lips_really_sink_ships/"
]
] |
||
1oru4i | To what was there more continuity than change in the nature of Russian government in period 1894-1999? | I need to write a 3500 word essay on this topic and I am struggling to figure out what I need to write about, I need to mention every leader at least once and make comparisons across the period. So far I think I should compare February 1917 to August 1991 which is the end of Tsarist Autocracy vs the end of communism.
I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place, I am struggling so much with this question and if I ask my teacher for help, my grade gets lowered. I'm not asking for the essay to be written for me, but a couple of bullet points helping me find a place to start would be amazing. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1oru4i/to_what_was_there_more_continuity_than_change_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccuydx3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I would do it chronologically looking at the changes over the period. You could do it thematically but I think it would be more difficult. You could weave the themes of the period throughout and compare and contrast them. For example, you could look at repression over time (e.g. the secret police and attitude to opposition groups). You could look at the voting rights of the people and the changing levels of participation they had in government. There's also the attitudes towards minorities and society and culture in general (e.g. the cult of Stalin vs destalinisation). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
6dyaz1 | In the Roman Empire, were Egypt and North Africa resentful of sending massive amounts of grain and other goods to Rome? Did they ever revolt over this? | I know that Egypt, and North Africa were the primary suppliers of grain to Rome, but I wonder if the people were ever angry at having to send a significant amount of their produce to feed some distant city? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6dyaz1/in_the_roman_empire_were_egypt_and_north_africa/ | {
"a_id": [
"di6f81k"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The people of North Africa and Egypt were actually pretty okay with Roman rule, there were very few Roman troops garrisoned in each province, and the armies were pretty much made up of locals.\n\nThat doesn't mean they were constantly peaceful though.\n\nIn Egypt, which didn't become a part of Rome until the beginning of the Empire, there was a Jewish revolt in Alexandria after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. But other than that, for 100 years Egypt was entirely peaceful. \n\nBut violence started to pick up in Egypt starting in 139 with a tax revolt. A few years later, in the 170's another revolt occurred (again over oppressive taxation) that momentarily threatened Alexandria. That revolt was stopped, but it marked the beginning of the decline of the Egyptian Economy. Revolts continued through the third century and, in the late 200's Zenobia of Palmyra actually captured Egypt from the Romans for five years. It was eventually recaptured by Aurelian -- but, by then it had been 150 years since Egypt had been a model province. \n\nAfrica Proconsularis -- which made up the middle third of North Africa was under Roman rule much longer than Egypt. It was initially brought under rule with Carthage's final defeat in the 3rd Punic War 146 BCE. Their long inclusion in Rome, as well as Rome's general easy-going attitude towards captured lands keeping their identity made Africa Proconsularis extremely peaceful for a long time. They maintained parts of their original culture while also being heavily Romanized. While they contributed heavily towards the feeding of Rome, only 1/4 of their grain was actually exported, but this trade also opened up all sorts of non-farming, better paying jobs as traders, etc. They benefitted immensely from Roman Rule and the Romans never leaned on them too hard to break them. \n\nFinally, Numidia. I actually don't know a whole lot about what their economy was like -- but I know like Africa Proconsularis, they were conquered by Rome fairly early on and they were also heavily Romanized (if someone could add more about that area, that'd be great!)\n\nSo basically, yeah! North Africa did very well by the Romans and it was, for the most part, a symbiotic relationship."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
733pfo | Is there any evidence that the Ostrogoths used slingers in late antiquity Rome? My university runs a historical tabletop war gaming interterm in which students battle each other using 4th century historical correct armies. You are allowed to add units to your roster as long as you have proof. | As stated above each student battles one another in a tournament system that uses units from a roster. Units cost different based on a variety of stats including morale armor and unit type, as well as any special weapons they might carry. I.e. Bows and ranged weapons add 20 points to the overall costs
My army for this class is the ostrogoths, and I am fairly certain they had slingers based on other Germanic tribes including the visigoths. I've read several scholarly articles as well as 2 books. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like the early goths cared much for their scholars. :( | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/733pfo/is_there_any_evidence_that_the_ostrogoths_used/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnnvsps"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Could you go into more detail on this wargame you are doing? While I sadly cannot answer the question, I'd like to know more about your setup."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5dsnr4 | When and how did we end up with a system where the people vote for presidential candidates rather than state legislatures or the people voting for members of the electoral college? | It seems to me like in the original design of the electoral college, there wasn't any role for the popular vote: the state legislatures would pick the electors, and the electors would have a conclave of sorts where they would debate and vote, without having been pledged to any candidate.
Looking at the Wikipedia article on the 1788 presidential election, it seems like even then some electors were chosen by the people of their states, but it seems like the people were voting for electors, not candidates.
In a modern presidential election, you don't vote for electors, you vote for candidates. For example, if you were a voter in Alaska in 2012, you saw on your ballot the names "Barack Obama" and "Mitt Romney". But if you voted for Romney, you were actually voting for Kristie Babcock, Kathleen Miller, and Christopher Nelson (the three electors from Alaska that year; each had pledged to vote for Romney). In a modern presidential election, the voters vote for electors who have been pledged to candidates without actually seeing the names of the electors.
When did electors start being pledged to candidates? How did the transformation occur? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5dsnr4/when_and_how_did_we_end_up_with_a_system_where/ | {
"a_id": [
"da72546"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Hi, hopefully someone can drop by to address your specific questions, but fyi there have been several discussions about the electoral college recently; this one is a good starting point \n\n* [Question about the electoral college](_URL_0_) featuring /u/uncovered-history"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5d305l/question_about_the_electoral_college/"
]
] |
|
9932g5 | Did the concept of heresy existed in ancient pantheons? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9932g5/did_the_concept_of_heresy_existed_in_ancient/ | {
"a_id": [
"e4knh5x"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Impiety more than heresy. \n\nEuripides' play [The Bacchae](_URL_0_) centers on the story of king Pentheus who had taken a scunner to the god Dionysus and the unreasoning worship of his devotees (drinking wine, running about the woods, dancing into a frenzy, tearing apart wild animals (and - spoiler alert - eventually king Pentheus himself)). Moral of the story was, disrespecting gods can have bad consequences.\n\nThe issue came up as a matter of law as well, notably around the time of the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) In 431 BC, the Athenians passed the Decree of Diopeithes, which made disrespect for the gods a punishable offense, used against Anaxagoras, a philosopher friend of Pericles (Plutarch, Life of Pericles 32). He was exiled, not torn apart by worshippers in an altered state of mind. \n\nAlcibiades was condemned to death for his alleged role in leading a band of young delinquents in [mutilating the sacred herm](_URL_1_)s on the eve of departing for battle. He fled town and turned traitor in an exciting twist on the story of that war, but for your purposes - it was all about disrespecting the gods. \n\nLater on, after having lost the war, the powers that were indicted Alcibiades' old teacher Socrates on a charge of impiety, among other things. This in BC 399. (Diopeithes was not the mechanism in his case. For details see **Brickhouse,** Socrates on Trial (Oxford 2002)\n\nRomans were similarly strict. DOmitian had a Vestal Virgin buried alive for consorting with a man, and he wasn't the only on.\n\nSo, yes, the ancients did take their gods seriously."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge4ynDhFVsg",
"https://sites.google.com/site/neoherm/mutilation"
]
] |
||
7yexhm | How has Zoroastrianism managed to survive for 3000 years despite not accepting converts? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7yexhm/how_has_zoroastrianism_managed_to_survive_for/ | {
"a_id": [
"dugdp6n"
],
"score": [
267
],
"text": [
"This is not an answer to the question, but a question about the question itself: is it true that you cannot convert to Zoroastrianism? My understanding was always that it was dependent on the \"branch\" of the religion, and that at least the Iranian branch DOES in fact accept converts."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8a68aj | How Did German Aces Get Air To Air Kills in the Hundreds During WWII, Like Adolf Galland and Erich Hartman? | I know the highest scoring allied Ace had 66 kills to his name, but around the top 50 WWII aces were part of the Luftwaffe, most using the BF-109 E-G variants. Erich Hartman had 352 kills to his name, almost six times as much as the highest scoring allied ace, Ivan Kozhedub. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8a68aj/how_did_german_aces_get_air_to_air_kills_in_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dww85mr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"These links should not discourage further responses, but these older answers may help answer your question: \n\nby u/Domini_canes: \n_URL_1_ \n_URL_0_ \n\nby u/eidetic: \n_URL_3_ \n\nby u/barath_s: \n_URL_2_ \n\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1i08zw/why_did_german_fighter_aces_inwwii_have/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/33yvrs/why_did_the_wehrmacht_and_luftwaffe_have_so_many/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ixxop/why_did_germany_have_so_many_fighter_aces_in_ww2/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/24jgyf/why_did_german_fighter_aces_have_so_many_more/"
]
] |
|
2z2kz6 | To what extent was the government of the People's Republic of China continuous with the Qing bureaucracy? | As I am reading a bit of local Chinese history I am struck by the extent to which the government structure is familiar to that of 1995 (wink wink). For example, the administrative boundaries haven't changed all that much beyond adding a new level with the Township (xiang). More strikingly, the actual administration seems quite similar in its quasi-federalism, as officials are appointed centrally, but they have a high degree of personal initiative within their locale. The similarities between the *gaokao* and the Imperial examination have also often been noted, albeit somewhat ironically.
So my question is to what extent these are real streams of continuity, if so to what extent it was a conscious decision (on the part of both PRC and ROC) to co-opt the old systems or if it was simply a "don't fix what ain't broke", and whether there was ever a serious attempt to change them. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2z2kz6/to_what_extent_was_the_government_of_the_peoples/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpfepkj",
"cpfest7"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"I'm going to give a somewhat brief answer, confident in the fact that another user will give you more detailed points on the areas I gloss over.\n\nFirst off, the administrative boundaries have changed quite a bit. Sikang Province is long gone, as are Jehol, Suiyan and Chahar. There's also been quite a bit more shuffling closer to 1995 as well beyond just the addition of the *xiang*. Then there's the aborted reshuffling of cities and counties subordinate to cities which only really happened in part of the country. Obviously some major borders haven't moved, but these are also often geographical or sociocultural and it wouldn't make sense to move them. There's just no reason. Still, despite this, much has changed. \n\nSecond, while the *gaokao* dates back to the early 50s, it was different in a number of ways from the college entrance exams of Republican China. Even if we were to link it to the earlier Civil Service Exams, the line of transmission is not unbroken. And I *don't* believe we should be making such comparisons in the first place.\n\nThe other and more general point I want to make is that much of what the PRC adopted as their own policies early on, especially in regards to things like education, were often adopted wholesale from Republican China, which itself had made efforts to establish new policies since the mid-teens. Much of these policies weren't officially sanctioned by the PRC until years after the founding of the People's Republic, but then they often didn't need to be since they were already in place as the de facto system. I personally can speak to this in much greater depth as regards to language policy in particular, but it's not limited to just that area.\n\n > if it was simply a \"don't fix what ain't broke\"\n\nSo yes, I'd argue that's exactly what it was, but from the Republicans, not from the Qing. The Qing systems were largely replaced in the Republican period, and then the Republican system had the inertia to carry over into the 1950s before either being made official or being modified/replaced.\n\nedit: I can talk more about the history of the entrance exams if you're interested. I kinda kept it short for now.\n\nedit2: I did talk more about it, below. If you're interested.",
"I'm by no means an expert and I do not have a thorough answer about PRC (I grew up in Taiwan, ROC), but in my undergraduate studies of modern Chinese history (tangential really to my Linguistics degree) and in my studies thereafter, I can point to just a small parts of what happened between then and now that may point to where it has or hasn't changed.\n\nAdditionally, someone who has studied this in English, please feel free to correct me on any of the names of ruling bodies because I do most of my reading on this subject in Mandarin and this is difficult to translate:\n\n1) Firstly, there has to my knowledge been at least one instance where a conscious decision was made to totally overhaul the system. During the Qing dynasty, there were official administrators both local and central separated into the \"academic\" and the \"military\" categories. If you became an official admin, you did it through extensive testing and then working your way up, or through serving the emperor through military conquest, defense, putting down uprisings, etc. A detailed list of the names of positions available down through the 9th tier in post Qianlong eras [here](_URL_1_) (Chinese and wiki): \n\nA conscious decision was made after the Xinhai Revolution by the voting body of KMT officials to both instate a new form of government and also to install Sun, interim president, as president. The old system of the two categories of officials ended there. A new interim constitution based on KMT's very western influence was ratified. Eventually, early election processes failed and Yuan Shikai was elected instead as the second interim president. [Source](_URL_2_)\n\nThe installation of Yuan delayed a change in government processes and administration for decades. Firstly, this was complicated because Yuan was a military general who served under Qing dynasty emperors and regents for years and culturally the inertia of old ways was just too difficult to change, because historically military officials have had serious struggles politically with the central government. The interim senate/parliament (am unsure on how to translate this word) saw him as a threat and actively worked to suppress executive powers. Eventually he dissolved the KMT government and their temporary interim constitution, culminating in announcing himself emperor in 1915. It would be years before he would be deposed, and this is in my opinion a good example of the difficulty China culturally had in balancing its executive powers due to holdovers and traditions from dynastic rule. [Source](_URL_3_)\n\n2) As far as Taiwan goes... due to the Cold War and of course the Korean War, ROC in Taiwan did not gain any real traction as a democratic government until the late 70s. The White Terror was a time of total rule by the KMT and very closely resembled the central-out structure of the Qing Dynasty. Just for a point of reference, I was born in 1987, and at the time there were just 3 government-controlled television channels and private newspapers were just beginning to be printed. In the 70s my mother lived through the Kaohsiung Incident. The government in the ROC was not reformed until the late 80s and the first national presidential election occurred well after I was born, in the 90s. In practice, Taiwan's government and its 5 branches with their checks and balances and processes is very similar on American governmental practices, only with people throwing stuff at each other during lawmaking sessions.\n\n3) Secondly, there have always been townships or *xiang* in some form, just not officially administrated everywhere. A quick search of the words 鄉吏 歷史 on Google Books resulted in [this](_URL_0_) reference to a duty of a local township admin during pre-Han eras. \n\n4) You are correct that *gaokao* is very similar to the Imperial examination. I am not knowledgeable enough to know the intention of it, but I can confirm that practically speaking, in Taiwan, scoring in the top percentile or percentiles (depending on government work demand) results in the guarantee of a government job which comes with full tenure. It is exceedingly difficult to be fired from a government job, and we still use *tie fanwan*, \"the steel rice bowl,\" in colloquialism in the same way it was used historically. \n\nOn the subject of education and the direct connection between *gaokao* and government jobs, the current model can also be traced back to Japanese rule. Formal public education in the Western, non-Confucius style was only implemented during Japanese rule and literacy jumped from 3.8 percent to over 70 percent in Taiwan in 1904 to 1943, just before the KMT took over. Japan already had something similar to *gaokao* at the time as well for their law, medicine, and Eastern medicine governmental positions, and it doubtless influenced the implementation of *gaokao* as we know it in Taiwan. ([Statistic citation and further reading on Japanese rule](_URL_4_))\n\n5) I once read through all of the PRC's Bill of Rights and Constitution in Chinese both the early versions and the modern ones, and what did jump out at me that time was that the centrally appointed structure was ratified in its very first version, so from the beginning the design of the government was very centrally focused. Most current version in English here: _URL_5_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://books.google.com/books?id=jdmUAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=%E9%84%89%E5%90%8F+%E6%AD%B7%E5%8F%B2&source=bl&ots=fHIT_rDezO&sig=WPU4hfAtFxyEwxgGJgY1hpg8ME4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Vy0FVdW_FInuoASy3YLIDw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%E9%84%89%E5%90%8F%20%E6%AD%B7%E5%8F%B2&f=false",
"http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B8%85%E6%9C%9D%E5%AE%98%E8%81%B7%E8%A1%A8",
"http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=990CE3DC123AE633A25752C3A9649D946096D6CF",
"http://big5.dushu.com/showbook/101155/1039996.html",
"http://www.worldcat.org/title/short-history-of-taiwan-the-case-for-independence/oclc/56332825",
"http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372989.htm"
]
] |
|
2afiip | History of the Church | Having been a long time (armchair) student of Roman history, I have reached the fall of Rome and the late antiquity/early middle ages. As we all know, one cannot learn very much about this period of European history without learning about the church.
What was Christianity like from the death of Jesus to Constantine's conversion? What were those early first years like for the church?
Also, could someone recommend a good book(s) about this subject? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2afiip/history_of_the_church/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciuq0qk",
"ciurt9e",
"ciuz0pe"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"*The Rise of Christianity* by Rodney Stark is on this exact topic. It's very accessible and well written.\n\nDo you have any specific questions about it? I don't know how to answer \"What was it like?\", really. It's too vague.",
"Alrighty, first and foremost I would suggest visiting our [book list]( _URL_5_), which has a nice section covering Church history. If you don’t find what you are looking for there, I would suggest a [similar request](_URL_0_) for an introductory text to Christian history that was made a couple of months ago. There were some great recommendations that you should find helpful.\n\nNow as far as a general introduction, I’ll defer to one or more of our experts in early Christian history who will be better able to address your questions. But while you wait, why not take a gander at some previous threads that got some great responses on the experience of the early Church:\n\n•[Our extensive (and much used), FAQ on the historicity of Jesus](_URL_1_)\n\n•[Paul and the Apostles](_URL_7_)\n\n•[When did early Christians stop considering themselves to be Jews](_URL_10_)\n\n•[Early Christianity and the Pagans](_URL_3_)\n\n•[Relationship between early Christians and Rome](_URL_2_)\n\n•[Constantine](_URL_9_)\n\n•[The Council of Nicaea](_URL_4_)\n\n•[Arian vs. Trinitarian Christology](_URL_8_)\n\n•And if you’re interested in some major reading, there was a [monster](_URL_6_) of an AMA a while back on Ancient Judaism and Christianity.\n\n\nHopefully, that will be enough to get you started. Happy Reading!\n",
"/u/thejukeboxhero has done you a great service in linking to our faq and previous thread.\n\nFor a general overview Rodney Stark's *The Rise of Christianity* is quite good, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it. Alternatives includes Chadwick's (slightly dated but still good) *The Early Church* (Penguins History of the church, vol 1). \n\nFor a long and in-depth treatment, WHC Frend's *The Rise of Christianity* is hard to beat.\n\nPeter Brown's stuff is top-class, although he is dealing a bit more with later antiquity, not so much with the first two centuries."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1uvr6u/can_someone_recommend_an_introduction_to_the/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion#wiki_did_jesus_exist.3F",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11t1af/if_rome_was_a_generally_tolerant_society_why_did/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1q6g55/was_early_christianity_simply_a_development_of/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1s2uxr/what_was_the_nicaea_council_and_what_were_its/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/culturalhistory#wiki_christianity",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1sbq67/we_are_scholarsexperts_on_ancient_judaism/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/t8mtj/historical_authenticity_of_apostles_paul/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12cndx/religious_history_logically_arianism_makes_way/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1iecxc/how_significant_was_constantines_conversion_to/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/24em97/when_did_early_christians_stop_considering/"
],
[]
] |
|
1mi0nu | at the time was the space race seen to be particularly right or left wind thing for an American to be invested in? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1mi0nu/at_the_time_was_the_space_race_seen_to_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc9k7y9"
],
"score": [
66
],
"text": [
"Right and Left wing are flexible terms. In the case of the space program/race it was Both. \n\nFor the right, it added another stream of revenue and scientific exploration of weapons platform testing, nuclear warhead delivery, and a righteous smack in the face to the communists.\n\nFor the left, it gave a \"civilized\" (non-military) method of science expansion and exploration without the stink of mass violence.\n\nThis was a program that was easily sold to both wings. They had to appear to be competing after the shock of Sputnik. (After all, the US got most of the German rocket scientists.) There is a reason the biggest center was put in Texas after the arm twisting Johnson did. \n\nI believe Dr. Roger Launius discusses this in NASA: A History of the U.S. Civil Space Program (Krieger Publishing Co., 1994, rev. ed. 2001). This is from memory which I admit is fuzzy since I did this in the mid 90's."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1dir6o | Was the 7 day calendar week established upon the story of creation in the Book of Genesis or was the opposite the case? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dir6o/was_the_7_day_calendar_week_established_upon_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9qrbsa"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The earliest known records of a 7 day week was in ancient Babylon around 600BCE (_URL_0_). Therefore it quantifiably came before the bible. However, we are not entirely sure who created the 7 day week and they could have very likely been socio-ethnically similar to the Jewish people."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/20394641"
]
] |
||
5oogem | What types of actual torture did the native north american tribes engage in from the 1700s to the 1900s? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5oogem/what_types_of_actual_torture_did_the_native_north/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcl1xmv"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There's a great answer by u/GorrestFump on this thread\n\n _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5la2zk/what_do_we_know_about_haudenosaunee_torture_and/"
]
] |
||
emq127 | The Incas were able to construct one of the "greatest imperial states in human history" without money or markets. How did the Inca Empire function without money? | Quote from *Gordon McEwan, The Incas: New perspectives* | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/emq127/the_incas_were_able_to_construct_one_of_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"fdqfkd0",
"fdqky5j",
"fdqq5e5"
],
"score": [
76,
1122,
972
],
"text": [
"More of course can be said, but there are also some nice older responses, including [this one](_URL_0_) from /u/pipie123 and [this one](_URL_1_) from /u/drpeppero which may be of interest.",
"Books I'm referencing here are *1491: The Americas Before Columbus* by Charles C Mann, and *The Last Days of the Incas* by Kim MacQuarrie.\n\nThe latter goes into more detail of how the Inca Empire functioned as it operates as a chronicle of the Spanish Conquest of what would later be known as Peru by Francisco Pizarro. In essence, the Inca Empire didn't have a large amount of free, internal trade as we would understand it in European cultures.\n\nIn the Inca society, all lands belonged to the Inca and were used with his permission. The structure was fairly typical of feudalism, with a strongly defined hierarchy from the Inca down through increasingly regional Chiefs, to the populace.\n\nThe Inca tithe system operated purely on labour. A typical household would have a quota of three months per year in labour for the state. This was considered to be service directly to the Inca, and is also where tribute comes from.\n\nThis work might have been to fabricate Vicunya garments for the Inca, it may have been for building roads or bridges, serving in the military, or making weapons. The tribute would be distributed to local warehouses, where it would then be distributed to where it needed to be. It might be that llama wool was woven into nets in one area, to be eventually moved across to a coastal city for use in fishing. The fabricator typically wouldn't leave their home further than the local warehouse to deposit these goods. (Unless they were called to serve somewhere specifically, like a construction project or military campaign.)\n\nThis system was incredibly efficient. Numerous Conquistador accounts note warehouses piled high with goods, as the Empire tended to overproduce materials under this system. It also gave incredible resilience to food supplies, allowing a 2000 mile long empire of ten million people to operate for 90 years apparently without a single major famine.\n\nCommunication was also quite sophisticated. Runners called Chaski would operate in relay. Apparently this allowed a message from Cajamarca to reach Cusco, a distance of 1100 miles over mountainous terrain, in only five days. Atahualpa was able to operate his empire in captivity entirely through these runners, organising literal tonnes of gold and silver to be delivered across to Cajamarca within the span of months. It was also difficult to intercept the messages, as there was no writing. One would have to capture the Chaski himself and get the message from them. Serving as a Chaski was also a labour tithe option.\n\nThis also means, however, that the message dies with the Chaski. The Spanish used this to terrifying effect as their horses could cover ground far faster, and thus Chaski struggled to get the message out about the initial invasion. The fact that the Inca was the nexus of all these communications was also a key weak point. The capture of Atahualpa at Cajamarca by Pizarro completely stalled the empire until he was able to negotiate resuming his duties, in exchange for gathering gold and silver for the Conquistadors.",
" he older answers cited below are good, I might add a couple of thoughts from an archaeological perspective. The short answer is that the Inka did not need currency to operate or expand. There were items like finely-woven textiles and Spondylus ornaments that probably had convertible value, and were often given by elites to other elites, but were not really money. La Lone (1994) once described the Inka economy as “supply on demand”- or one that met institutional goals rather than the motivations of a market economy.\n\nThe Inka state functioned by what we (most historians and archaeologists) understand to long-standing cultural conventions related to reciprocity. This study relates to a larger body of literature in economic anthropology (among other specializations) that study the ideas related to “gifts”, particularly how they create obligations to give, to receive, and to repay, sometimes in the absence of (or in spite of) a monetary system. \n\nThe Quechua word (one of the most common languages spoken within the Inka empire) is *ayni*, which implies that when people are give something, they are entitled to receive of comparable value back (i.e., balanced reciprocity). So a common situation is that various community members might help a family till a potato field and, at a later date, that family might then later help various people sheer and store their llama wool. These obligations are often phrased in the language of kinship, relatives being expected to help other relatives. This turn taking is sometimes called *mit’a* in Quechua and is still practiced across many highland portions of the Central Andes. One of my favorite books that beautifully details the subject (among others) is *The Articulated Peasant* by Enrique Mayer.\n\nThe Inka were among the last in a long line of indigenous polities that interacted with local populations using familiar idioms of kinship to appropriate people’s labor and resources (see Silverblatt 1988). There were several different taxes and obligations, the most relevant is one called *mit’a* service, levied on able-bodied males. Mit’a service was usually scheduled to coincide with agricultural downtime and included a range of activities from construction projects to military service. This helped the Inka commission the building of road networks, large estates, and conquer or reclaim lots of new agricultural land. The latter is quite critical, as the Inka would commission the building of many terraced fields, and the agricultural resources of these fields was reserved for the Inka state. In some cases, the Inka would relocate entire populations (called mitmaqkuna settlers) to work on newly claimed lands. These agrarian staples would be stored in storehouses called qollqa, and reserves used to support the Inka themselves, other laborers, the military, etc., and the Inka kept a careful accounting of their resources using khipu (for an example, read Urton and Chu 2015).\n\nThe Inka, in turn, were expected to repay local communities for their labor. They did so in several ways, including displays of hospitality and generosity. Organizing festivities- replete with food and beverage- for the commoners was frequent. The archaeological site of Huanaco Pampa is a good case study. This was a large architectural site surrounded by qollqas, but most of the pottery was related to the brewing and serving of corn beer (*chicha*)- suggesting it was the site that helped to provision or host these festivals (Morris and Edwards 1985).\n\nThe advantage of mit’a labor taxation (called corvée labor elsewhere) is that, in theory, it doesn’t require people to give the state their own agricultural resources. Giving the state, say, 10% of your food or money in a lean year but be the difference between life and death. But giving the state a month of work during the time that doesn’t interfere with the planting, harvesting, canal cleaning, etc., tasks avoids this problem. By claiming or reclaiming land that wasn’t being used (again, in theory), the Inka allowed (friendly) people to keep their ancestral fields in return for their labor. Their labor would simply be directed toward securing new sources of food, corn beer, textiles, and other supplies for the state.\n\nAn early Inka historian, Cobo (1979: 234), wrote, “One thing that should be pointed out with respect to the amount of tribute that they brought to the king, and it is that there was no other rate or limit, either of the people that the provinces gave for the mita labor service or in other requirements, except the will of the Inca. The people were never asked to make a fixed contribution of anything, byt all of the people needed were called for aforementioned jobs, sometimes in larger numbers, according to the Inca’s desire...”\n\nMurra (1980) discusses how labor taxation was probably changing by the time of Spanish contact, but that is a different subject. If you would like to read about the Inka in more detail, my recommendation is D’Altroy’s recent book *The Incas*, which shows all the signs of being a new gold standard in the archaeology of the region.\n\nHope this helps some. To sum up, the Inka didn’t develop from a tradition that used money as we know it, and instead relied upon taxing people’s labor rather than their wealth to realize their imperial ambitions. \n\nReferences:\n\nCobo, Bernabé\n\n1979 *History of the Inca Empire: An Account of the Indians’ Customs and their Origin, together with a Treatise on Inca Legends, History and Social Institutions*. Translated by Roland Hamilton. University of Texas Press, Austin.\n\nD’Altroy, Terrance\n\n2014 *The Incas* (second edition). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.\n\nLa Lone, Darrell E.\n\n1994 An Andean World System: Production Transformations under the Inka Empire. In *The Economic Anthropology of the State*, edited by Elizabeth Brumfield. Society for Economic Anthropology Monograph no. 11, pp. 17-41. University Press of America, Lanham.\n\nMayer, Enrique\n\n2002 *The Articulated Peasant: Household Economies in the Andes*. Westview Press, Boulder.\n\nMorris, Craig, and Donald Thompson\n\n1985 *Huánuco Panama: An Inca City and its Hinterland*. Thames and Hudson, London.\n\nMurra, John V. \n\n1980 *The Economic Organization of the Inka State*. JAI Press, Greenwich.\n\nSilverblatt, Irene\n\n1988 Imperial Dilemmas, the Politics of Kinship, and Inca Reconstructions of History. Comparative Studies in Society and History 30(1): 83-102.\n\nUrton, Gary, and Alejandro Chu\n\n2015 ACCOUNTING IN THE KING'S STOREHOUSE: THE INKAWASI KHIPU ARCHIVE. *Latin American Antiquity* 26(4): 512-529"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/chza1r/how_did_the_inca_manage_to_build_an_empire_that/ev0ps15/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8fblxr/the_inca_empire_is_famous_for_being_one_of_the/dy2dlfi/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
1i04cu | If sieges lasted for months what did the attackers/defenders do all day? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1i04cu/if_sieges_lasted_for_months_what_did_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cazodvc",
"cazoeoy",
"cazou19",
"cazvs3z",
"cazvvpv"
],
"score": [
964,
85,
118,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"The attackers would have plenty to do. Sieges wouldn't be static. In addition to creating a line to prevent the defenders from breaking out they would need to build defenses to prevent an outside part from lifting the siege.\n\nIn addition to that siege engines would need to be built, even if they were crude simple machines early in history (battering rams and perhaps some portable screens to protect/allow archer to move forward). As siege warfare technology improved, there were lots of other siege engines to build as well as trenches to dig.\n\nSome of the work for the attackers would look like busy work (digging trenches, build fortifications, etc) to a lot of people (and maybe even some soldiers), but the last thing either side would want is for the military men to get bored and have their spirits dampen. The siege is a contest of wills where each side believes they can out last the other and giving fighters a chance to feel like they're doing something productive would help keep morale up.\n\n",
"During the Peloponnesian war (431-404 BC) they actually built fortifications around the besieged city so that if they besieged attacked the siegers had a defensive wall (often wood on top of stone). It should be noted that the walls were double sided (so to speak) so that if the besieged ally came to relieve the city they siegers still had a wall to hid behind. The Romans adopted this as well.\n\n\nIn the middle ages, the siegers defensive fortifications were less elaborate but still in place. They would have dug ditches (maybe with spikes), put up barricades, small wooden towers and possibly a palisade.\n\n\nWhen major siege engines were developed, the siegers would cut down trees to build them outside of the walls.\n\n\nSoldiers would also spend time hunting, playing games, and raiding the surrounding area. It's important to note that when an army traveled they were followed by all sorts of people from prostitutes to fortune tellers; all to take some of that pay off the soldiers hands.\n\n\nIf it was a disciplined army, such as the Roman or Spartan armies, they would spend a lot of time drilling, more to maintain discipline and keep the soldiers occupied than anything else.",
"Everyone in the thread have very valid answers, but they're all overlooking one of the most crucial elements of a siege for the attackers as well as besiegers - food. Armies consume an enormous amount of food, and were often much larger than the force they were besieging (to prevent them from simply fighting their way out). So (assuming the army in question is one without a sophisticated supply system, like that of Alexander the Great for example) soldiers would spend a lot of time exploring the surrounding countryside and collecting food from farms and villages. There is evidence to suggest that the Greek warriors during the Trojan War extensively farmed the Chersonnese peninsula (north of Troy in the entrance to the Black Sea) as a permanent food supply, as (if the Iliad is to be believed, which is certainly quite sketchy) a siege that lasted for ten years would have exhausted all surrounding food sources early on.\n\nEdit: I can find more examples of you like. ",
"As some others have stated, a common practice for the defending troops was to \"test the waters\". \n\nFor example, during the siege of Eger during the Ottoman-Austro-Hungarian war, General Istvasz Dobo utilized his engineers to launch black powder rockets into the Turkish lines in order to spot and exploit weak points. I'm on my phone, so I can't get precise numbers, but Dobo was actually able to fend off some 10,000 troops with a tiny defensive force. \n\nSimilarly, psychological tactics were often used by attackers to stress test the defenders. King Gustavus of Sweden is famous for sending numerous envoys throughout a siege to try to broker peaces. He would also buy off citizens as spies to scare the populous into submission. During the siege of the March of Brandenburg during the Swedish-Palatinate conflicts of the Thirty Years War, King Adolphous simply waited until the defenders ran out of food and then walked right in and brokered a peace, without killing a single person. \n\nSources(Sorry, on the phone):\n\nStars Over Eger by Geza Gardonoyi\n\nThe Thirty Years' War: And the Conflict for European Hegemony 1600-1660 by Sigfrid Henry Steinberg",
"Yesterday I [asked about sieges](_URL_0_) and got ZERO upvotes and ZERO answers. Funny to see 947 upvotes and 104 comments here. So, I copy my question here, just in case someone may answer.\n\n*«300 years ago today Barcelona decided to not surrender. The siege lasted 14 month, ending on 11th September 1714. I've read somewhere this was something extraordinary, because sieges at that time used to last at maximum one month. How true is this? How exceptional was resisting 14 months? What was the difference?»*"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hy4bf/sieges_in_the_modern_age/"
]
] |
||
2qk9g3 | Why/How did Basketball become so popular in China of all places? | It's always struck me as odd that an American sport could become so popular in China. How did this come about? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2qk9g3/whyhow_did_basketball_become_so_popular_in_china/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn721wp"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The YMCA (who basketball James Naismith worked for) brought basketball to China in 1895. Along with ping pong (Table tennis) basketball became one of China's most popular sport. As early as 1917 Mao Zedong published an essay, \"A study of physical culture\" it is clear Mao thought highly of athletes. Communists believed the sport to strongly represent their believes, all players and positions are equally important. \n\nSkipping ahead to the 1950s all child athletes whether their sport was ping pong, gymnastics or basketball were sent to sports schools. In 1959, Rong Guotuan won the Table Tennis World Championship, the first Chinese person to a 'world championship' in any sport. However, ping pong is not really a big deal, it is a \"Small ball sport\" Chinese bureaucrats knew to get respect they would need to win the \"Big ball sports\" such as basketball, soccer and volleyball.\n\nBasketball and other big ball sports quickly took precedence for funding over other sports. Children who were predicated to grow other 1.8 meters were selected (re: forced) to train in the sports schools.\n\nSkipping ahead to 1990 China and the NBA agreed to a deal to broadcast NBA games in China. The NBA is the only American broadcasting 'entertainment' to be aired in China. In a 1992 \"less than scientific poll\" of a classroom of school children Micheal Jordan was found to be the most famous person in China behind Premier Zhou Enlai.* The class then recited all the statistics you might find on the back of Jordan's basketball card and then some to the visiting American teacher.\n\n\n\n*Those previous two sentences are from Operation Yao Ming pg. 113\n\nTL;DR the Chinese like basketball. Basketball was considered to promote Communist ideals and be a way in which China would be able to achieve glory and respect on the international stage.\n\nRefrences:\n\nOperation Yao Ming by Brook Larmer\n\nFrom Evangelism to Entertainment: The YMCA, the NBA, and the Evolution of Chinese Basketball by Judy Polumbaum in Modern Chinese Literature and Culture Vol. 14, No. 1 pp. 178-230\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
fvnz5m | Why did Lysenkoism become supported by the USSR? What were the effects of this decision? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fvnz5m/why_did_lysenkoism_become_supported_by_the_ussr/ | {
"a_id": [
"fmk0x5y"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"There are basically two scholarly takes on why Lysenkoism was supported. The first one is simultaneously old and new; it is the take that people said about Lysenkoism at the time, but has gotten \"refreshed\" by some modern historians of science as well. It basically says, \"because Lysenkoism was more ideologically compatible with Marxist-Leninist-Stalinism than Mendelism.\" This is the idea that the Soviet government support Lysenkoism because it preached the mutability of biology and thus promised infinite malleability for Soviet man and his endeavors. So this is what anti-Soviet scientists (often stimulated by covert CIA funding) argued during the Cold War, when they made Lysenkoism into one of the many reasons to oppose Stalinism. \n\nThe other take, which was especially common in scholarship from the 1970s until very recently, is that ideology had nothing much to do with it. Rather, this interpretation says that Lysenkoism became initially powerful because the Soviet system created a political environment that ended up rewarding any \"sciences\" that could simultaneously claim practical results (however spurious), be used as domestic propaganda, and effectively denounced its opponents as being associated with the West and being ineffective. Lysenko was an effective political operator, in this view, and provided the Soviet state with a ready-made way to deflect criticisms of its agricultural policies, and the inability of early Mendelian geneticists to translate their theoretical work into practical results led to easy attacks. (Hence they were \"fly-lovers and people-haters\" in Lysenko's argument.) Lysenko made for good domestic propaganda, and that made him powerful; Stalin found him useful, and thus elevated him to the favored position.\n\nSo which of these is right? Well, they can both be sort of right. The modern \"Lysenkoism as ideology\" scholarship emphasizes Stalin's own ideological issues as being the reason why he decided to elevate him into the favored position, but the other elements probably better explain why Lysenkoism was so successful in the particular political situation of the 1930s USSR. Appealing to Lysenkoism as _just_ being about Soviet ideology seems to misunderstand how ideology and power work in totalitarian nations (and notably the USSR), seeing ideology as sort of a given rather than something that is \"worked out\" by the actions of the state (and not just a \"top down\" state either; much of the campaigns for or against various Soviet sciences were waged by academics vying for power and security, not top-level Party officials). But once Lysenko became an important force, Stalin's own whims — which could be ideologically influenced, and he considered himself quite the philosopher and scientist — could lead to such a situation being codified. \n\nAs for the consequences: Soviet biology became highly politicized and until some time into the Khrushchev years, Mendelian genetics was essentially verboten, and many Mendelians ended up in the Gulag, at times fatally. Lysenkoism was essentially scientifically empty; its only \"success\" was its vagueness, which made it hard to be falsified. There are some arguments that Lysenkoism was complicit in some ways in the Soviet famines of the period though I suspect this is a bit of a stretch (collectivization was disastrous no matter what biological theory one had in mind). Even after Khrushchev dethroned Lysenko, Lysenkoism persisted for some years in the People's Republic of China as well. \n\nOn the use of anti-Lysenkoism in CIA-funded scientific propaganda, see Audra Wolfe's _Freedom's Laboratory_. On the \"non-ideological\" explanation of Lysenkoism, the classic work is David Joravsky's _The Lysenko Affair_. On the modern \"re-ideological\" discussions, see Nils Roll-Hansen's _The Lysenko Effect_."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
343cfm | Did the United States actually pursue a "Europe First" strategy in World War II? | Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States agreed with the UK in the ABC-1 Conference and the ARCADIA Conference that Germany was the more dangerous foe. However, did the United States actually pursue a Europe First strategy like it said it would? What was the decision-making process like? How can we measure whether or not it did? Also, was it true that Germany was the more dangerous foe, or did the British just manage to convince Roosevelt of that? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/343cfm/did_the_united_states_actually_pursue_a_europe/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqqzn1y"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"Yes. The United States had a number of pre-war plans drawn up that dealt with what to do in a hypothetical war with each major power. They were coloured coded, so War Plan Orange was Japan, Red was Britain, etc. \n\nHowever they also had a subset of plans named Rainbows 1-5. Rainbow 1 essentially assumed the USA would be without major allies and being attacked by a coalition of major powers. What's important is the last plan, known as Rainbow 5. It assumed American would be at war with Germany and Japan and allied with France and Great Britain. That was the war plan that the United States and did call for a German centric strategy. \n\nHowever, war plans can change, and the Germany first strategy was only decided upon at the \"Arcadia Conference\" held with Britain in the weeks after Pearl Harbor. Both sides agreed that Germany would be dealt with first, and that Japan could be held in check until Germany was defeated. \n\nIn the initial months of the war, Germany first was more of an illusion than a reality. Since the USA lacked the shipping capacity in the Atlantic theatre to move men to Britain, most American material went towards the Pacific. The Navy obviously favoured a Japan first approach, and largely succeeded in getting their demands in the very early stages. \n\nThat changed with the created of Combined Chiefs of Staff, which saw British and American military leaders working together, obviously this meant that the British (totally committed to a Germany first strategy) and the American army (also committed) could work together to implement that even if the American Navy (and MacArthur) wanted to take out Japan first. \n\nAfter the creation of the Combined Chiefs of Staff the decision making process turned decidedly towards European matters. Memorandums and plans were drawn up for invasions of Europe or Vichy held Africa. Roosevelt, nominally commander in chief of the American armed forces, was also more concerned it seemed with European matters, he greatly increased aid towards Britain and military production was also redirected to aiding Britain. Roosevelt didn't neglect the Asian theatre, but it was definitely secondary from a planning standpoint. \n\nIts hard to measure who was \"more dangerous\", but regardless the British hardly needed to convince the Americans of Germany's danger. American military planners were terrified of the Germany's potential victory over the Soviet Union. They also feared that if Germany was left alone its army would be near unbeatable by 1943. \n\nEdit: \n\nGood book on the topic is \"There's a war to be won\" by Geoffrey Perot. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1tgzjt | When did the russian stereotypes began to appear and what did the world thought of Russia before the socialism. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1tgzjt/when_did_the_russian_stereotypes_began_to_appear/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce7yi6z",
"ce87jic"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It may help to specify exactly what stereotypes you want to know more about, but I will try and go through some of the most popular ones I know of.\n\nThe biggest one, and one that still affects Russia to this day, is the conception of drunkenness. It begins with the apocryphal story of the conversion of the Rus' in 963 and the choosing of Christianity over Islam \"because the Rus' love to drink. This is probably a later addition to the story when the stereotype was already in place. 800 years later the German adventurer Adam Olearius, writing in the 1640's documenting his travels through Muscovy and Persia, makes particular note of Muscovites problem with drinking. The *Domostroi*, a code of conduct handbook popular in Moscow during the time, also warned its readers of the danger of alcohol.\n\nThe other big stereotype, which came to prominence in the Cold War, is the belief that Russians are naturally servile peoples and prefer authoritarian rule. Before delving into early travelers accounts it should be emphasized that Muscovite society as a whole was deeply obsessed with hierarchy and ones position in it. Society was simple a macro scale of the family, with the tsar at the top as a literal *batushka* (grandfather) to Muscovy and acted as the direct link between God and His people. *The Domostroi* paints the tsar as the supreme father figure of the Russian people, and places his personage as directly below God in terms of power. “Fear the Tsar and serve him faithfully… Speak to the Tsar like he is God himself\" (Although the actual power of the tsar in relation to his boyars varied from ruler to ruler). Westerners saw this and reported it back to their governments. I again defer to Olearius, who called the Muscovites \"servile people fit only for slavery\"",
"I've written about this in another thread, as I've studied this quite a bit, covering the period between 1789 and 1865 in the U.S.\n\nHere is the copy/paste from my other answer:\n\nI actually wrote my senior undergraduate thesis on this. It spans 1789 to 1865. I can PM it to you if you'd like, or to anyone who is interested.\nFormal relations were basically non-existent at first beyond trade. One source even says that there were only five Russians in the United States during the American Revolution. Therefore, most Americans had never met a Russian and found them pretty bizarre based on how newspapers and travel books were describing them.\nMy research found that there were three different ways that Americans viewed Russians: positive, negative, and what I call positive-exotic.\nNegative views in American culture talked about Russians using words like \"barbarity\" or \"savage\" or \"despotism\" or other very obviously negative things. The intention was to make Russia and the Russians seem like \"others.\" No matter what was going on internationally, there were people who were really negative about the Russians.\nPositive-exotic perceptions are the most fun to read nowadays. They are stories or language that make the Russians appear quirky or strange, but not inherently inferior. Some of the stories are not even true, like one travel book that mentions in the early 1800s that the czar decreed that all pug dogs were to be named Mops. Others detail how they eat, or drink, or worship. Russians are presented as an oddity. The positive-exotic perceptions are found alongside the negative ones, primarily during times of relative peace.\nPositive perceptions, where the Russians are painted as America's best friend and ally, start popping up any time there is an international conflict. During the Napoleonic Wars, Americans praised the Russians for getting Napoleon out of Russia, saying things about how the situation was so similar to how the U.S. got rid of England during the Revolution. During the Civil War the speech about Russians becomes ridiculously positive; the reason for this is that the Russian fleet visited the east and west coasts in fall of 1863. Even though historians now agree that the reason for this was military logistics on the Russian side, Northerners perceived it as a sign of alliance and friendship. The Confederates perceived it the same way, getting pretty annoyed that the Russians were there. During this time you can find a lot of articles talking about how amazing the Russian fleet is and how Russia is just like the U.S. in almost every way. Slavery and serfdom are one of the main talking points because emancipation in each place happened only a couple years apart. During the fleet's visit, there were crazy fancy parties in every city to celebrate the Russians' arrival.\nBasically, when the U.S. was fine and the world was relatively calm, they were totally okay with making the Russians seem like evil weirdos. But when the U.S. needed to feel not so alone in the world, the Russians were often their go-to people to suddenly have everything in common with.\nThe formal diplomatic relations are a little different from this, though basically there was little formal diplomacy between the countries until the early 1800s. From there we were friendly but mostly for financial reasons. An IR historian can tell you more about that part, since I'm on the more cultural side of things."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
e7b0bd | Did Iceland or Greenland have indigenous peoples? | I tried googling it but it kept just saying that there’s a lot of Icelandic people, and not a lot of immigration. If so could you lend me some information I’d like to learn more about it. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/e7b0bd/did_iceland_or_greenland_have_indigenous_peoples/ | {
"a_id": [
"f9ynua1"
],
"score": [
46
],
"text": [
"To expand on u/theimis' post, according to the 12th century Íslendingabók, before the Norse settlement of Iceland, there were Irish monks known as papar. This has been a matter of much scholarly debate, but some place names in Iceland have elements related to the word papar, so it is possible. Additionally, recent archaeological examinations by Kristján Ahronsson in the southwest of the country have found a cave with carved crosses that he claims are in a style consistent with Irish monks from around 800 (70 years before Norse settlement). I've seen these caves personally, and it was very interesting, but the crosses are very hard to date off of typology, so his claims are not universally accepted.\n\nRegarding Greenland, the Dorset people inhabited Western Greenland up until around the time of the Norse settlement c. 1000, when they were replaced by the Thule people, whose descendants are the modern Inuit and Greenlanders.\n\nEinar Ólafur Sveinsson, \"Papar\", Skírnir 119 (1945), pp. 170-203 \n\nKristján Ahronsson, *Into the Ocean:Vikings, Irish, and Environmental Change in Iceland and the North*, 2015\n\nRobert McGhee, *The Last Imaginary Place: A Human History of the Arctic World*, 2005"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
211x8d | How was the U.S. Navy actually able to implement the new angled flight decks on its carriers across the fleet in the 1950s? | I see that the USS Shangri La went was the first to be refitted in 1955, and the USS Oriskany the last refit to be completed after a two year overhaul in 1959. Obviously, all 14 carriers would not be out of commission at the same time.
* How many months did the average switch from straight deck to angled deck take, and could it have been done during a ship's normal scheduled maintenance time while not deployed?
* I would assume it was phased so that one ship would be 75% done while another was around 25% done, was this the case?
* Did any foreign powers (e.g. the Soviets or Chinese )make significant moves due to the fact that the U.S. Navy was in this transitional period? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/211x8d/how_was_the_us_navy_actually_able_to_implement/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg99hir"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The angled flight deck was invented in a study by the Royal Navy in 1944-45. \n\nThe first experiments with angled flight decks were on HMS Triumph and USS Midway. In 1952 USS Antietam had an angled deck installed and US and British forces conducted training on her. The US navy then installed the decks on the Essex class and Midway class carriers as part of upgrade programs during the 1950s.\n\nIn 1955, HMS Ark Royal was the first carrier to be constructed and launched with an angled flight deck. In the same year the HMAS Melbourne and the USS Forrestal were built with angled flight decks.\n\n12 of the US Navy's 22 Essex class carriers were upgraded to angled flight decks, (plus the Antietam, with her experimental angled deck).\n\nAll three of the US Navy's Midway class carriers were upgraded to angled flight decks during the 1950s.\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_3_\n\nThe conversion programs for the carriers seem to have taken between 2 and 3 years. USS Coral Sea's conversion took 2 years 9 months, USS Franklin Roosevelt took 2 years, USS Midway took 2 years 2 months.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nNo foreign powers made any particularly aggressive moves at sea during this period of refit. No foreign powers had anywhere near the number of carriers that the US navy had, even if many of them were being refitted in a fairly short window."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_deck",
"http://www.uscarrierhistory.com/index_files/Page3646.htm",
"http://flattopshistorywarpolitics.yuku.com/topic/439/The-Evolution-of-the-Aircraft-Carrier-19461960#.Uy3wRM9OWP8",
"http://www.navy.gov.au/history/angled-flight-deck"
]
] |
|
1dhdu7 | How did the Soviet Union react to Stalin's death? On an official level, as well as average citizens. | Was there a conflict between maintaining the marxist revolution and acknowledging the horrible acts committed by the man? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dhdu7/how_did_the_soviet_union_react_to_stalins_death/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9qd8t8"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Emotions are difficult to talk about in the Soviet Union. Everyone could only ['whisper'](_URL_1_) their true feelings, or wore ['masks'](_URL_2_) to portray themselves in public.\n\nWith that in mind, people wept, openly and often. For many Stalin had represented all that was good and virtuous in life. He was the leader which saw the Russians through the darkness of war, through the horrors of the necessary collectivization, who single-handedly defeated the opportunists, the blood-suckers, the Jews, the kulaks, and the counterrevolutionaries which would have plunged Russia back into the decadence of the Tsars. He allowed for an entire 'class' of people to rise up through the ranks and gain education, gain a life impossible otherwise.\n\nNow, there were certainly many who wept openly and often because the reign of a tyrant was over. Perhaps now they could [mourn their dead](_URL_0_) with some amount of closure. Overall it was a very emotional period, and was a significant marker in Soviet life, and in Soviet history. The death of Stalin was 'that day' that everyone remembered. No one in the US alive and able to form memories will forget where they were on 9/11, just like no one can really forget where they were when Kennedy was assassinated. No one forgets where they were when Stalin's death was announced.\n\nHis death was also extremely important in Krushchev's Secret Speech, and many of the conflicting thoughts you bring up were resurrected again with the revelation that perhaps Stalin was not the god-send that many people made him out to be. Nonetheless, he is still seen as a great Russian in the Russian Federation today. He was ranked at No. ~~2~~3 greatest Russian ever in an informal online poll recently. \n\n**Edit:** Looks like he was ranked 3, not 2. Thanks to u/midgrid for the correction."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Night-Stone-Memory-Twentieth-Century-Russia/dp/0670894745",
"http://www.amazon.com/Whisperers-Private-Life-Stalins-Russia/dp/0312428030/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367424938&sr=1-1&keywords=the+whisperers",
"http://www.amazon.com/Tear-Off-Masks-Imposture-Twentieth-Century/dp/0691122458/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367424847&sr=8-1&keywords=tear+off+the+masks"
]
] |
|
366r0s | Were "Wanted Dead or Alive" posters ever published as real legal notices in the US? If so, was anyone ever killed as a result of acting on such a notice through mistaken identity? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/366r0s/were_wanted_dead_or_alive_posters_ever_published/ | {
"a_id": [
"crb9rbw"
],
"score": [
475
],
"text": [
"on your first question, check out a few earlier related posts (tl;dr: yes they are real)\n\n* [Were bounty hunters around in the 'Wild West' and were they similar to how pop culture portrays them?](_URL_1_) - /u/kingconani explains that bounty hunters were 'lawmen or detectives' and gives a couple of examples\n\n* [How accurate were the \"Wanted Dead or Alive\" posters featured in Westerns? Is it something Hollywood made up?](_URL_2_) - misc examples\n\n* [How often were \"Wanted Dead or Alive\" criminals returned alive, and how did Dead or Alive bounties actually work?](_URL_0_) - an old & somewhat meandering thread\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15ng40/how_often_were_wanted_dead_or_alive_criminals/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1v7v10/were_bounty_hunters_around_in_the_wild_west_and/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/25wjiq/how_accurate_were_the_wanted_dead_or_alive/"
]
] |
||
34k4oh | Why was Ovid banished by Augustus? Was it really for the Art of Love? What evidence do we have for this? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/34k4oh/why_was_ovid_banished_by_augustus_was_it_really/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqvi3t2"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"It's pretty mysterious. As far as I know the only way we know about this affair is Ovid himself, who only writes about his \"carmen et error.\" People usually assume the carmen was his poetry. What his error was...? He might have been somehow wrapped up in the Julia the Younger scandal (apparently an attempted coup), but no one is sure how exactly.\n\nHere's what he says in [Tristia 2](_URL_0_):\n > Though two charges, carmen et error, a poem and an error,\nruined me, I must be silent about the second fault:\nI’m not important enough to re-open your wound, Caesar,\nit’s more than sufficient you should be troubled once.\nThe first, then: that I’m accused of being a teacher\nof obscene adultery, by means of a vile poem.\n\nThe rest of the poem is a defense of his poetry, basically arguing anything obscene one detects in it they are making up themselves.\n\nHe won't talk about the error. We can only guess."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/OvidTristiaBkTwo.htm#anchor_Toc35314584"
]
] |
||
9cr2ly | Why would France think that something like the Maginot line would be effective when they had ample experience from WW1 and the Schlieffen plan? | Seen a lot of joke and memes about French incompetence in this matter. So I was hoping for a more direct, accurate explanation. :) | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9cr2ly/why_would_france_think_that_something_like_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5cptzp",
"e5f85c4"
],
"score": [
23,
4
],
"text": [
"Expanded from [an earlier answer of mine](_URL_0_) that covers the meat of the question. \n\nThe situation in 1940 was also a bit more complicated than the Germans going around a fortification or resurrecting the Schlieffen Plan. The Maginot Line in many ways performed as expected in 1940. The Germans were unable to break the line outside of a few areas, and even here these were costly attacks that achieved more in terms of propaganda than actual military results. The Line itself was not all that expensive in the bigger picture of French defense outlays and it did prevent a German thrust into central France. *Fall Gleb* managed to stumble onto a fracture point in Franco-Belgian defense and exploited it to the utmost. \n\nOne of the popular complaints about French military policy, both in the immediate aftermath of 1940 and continuing in the postwar, was that Belgium's adherence to neutrality hampered the overall defense of the West against Germany. Alistair Horne in his famous *To Lose a Battle* described Belgian policy as akin to the nursery the rhyme Three Little Pigs in which Belgian intransigence ensured that \"in one stroke [France's] Maginot Line strategy lay in fragments.\" Horne and other commentators would assert that the Maginot Line should have been extended in light of Belgium's insistence that it was a neutral, and as such could not have belligerents stationed on its territory. Such critiques though miss key elements both of Franco-Belgian grand strategy and ignore some of the problems inherent in extending the Maginot Line into this region.\n\nWhile Belgium's public face was that of a neutral, its defense policy was definitely pro-French and geared towards cooperation with Paris. There were significant war plans and cooperation between the two countries' military establishment and both conceptualized many of the same problems. The critique that the Maginot Line should have extended through the frontier border misses the key fact that French strategic thought saw the Belgian frontier with Germany as the proxy extension of the Maginot. One 1932 French General Staff document noted that:\n\n > Belgium, by its geographic situation, constitutes the glacis of our northern region. Besides, it considers France as its natural ally. In case of German aggression, it will very probably request our support and its forces would cover, at the same time as Belgian territory, the meeting of the French armies destined to fight at their side. \n\nThis conceptualization of Belgium as a glacis meant that the French general staff encouraged the Belgians to fortify the Albert Canal and Dyle River regions. While these fortifications were not on the scale of the Maginot defenses, they were not supposed to reach this level of fortification. Instead, they were intended to delay a German advance long enough for a link up of French and Belgian troops that would destroy the invading Germans in a methodical battle, hopefully along the flat plains around Gembloux. \n\nThis strategic plan made French fortifications along the Belgian border somewhat superfluous. The whole idea of French planning itself was predicated on pushing Germany to invade Belgium and then being delayed by geography and fortifications long enough for French forces to defeat them in a set-piece battle. The Maginot Line itself discouraged an alternate, direct thrust into France, leaving Belgium the only real option for German planners. There was some thought given by French and Belgian planners in the 1930s to fortifying Arlon region of the Ardennnes as a contingency plan, but not much came of it. Belgium was unwilling to cover the costs of fortifying this region, and even when the French offered to pay for it in 1934, the Belgian Foreign Minister rejected it. The official rationale was that this would have been too flagrant of a violation of Belgian neutrality, especially for a peripheral area. \n\nAlthough Belgium's rejection of the French offer seems foolish in hindsight, there were solid reasons for it at the time. Belgium's defense appropriations were already quite high and the Belgian government was having trouble paying for the fortifications on the German frontier. The Ardennes region itself was rather poorly suited for fortifications, being quite hilly and wet. This was one of the reasons too why the French did not seriously consider extending their own Maginot fortifications into this region. Costs of the existing Line were large and the overall sentiment in the French high command and government was such man-made fortifications would be superfluous in light of the region's unsuitability for mobile warfare. Phillipe Petain was on record saying that the Ardennes was impenetrable and Gamelin described the Meuse River as \"Europe's best tank obstacle.\" This however does not mean that the French military completely ruled out any attack through the Ardennes. The French high command estimated that because of the roads and geography, a German attack would likely take nine days to clear the forest and two weeks to reach the Meuse. If a German attack were to materialize in this sector, then the French high command believed they would have ample time to organize an efficient counterattack. In this scenario, the forest and the Ardennes's terrain were expected to act as fortifications that would delay a German advance like the Dyle fortifications. \n\nThe German thrust in the region would prove this expectation to be woefully optimistic. *Fall Gelb*'s panzer and mechanized forces proceeded far quicker than most of the French high command expected, sixty hours to clear the Ardennes and a day to reach the Meuse. There were many voices within the French military that challenged this complacent attitude to the Ardennes in the 1930s. One of the local commanders, Colonel Bourguignon, conducted an exercise that demonstrated tanks could operate far easier within the Ardennes than French conventional wisdom dictated. In 1938, the commander of the French Second Army, General Andre Pretelat, conducted a map exercise that closely resembled Fall Gelb's thrust. Pretelat's estimates of a German attack's speed were only off by a mere three hours. Gamelin accused Pretelat of pessimism and the exercise was kept secret. \n\nIt is also worth noting that some in the German high command shared the sentiments of Gamelin. Halder too thought the Meuse could only be reached in nine days at the earliest. Throughout *Fall Gelb* the German command was torn between two loose factions, the traditionalists and modernizers. The former feared that overextending panzers without proper infantry support would open up the German thrust to the dangers of an organized counterattack. The modernizers like Guderian favored a *Bewegungskrieg* (war of movement) and thought that mechanized forces and airpower would make up for the lack of infantry support. Lest we fall into the trap of at type of Calvinist historicism (modernizers are the elect and traditionalist the damned), remember that at various points *Fall Gelb* took extraordinary risks that could have been disastrous had the Allied forces acted more proactively. At the Battle of Sedan, the official *Bundeswehr* study of the campaign asserts that the local French commander had everything he needed to stop Guderian's thrust *except* an order to do so.\n\nThe German's key advantages were both concentration of forces and operational flexibility. Although the Allies had numerical superiority and a rough technical parity in the air (there's a lot of hair splitting in many of the comments as to how superior one force was over the other), the larger and arguably more important point is that German airpower had effected a *numerical* superiority over the *schwerpunkt*. This made it much harder for the French to suddenly shift their airpower over the Ardennes. The Luftwaffe enjoyed a relative proximity to the main bases and were not operating at a distance. German concentration was not limited just in airpower, the I Flak Corps was in full force and prevented Allied airpower from exploiting the gaps in the Luftwaffe air umbrella. Furthermore, the Flak arm proved instrumental in its dual use against French fortifications and Allied tanks. Rommel famously stopped the Cambrai counterattack with his mobile flak units. As Fall Gelb developed, German airpower lost these advantages in concentration of force and proximity to German airfields, and that is when losses started to creep upwards. \n\nOverall, *Fall Gelb* was successful because it took a calculated risk that payed off handsomely. The Germans offensive played to their strengths, but they were aided considerably by the sluggard French high command. Fortifications in the Ardennes might have helped, or even stopped the German thrust, but that obscures the fact that the Ardennes thrust walked a knife's edge between success and catastrophe even without fortifications and facing reserve troops. \n\n*Sources*\n\nCitino, Robert Michael. *Death of the Wehrmacht: The German Campaigns of 1942*. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2007. \n\nDildy, Doug, and Peter Dennis. *Fall Gelb 1940 (1): Panzer Breakthrough in the West*. Oxford: Osprey, 2014. 2014. \n\nEpstein, Jonathan A. *Belgium's Dilemma The Formation of the Belgian Defense Policy, 1932-1940*. Leiden: Brill, 2014. \n\nFrieser, Karl-Heinz, and John T. Greenwood. *The Blitzkrieg legend: the 1940 campaign in the West*. Annapolis, Md: Naval Institute Press, 2005. \n\nNord, Philip G. *France 1940: Defending the Republic*. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015.",
"Part 1 of 2\n\nYeah, I know the memes you are referring to u/manorbros, you often see things like \"The Germans just went around the Maginot Line\" and \"The French used tanks as infantry support, not in concentrated armoured units\". As you might expect, the reality of the situation was not as black and white, and a lot of these myths or oversimplifications started with historians writing in the 1950s and 1960s, and with German generals like Halder and Guderian who wrote rather self serving memoirs after the war. These have stuck around in pop history ever since even as the historiography concerning the period has moved on. To give you an idea on what has been written on the genesis of the defeat in 1940, authors such as Robert Doughty point to army doctrine, Ronald Powalski points out the rigidity of the French command structure, Ernest May looks to memories of WW1 and fear of bloodshed, and Alistair Horne points to political divisions and divisions in the army between classes (such as those between officers and men). However no one, with the possible exception of Eugenia Kiesling, has tried to combine all of these elements into a coherent narrative. For what it's worth, i'd highly recommend her book Arming Against Hitler: France and the Limits of Military Planning.\n\nMaginot Line\n\nFirst, let's address the Maginot Line. The French examined the idea of extending the Maginot Line along the Belgian border in some detail but rejected the idea, partly for political reasons to do with Belgian neutrality but also for some sound strategic reasons:\n\n(A) The terrain on the Franco-Belgian border was completely unsuited to defence and is largely open fields intersected by rivers making it exceedingly difficult to fortify. It also has a high water table meaning it was impractical to build underground, and as the area along the Franco-Belgian border is heavily industrialised, it would have caused a lot of disruption to vital industry had they begun building forts in the area.\n\n(B) The main industrial and population centres of France are in the North-East of the country which presents a significant tactical problem. Here is a link showing a map of France, within the red circle lies 50% of France's GDP today: _URL_0_ Back in 1940 industry was even more concentrated in the North-East, and as Doughty lays out early in Seeds of Disaster and Breaking Point: Sedan, ninety percent of France's cloth and woolen industry was north of the Seine as were the majority of the chemical industry, 100% of the automobile factories and 100% of the aircraft industry. As noted before, lots of population lived near these industrial centers and as such they could not be lightly surrendered to the enemy. Aside from industry, this region also contained lots of natural resources, 75% of France's coal came from here and all of France's iron ore came from the Briey-Longwy basin in Lorraine. The French were aware they needed to move the battle away from this area if they were to have any chance in holding until their allies could come to their aid. \n\n(C) Holding until here allies came to her aid was the most viable strategy for France. They knew in a 1 on 1 fight with Germany, they would be in serious trouble as Germany had more population and industry than France did. France actually mobilised 300,000 less soldiers in 1940 than in 1914. Fortifying and sitting on the border meant the battle would occur in the most industrially valuable parts of France, and France would not be able to hold until help came. So the French plan was to push the front forward and fight the Germans in Belgian, not French territory, along the Dyle river (in what was called Plan D or the Dyle Plan).\n\n(D) The French command was fully aware that any \"line\", attacked with enough strength, could be breached. Gamelin (French Commander in Chief) wrote in 1935, “from 1915… whenever the necessary means were judiciously employed, one always broke a front.” (Kielsing, Arming Against Hitler) When the Maginot Line was completed in 1935 it was impenetrable to the German army of the day but the French had no illusions about the sanctity of fortifications. If they had extended the line along the Belgian border the forts in exposed areas (fields and rivers remember) would have been broken quickly by heavy artillery, bombers etc. and the French high command knew this in part due to what had happened to the Belgian forts at Liege in 1914 and their own experiences with the forts surrounding Verdun in 1916.\n\n(E) Defending the border would present a significantly longer front to defend than moving into Belgium and defending along the Dyle river. This was a problem due to what I mentioned concerning the number of men that France could field. Besides a shorter front, the French needed the extra 22 divisions of the Belgian Army plus whatever the Dutch could field to even out the manpower imbalance.\n\nThe Maginot Line was a force multiplier in today's parlance, designed to screen the border regions, allow the army to mobilise and funnel the Germans through Belgium where the French army's mobile elements could manoeuvre and counter the German advance. It was a practical and useful response to the strategic challenges faced by France at the time. It actually allowed France to garrison the Franco-German border with only 15% of its total number of soldiers.\n\nMobile Warfare\n\nNow let's move on to the way the French army operated in the field. Perhaps the most pervasive criticism of the French in 1940 was that they failed to understand the changes that had taken place in warfare since WW1, chiefly that they hadn't embraced combined arms and mobile warfare. However as Kiesling shows, the French military was well aware of new theories on mobile warfare. A resurgent Germany forced on France the problem of translating strategic ideas into a set of specific actions. However between theory and practice there were political, social and economic obstacles that caused a number of problems. France was limited by her political institutions, history and other factors, as were other powers. \n\nIt's worth noting that in 1940 France had:\n\n7 x Motorised Infantry Divisions\n\n5 x Mechanised Cavalry Divisions\n\n4 x DCr or Division Cuirassée de Réserve (a heavy armoured division, light on infantry)\n\n3 x DLM or Division Légère Mécanique (a well balanced medium armoured division including motorised infantry, artillery, AA and anti-tank sections)\n\nIn addition to this there were indeed tanks designed for infantry support, these consisted of 30 independent tank battalions generally deployed in regiments of two battalions each and assigned to army and corps reserve formations. \n\nThe DCr and DLMs were the functional equivalent of the German Panzer divisions, that is the French envisaged using these in the breakthrough phase of battle. France had 7 of these divisions to the 10 Panzer divisions Germany had. When you account for the differences in population and the relative size of the two armies, they were therefore roughly equal in terms of mechanisation.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/62qp4p/why_didnt_france_heavily_fortify_the_belgian/"
],
[
"https://imgur.com/a/92gJx"
]
] |
|
amk848 | Did Japan also not like the Jews during WW2? | There probably weren’t many people with Jewish beliefs in Japan at that time, but if there happened to be any found there....what did japan do to them? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/amk848/did_japan_also_not_like_the_jews_during_ww2/ | {
"a_id": [
"eg4yd06"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Jews were not persecuted per se in Japan. While Japan was allied with Hitler, it preferred instead to utilize what it saw as the Jews' world economic and political power. They absorbed anti-Semitic material through their dealings with Russia, leading them to get misleading and outsized ideas of Jews' money and power, but put their own spin on it in which they decided to attempt to use Jewish influence to bring Jewish money into Japan-occupied China and improve relations between Japan and the US. Two Japanese officials, Yasue Norihiro and Inuzuka Korishige, spent years looking into \"the Jewish problem\" and ways that they could manipulate and utilize it. Japan ended up harboring many Jewish refugees in Japanese-controlled Shanghai, some who were already there, some who had been granted visas by Chiune Sugihara, a Japanese consul in Vilnius, Lithuania who gave visas to Jews in an attempt to save them, and some who had been granted visas by Chinese consuls in Europe (particularly Vienna) in order to save them; however, they did not do so due to a particularly good feeling toward Jews- but rather due to a belief that they could use the Jews for their own purposes. Yasue and Inuzuka respectively had authority in Manchuria and Shanghai, and allowed Jews to reside there for multiple reasons, including to provide good optics to the US, to get better access to Jewish money, and to get the sympathy and alliance of Jews in the US, Europe, and East Asia. These plans were largely made before the Tripartite Agreement with Germany and Italy- after this, and later on after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese lost a lot of their incentive to win over the US and put Jews in China and Japan into a ghetto in Shanghai. They never, however, murdered Jews as did Germany- or turned Jews over to be murdered as did Italy.\n\nFurther reading:\n\nGao, Bei, *Shanghai Sanctuary: Chinese and Japanese Policy toward European Jewish Refugees* *during World War II*"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
ak7unv | What was the economy of East European countries at the beginning of the 20th century in comparison to Scandinavian countries? | I'm from Lithuania and I remember my father told me many times that our economy before sovietism was similar to the economy of Sweden but I cannot find any info about it. (Sorry for my clumsy English) | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ak7unv/what_was_the_economy_of_east_european_countries/ | {
"a_id": [
"ef2zxcs"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm from Lithuania too, and what I heard from my grandparents is that pre-soviet Lithuania indeed was more or less equal in population, available farming land and general development to Finland. \n\nI don't know why you heard it was Sweden. Sweden was far more developed than Lithuania and had higher population.\n\nIt would be nice to dig up something concrete if I do, I will attach links to this comment."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
276kts | Help identify rank of Soviet soldier | Can anyone help identify the rank of this Soviet soldier? It is a picture of my uncle before entering Stalingrad, where he died. Not sure if the picture provides enough information to identify his rank.
_URL_0_ | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/276kts/help_identify_rank_of_soviet_soldier/ | {
"a_id": [
"chxvz85"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"it looks like Командир батальона (commander of battalion). if you know russian, you can look [here](_URL_0_).\n\nsomeone with better knowledge about red army can expand this, or prove me wrong, because i'm not sure about it."
]
} | [] | [
"http://imgur.com/hxyIYKx"
] | [
[
"http://rkka.ru/history/znak/main.htm"
]
] |
|
4u0wtu | How have US soda companies been able to get the buying public to adopt the metric system based 2 liter bottle as the standard unit of liquid, but most all other products and services cannot? | I initially thought some one might have answered this question in the past, but in looking through my search results and the FAQ, I did not seem to find one.
If you walk in to any grocery, pharmacy, or convenience store today; you will find smaller bottles of soda in 12, 16, and 20 oz. However, once you go above 20 oz you are met with the ubiquitous 2-liter, the rarer 3-liter, and the and upcoming 1 and 1 1/2 liter bottles. These metric-based bottle sizes with the small exception of certain liquor bottle standards (250 ml, 750 ml, 1500 ml) stand in stark contrast to nearly every other beverage type (milk, orange juice) that get measured in ounces, pints, quarts, and gallons and of course all food-based product measurement sizes - a cup, ounces, etc.
So how did we get here?
* How were US soda companies and botttlers (and to a lesser extent liquor companies) able to convince the buying public to accept these sizes in a metric standard when all other food and beverages sold in the US come in non-metric sizes?
* How long was it before these became as ubiquitous as they are today?
* Was there any push back from distributors and the buying public to these metric-based sizes when they first made it to market? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4u0wtu/how_have_us_soda_companies_been_able_to_get_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5medy0"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"7UP was the first major company to go metric.\nThis was in 1974. There was a push on for the US to go metric. Companies wanted to be prepared in case the move was successful.\n\nAt the same time materials for the containers of soda and the like was rising. \n\n7up found they could make a shorter, different shaped bottle that would be cheaper to make.\n\nFaced with a problem of a shorter bottle being perceived as containing less liquid, 7up saw that the bottle would hold 2 liters of product. 2 liters being more than 2 quarts they could advertise they offered more product for less price.\n\nMarket liked the idea of getting a couple of ounces for free. The savings in packaging more than made up the cost of the extra soda.\n\nSources:\n_URL_0_\n\n\n\n_URL_1_\n\n\n\n_URL_2_ "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://books.google.com/books?id=TCQiYmZ-PagC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=why+did+soda+companies+go+metric&source=bl&ots=dAb8d4zXep&sig=93mH_GAAEdG-sxCAED7a-tQRdMY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVsfedp4fOAhWI1CYKHTYMC3EQ6AEIWzAJ#v=onepage&q=why%20did%20soda%20companies%20go%20metric&f=false",
"https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-89/pdf/STATUTE-89-Pg1007.pdf",
"http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/1991/1/v14n1-5.pdf"
]
] |
|
242me8 | Why was the First Gulf War (aka the Persian Gulf war) so unpopular in the Arab world? | Out of all possible conflicts, this one's unpopularity doesn't make as much sense to me. No one in the Arab world at this point (1991) liked Saddam Hussein. Not only that, Iraq *invaded* Kuwait! One would think that if any time were a just time to intervene in a conflict so as to uphold 2(4) of the UN Charter, this would be it. I completely understand the whole perception of western meddling in M.E. sovereignty, and how this historically fits into that narrative, but any other details would be great.
Ninja edit: Obviously correct me if i'm wrong about any of the above. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/242me8/why_was_the_first_gulf_war_aka_the_persian_gulf/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch3671a"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"This is less a historical question I think, than a social one (I guess both could be intertwined). \n\nThe Gulf War was received differently in different Arab countries, not all Arabs had a monolithic opinion on the war. For one, the Kuwaitis and Gulf Arabs were very much in favor of the Gulf War and the international response for obvious reasons.\n\nAlso, it has largely to do with the sheer response the international community did against Iraq for occupying Kuwait and their supposed lack of concern and relative response to the plight of the Palestinians and the occupation of their territories by the Israelis. This was the general opinion of the Palestinians at least.\n\nEdit: grammar"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2160l1 | Was there really no human dissection after antiquity and before Andreas Vesalius? | As a Belgian I have always been taught that 16th century physician Andreas Vesalius was the first to pioneer dissection of humans, thus heralding in a new era of anatomical science and putting the Middle Ages firmly behind him. The pop history goes that he had to overcome some initial opposition from the church, as dissection was seen as a desecration of the body, so instead they had to rely on texts from Greek and/or Roman authors. That's what they told us in school. But how true is this? Was there really no one in the centuries before who felt the need or the urge to cut open a body and see what was there, for whatever reason? And was "the church" really opposed to any and all dissections, even in a good cause? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2160l1/was_there_really_no_human_dissection_after/ | {
"a_id": [
"cga09r3",
"cgaogfo"
],
"score": [
31,
6
],
"text": [
"**Medieval Popes and the Invention of Autopsy**\n\nOne of the long-held, and incorrect, beliefs about the middle ages is that anatomy and dissection were forbidden, in particular under Christianity, and especially by the Catholic Church. Usually this is trotted out in defence of the *conflict thesis*: the argument that religion, and in particular the medieval Catholic Church, was opposed to science and therefore the progress of humanity. \n\nWhen we look at evidence, we actually see that Innocent III ordered the first recorded autopsies since the classic period, paving the way for dissection science. Moreover, we can recognize these first forensic, legal activities as the direct forebears of today's autopsies.\n\n**Two deaths and a Pope in 1209**\n\nLet's look at the stories of the first two juridical autopsies recorded in history.\n\n\nOur first anecdote is of a chaplain at the monastery Sancta Trinitatis of Maloleone near Bordeaux, who:\n\n > having surprised a criminal in the act of stealing religious articles from the abbey chapel, struck the would-be felon with a heavy farm implement. The thief fled, despite his wounds, but was finally overtaken by parishioners who dispatched him with swords and clubs. The chaplain, fearing that the blow he had struck might have caused the death of the culprit even if the additional injuries had not been inflicted, related his story to the abbot.\n\nThe second is of a bishop at Siguenza near Toledo, who: \n\n > disturbed by the rowdy behaviour of a number of his parishioners during Mass, ordered his canons to restore order about the altar. As their efforts proved to be insufficient to control the throng, he seized a cane and began to drive back the crowd by prodding some persons, and lightly striking others. The canons joined into this turbulent activity, and during the resulting melee, a young man was struck on the head. ^1\n\nIt would seem the young man was not affected by this blow: testimony states he thereafter ate and drank in taverns, he visited public baths, performed field labour. However, clearly something was amiss after this altercation with the bishop for although a month had passed, he was:\n\n > advised to submit to an operation upon his injured head, [and] the victim allowed an old, unskilled physician to cut into both his skull and the flesh of his head. Four days after this operation the young man died, and though four physicians testified that the surgical procedure was ineptly performed, thus causing the youth's death, common talk charged the bishop with having fatally injured the young man with a blow from his cane. ^2\n\nWe have both of these stories from *Regestorum sive epistolarum*, a decretal of Pope Innocent III in 1209. Decretals were issuances of judgement on a variety of ecclesiastical matters, ranging from theology to canon law. In these cases of death involving clergy, both matters were submitted to the papacy for judgement and so come to us with the grounds for decision: the testimony of investigating physicians and surgeons.\n\nIn the case of the chaplain chasing the thief from his monastery, the matter was a question of establishing the chaplain's guilt according to Canon Law which stated that when several people are involved in a brawl and there is a death, the person who strikes the lethal blow was guilty of the homicide. Innocent III requested the testimony of expert physicians, and after receiving a report of their autopsy, it was declared that the chaplain did not strike the death blow [*peritorum judicio medicorum talis percussio assereretur non fuisse lethalis*].\n\nThe bishop of Siguenza sought to relieve public suspicion of his role in the death of the youth, suspicion which had jeopardized his position, and he appealed to the papacy for intervention. Again, the sworn testimony of surgeons and physicians was sought by Innocent III, and the pontiff upon examining the evidence sided with the testimony of these surgeons and physicians who declared the death a result of the botched surgery, and not the result of the bishop's blow [*duo vero chirurgici et unus physicus jurari dixerunt quod non ex percussione sed indiscreta incisione obierat juvenis memoratus*].\n\nThat Innocent III made central the function of law and legal process resulting in autopsies should not surprise us. Why not?\n\n\n**Origins in Medieval Law and Medicine**\n\nThe scholastic effect of the [*medieval Christian Reconquista*](_URL_1_) is a well-worn story by now, but worth restating briefly for its importance to our tale of how a pope came to lead the first recorded autopsies.\n\nIn the 11th century the Reconquista had taken scholastic Moslem cities such as Toledo, provoking the contact between Christian and Moslem scholastics, and in particular exposing Christian scholastics to unknown Greek and Roman works (in Arabic) as well as Arabic advancements. These covered science subjects like [math, chemistry, physics, medicine, and also, perhaps most famously, Aristotelian philosophy](_URL_3_). The path this knowledge followed into western European scholasticism are fairly complex and still being understood, but we can say that while the masters at the new universities of Oxford and Paris took up the massive theological implications of Aristotle’s works, the university cities of modern Northern Italy and Provence (Bologna, Milan, Montpellier) became centers of the resulting legal and medical scholasticism. ^3\n\nBy the middle of the 12th century, the university corridor of Bologna-Milan was the center and fount of legal scholasticism and training. It was here that Roman law was rediscovered, assembled, codified, and interpreted in the form that remains the basis of continental European (and other) legal systems today. Both this medieval civil law, the *Corpus juris civilis*, and Gratian's decretals-cum-canon law, *Corpus juris canonici*, find their blossoming here. Within this century-long development and codification, the canon documents of ecclesia (decretals and bulls) and the civil laws inherited from Justinian are interpolated and cross fertilized, borrowing processes and concepts from each other.^4\n\n > During the twelfth century, in an age when disputes were still commonly settled by stone, iron, and flame, Europeans rushed to make use of new legal procedures provided by princes and popes, procedures that offered reason as an alternative to violence. Young men who had studied Roman or canon law were in demand everywhere, because they knew how to take testimony, weigh evidence, and put in writing their conclusions. ^5\n\n\nBologna university trained Lotario dei Conti of Segni to be canon lawyer after his time in Paris studying theology; and Lotario would become Innocent III. Bologna trained Lotario in the power of legal proceduralism and argumentation, of new legal *ways to think* which he used to great affect in re-asserting papal theocracy, of supremacy of the pope over secular rulers, and it provided many tools for formalizing, structuring, and enforcing Catholic orthodoxy ^6 .The greatest expression of this juridically-inclined Catholic orthodoxy was the [4th Lateran Council of 1215](_URL_4_), perhaps the most famous act of Innocent's papacy and giving us the legalistic, rule-bound *Catholicism* we know today. \n\nIt should be no surprise to us as well that out of these legally-inclined, bureaucratizing generations of the papal curia should also come that other juridical expression of Catholicism: the medieval inquisition into heretical depravity. \n\nNot coincidental for our story of autopsy and dissection, Bologna in 13th century also became the seat of medieval medical innovation and training. For much of the early and high middle ages of Western Europe, the works of the Roman [Galen of Pergamon](_URL_0_) seemed to have fulfilled such need as there was for medical theory. The exposure to works outside of Galen via the Moslems, exposure to *models of scientific inquiry*, provoked in Bologna a rapid expansion of medical practices.\n\n**Advent of Dissection Science**\n\nAfter the decretals of Innocent III, autopsy as an investigative tool takes root in medico-legal soil. And it is the city of Bologna and its surrounds from which spring the dissection as that coroner activity. At Cremona, a physician in the 1280's performed dissections on chickens and a human in order to determine the cause of a disease that swiftly passed through the region, leaving internal blisters and abscesses in common; this is reported to us in the chronicles of brother Salimbene (*Chronica Fratis Salimbene parmensis ordinis minorum*). \n\nIn 1289 and 1295 Bologna, examinations of corpses were ordered by the judiciary, including that of 'Bencivenne' who was exhumed and then determined by surgeons to have died of two wounds.\n\nAnd then it is *again* at Bologna where history records the first western \"medico-judicial dissection\": that of a certain Azzolino Degli in February, 1302. Azzolini had just eaten a meal when he collapsed and quickly bloated up and discoloured. The family was suspicious of poisoning by Azzolino's enemies; a judge ordered two physicians and three surgeons to perform an autopsy on the body to determine the nature of his expiration. The medical opinion, after internal examination of the corpse, was that there was no foul play.^7\n\nFrom this point on the historical record fills with dissectors cutting their way through justice, science and medicine. I’ve written about this [before](_URL_2_), but one of my favourite passages about medieval dissection is this from *Cronaca persicetana* where we meet the assistant to the then-famous Bolognese anatomist Modino in 1316, Alessandra Giliani:\n\n > She became most valuable to Mondino because she would cleanse most skilfully the smallest vein, the arteries, all ramifications of the vessels, without lacerating or dividing them, and to prepare them for demonstration she would fill them with various coloured liquids, which, after having been driven into the vessels, would harden without destroying the vessels. Again, she would paint these same vessels to their minute branches so perfectly and color them so naturally that, added to the wonderful explanations and teachings of the master, they brought him great fame and credit. \n\nI like this passage because: it not only overturns our impression of the start date of dissection (high medieval), and creative nature of early science (not just dark age idiots), but also points out the plurality of gender roles before their reorganization under early modern capitalism. The high medieval period is nothing like we've been taught.\n\n**Summary**\n\nAhead of secular authority, the papal curia made use of juridical techniques and processes as instruments of power. The rapid accumulation of legal methodologies, of legal process, in Bologna and other universities found their first medico-legal expression in the early 13th century papacy. That expression provided both license and stimulation to the innovative intertwining of medicine and law in the following decades, and established the basis for modern human dissection. \n\n",
"/u/idjet answers why the 13th century comes into focus and that's pretty much what the data supports - as to Vesalius, it's our favourite Andrew Dickenson White again:\n\n > From the outset [the sixteenth- century anatomist] Vesalius\nproved himself a master. In the search for real knowledge he\nrisked the most terrible dangers, and especially the charge\nof sacrilege, founded upon the teachings of the Church for\nages . . . Through this sacred conventionalism Vesalius broke\nwithout fear; despite ecclesiastical censure, great opposition in\nhis own profession, and popular fury, he studied his science\nby the only method that could give useful results. \n*A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom* \n(1896)\n\nHe bases his work on Boniface VIII's bull called *Detestande\nferitatis* (*Of detestable cruelty*) which is actually about funereal practices, not autopsies. White got confused about this.\n But as to your question, there is pretty much no recorded autopsy work done between about 400-1300. There are a number of reasons why - nobody was interested in doing it in any context - Jewish, Muslim or Pagan, so to complain at the Church is a little lopsided. There is evidence that in the 4th century **BC** Herophilus and Erasistratus worked on the human body using cadavers. Greeks and Romans believed corpses were ritually unclean and Christians, while not having the same fears, didn't practice it. One reason *might* be Augustine who saw the interest in dismemberment as not important to soteriological matters, but that's a bit of a stretch although it's not unreasonable. The other problem of the late mediaeval and Renaissance period is that dissection causes grave dishonour to the individual and the family, so why submit your recently deceased to that treatment? Being naked before a group of people wasn't honourable, plus the fact that as many funerals were open bier, it's not easy or pleasant to show this when you are in pieces. \n\nThe 13th century is where things begin (Bologna university) and Mondino de' Liuzzi produced the first anatomical book based on dissection. The Italians start everything but it moves across Europe and is adopted by both Protestant and Catholics alike. The problems are not dissection, the problems are procuring bodies, which is why in 1319, 4 medical students at Bologna were prosecuted for grave-robbing (by the city, not the church note). "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1tsrvu/how_common_was_it_for_someone_in_the_medieval/cebs5i4",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_the_Lateran"
],
[]
] |
|
9rb0pj | Cold War Historians- What were the foreign policies of the Soviets during the Cold War? I.E. Khrushchev's "Peaceful Coexistence" and how far was it successful? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9rb0pj/cold_war_historians_what_were_the_foreign/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8k982n"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"From [an earlier answer of mine](_URL_1_)\n\nThis is a difficult question to answer since there were very few Soviet analogues to Kennan's overarching Containment Doctrine. One could argue that Marxist-Leninism, which argued that a revolution could be achieved under the leadership of an organized communist party, was the cornerstone of the Soviet's understanding of foreign affairs, but the importance of a Marxist-Leninist *Weltanschauung* generates more questions than answers. Although Moscow's foreign policy establishment produced reams of pronouncements on world affairs, these were often couched in such sweeping ideological rhetoric that made it difficult to parse out what was actual Soviet policy. One of the important subfields of the West's Cold War-era Kremlinologists was engaged in actively trying to parse out the kernels of wheat from the Marxist-Leninist chaff of policy pronouncements. \n\nIn general, the Soviet's foreign policy in the Cold War had a degree of continuity from its foreign policy in the 1930s. The position of the USSR was that it was the leader of a large global movement of both anti-fascist and anti-imperialist organizations. Within this umbrella organization of the global left, Moscow reserved pride of place for local communist parties who were tasked with being the ideological leaders in local political movements. The Soviets encouraged party discipline and demanded a degree of loyalty from the leadership of various communist parties. Andrei Zhdanov's [1947 pronouncement](_URL_0_) of the creation of the Cominform, a successor to the disbanded Comintern, outlines this Soviet-centric umbrella approach:\n\n > In the pursuit of these ends the imperialist camp is prepared to rely on reactionary and anti-democratic forces in all countries, and to support its former adversaries in the war against its wartime allies.\n\n > The anti-fascist forces comprise the second camp. This camp is based on the U.S.S.R. and the new democracies. It also includes countries that have broken with imperialism and have firmly set foot on the path of democratic development, such as Rumania, Hungary and Finland. Indonesia and Vietnam are associated with it; it has the sympathy of India, Egypt and Syria. The anti-imperialist camp is backed by the labor and democratic movement and by the fraternal Communist parties in all countries, by the fighters for national liberation in the colonies and dependencies, by all progressive and democratic forces in every country. The purpose of this camp is to resist the threat of new wars and imperialist expansion, to strengthen democracy and to extirpate the vestiges of fascism. \n\nEven though Zhdanov's declaration was one of the first major foreign policy pronouncements by a Soviet leader in the postwar era, the Cominform fizzled out despite the fears it engendered in the West's anticommunists. In practice, the Soviets sought to use the structure of the Cominform to break any sign of independence from its constituent members. Although initially headquartered in Belgrade, Yugoslavia would actually be expelled from the Cominform less than a year later on account of Tito's independent approach to Yugoslavia's relations to its Balkan neighbors. The Cominform's coordination with Western communist parties fared little better. Instead of resurrecting a Popular Front strategy, Western communist parties increasingly adapted a strategy of being political outliers critiquing the postwar political establishment. Although this meant communism was able to make some ideological inroads in the West, especially in the late 1940s, Western communist parties became marginal political actors. The case of the KPD was an extreme example in which its kneejerk political activism (abetted by forged documents provided by the CIA) led the FRG courts to ban it as an antidemocratic party in 1956. \n\nUnderlying the general failure of the Cominform is a thread that remained one of the few consistencies of Soviet foreign policy: whatever the situation, Moscow's interpretation and interests were paramount. This fusion of *realpolitik* and Marxist-Leninism created a mercurial foreign policy that was highly reactive in nature. In his memoirs, Molotov outlined the general thrust of the Soviet postwar view of its interests:\n\n > They hardened their line against us, and we had to consolidate what we had conquered. We created our socialist Germany in part of Germany, and in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and Yugoslavia, where the situation was fluid, we needed to restore order. Suppress capitalist order. This was the Cold War. Of course, you had to know the right measure. I believe that in this sense Stalin kept himself well within the limits.\n\n Italy in the late 1940s was a case in point of how Stalin tried to temper the situation in favor of order. The attempted assassination of the PCI leader Palmiro Togliatti in July 1948, coupled with widespread allegations of electoral fraud the previous April, generated widespread strikes and demonstrations among the Italian left. Togliatti would sometimes employ the rhetoric of civil war in public pronouncements, indicated the PCI was going to lead a wider struggle. Stalin reigned in this rhetoric, underscoring to Togliatti that the PCI had not exhausted all legal measures to power and that a civil war was not in the larger interests of the Soviet Union. So despite fulfilling much of the criterion of Zhdanov's proclamation, Soviet geostrategic interests trumped that of the need for a global struggle. \n\nMoscow's insistence that it was the elder brother of the global communist movement did not sit well abroad, especially in areas outside of direct Soviet military power. Stalin's somewhat patronizing attempts to control Mao and the CCP poisoned Sino-Soviet relations well after Stalin's death. With the conclusions of hostilities in 1945, Stalin desired for Mao to continue his wartime collaboration with the KMT and Chiang Kai-Shek. Stalin believed not only would the KMT prevail in a civil war, but that civil war would destroy China. Stalin gave Mao a diktat in August 1945 that he should travel to Chungking and negotiate with Chiang or \"his stand would be repudiated in China and abroad.\" The Chungking meeting had the opposite effect than Stalin intended. Mao's meetings with Chiang reinforced within him the idea that he could win a civil war; Mao would later claim that Chiang was \"a corpse and no one believes him anymore.\" The communist victory thus came as much of a shock to Moscow as it did to Washington. Although the Red Army turned over some Japanese war material to the CCP, they largely kept the best equipment and destroyed the remainder. Mao's victory emerged as a fait accompli for the newly-formed PRC as the USSR could not repudiate a successful communist revolution. But this did not stop Stalin from insisting that the PRC make economic and political concessions to the USSR and refused to aid Mao in efforts to invade Taiwan.\n\nThe emergence of Mao and the PRC as an ideological rival deeply unnerved the Kremlin and colored the perceptions of its foreign policy. With an alternative and seemingly more vibrant Marxist rival, Soviet actions seemed to be much more the actions of an old-school great power than a force trying to lead the world's downtrodden masses. The need for the Soviets to maintain security over Eastern Europe led to a series of crackdowns in East Germany, Poland, and Hungary. In light of these actions, Khrushchev's attempt to craft a peaceful coexistence with the West became the source of much criticism in the PRC and other left radical groups. The dissolving of the Cominform in 1956 and the Soviet destalinization drive gave further fodder for these anti-Soviet critiques. This denuding of its ideological purity meant that as the USSR sought to engage with movements in the Third World like Nasser's Egypt, Soviet foreign policy appeared to many as less it leading an umbrella movement and more as sheer opportunism. The fact that many of these nationalist movements in the third world, such as Nasserism or Ba'ath ism repressed or subordinated local communist parties gave cause for further critiques of the USSR for its self-interested foreign policy. \n\nThese matters came to a head in the 1968 Prague Spring where a Warsaw Pact invasion crushed a Czechoslovakian reform movement. The resulting outcry both within the Soviet sphere of influence and abroad was quite condemnatory. The result of this outcry was the most clearly articulated Soviet position on foreign policy yet, the Breznev Doctrine. Although the Brezhnev Doctrine fit within the pattern of prior Soviet (or Soviet-enabled) interventions in Hungary, Poland, and East Germany, the Doctrine was only truly formalized in the aftermath of Prague Spring. The rationale behind it was to try and reinvigorate the connectivity of the Warsaw Pact and underscore each member's commitment to the Marxist-Leninist socialism championed by the USSR. The Doctrine not only stated that the USSR had a right to intervene in a Warsaw Pact state if it adapted a political course contrary to socialism, but also other Warsaw Pact states had to intervene as well. The fear of other Warsaw Pact states forming their \"own road to socialism,\" and breaking Moscow's monopoly on what it perceived as the correct political path. This fear was particularly acute for many Soviet leaders and the events in Prague Spring underscored how such a danger was real.\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"www.csun.edu/~twd61312/342%202014/Zhdanov.pdf",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3jy7s1/the_us_had_the_containment_foreign_policy_during/"
]
] |
||
2psph7 | Why were Parthian tactics at Carrhae so effective, and how did the Romans adapt? | What it says on the tin. Carrhae was a...um, unprofitable engagement for Crassus and Rome. Why was it as bad as it was? Was it a failure of the generals and their terrain choices or did the Romans have a legitimate Achilles heel when it came to the Parthians and their tactics?
How did the Romans react to this defeat, in terms of their military structure? Was it seen as a setback that didn't really merit any organizational changes? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2psph7/why_were_parthian_tactics_at_carrhae_so_effective/ | {
"a_id": [
"cn02dxv"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"OK, when looking at this question, I will not focus on the battle itself as a general overview of it can be found in the Iranica article and wikipedia. Rather, I will focus on the Parthian military and its traditions as well as why the battle was such an impressive victory.\n\nTo start with, many historians have written off the battle as a fluke. Being that Crassus was well, an idiot, his mistakes are the reason the Romans lost, and if there were to be a proper Roman general (Caesar, Pompey) the results would have been much different. There is a huge problem with this idea because the battle is a Roman defeat, not a Parthian victory. The subtle difference being that little attention is paid to what general Surena actually pulled off: with an army of merely 10,000 men defeated an army of 40,000 Romans. Let me say that one more time: Surena with an army of 10,000 men defeated an army of 40,000 Romans. Yet this is almost never mentioned in historiography; generals would never fight being that terribly outnumbered, and not only did Surena fight, he *won*. \n\nThis arises for a few reason, primarily that Surena was a military genius and carefully used shock tactics as well as effectively using his nomadic force to harass and make life difficult for the Romans. For the most part, the army consisted of roughly 1000 heavy cataphract cavalry augmented with around 9000 lighter horse archers. This army was not too different from other nomadic based armies. Historically, the Parthians had many enemies, ranging from the Successor armies of the Seleukids and Baktrians, to the terrifying battles against the nomadic armies of the Yuezhi and Saka. The Parthians had seen it all, from infantry based armies to heavy horse armies mirroring their own. And not only did the Parthians fight these armies, but they defeated all of them. The Seleukids attempted an anabasis under Antiochos VII Sidetes, and despite three crushing victories, their current king Phraates II Nikephorou defeated him outside Ekbatana. His predecessor Mithridates I Philhellenos spanked the Baktrians under Eukratides so hard, that within a few years, nomadic tribes invaded and destroyed the Baktrian kingdom. And then when the Saka were causing problems in the eastern border of the empire, Gondophares of the Suren clan pursued them into India and formed an Indo-Parthian kingdom. \n\nI bring up all these factors to emphasize the rich history of the Parthian military as they truly had fought almost every kind of army imaginable. Unfortunately, in the veneer of the conflicts with the Romans, this is ignored and emphasis is taken to suggest the superior Roman legionaries countering the Parthian cataphracts. And to further emphasize, the Parthians in their history would fight more terrifying armies than the Romans. The battles between them and nomadic tribes in the east were likely incredibly violent owing to the overall similar tactical lineup. And that really is the story for the Parthians: they were surrounded by superpowers (the Romans never were that unlucky) and yet not only survived, but thrived.\n\nWith that, we turn to the battle of Carrhae. The previous reason that Crassus sought to emulate either Alexander, or at least gain equal military footing with Caesar must be discarded. Dr. Rahim Shayegan has looked into the campaign, and suggests that Crassus sought to enhance Roman interests in the east by dislodging Parthian client kings and replacing them with pro-Roman ones. Being that Seleukia had recently rebelled, he also wished to set up an ally there. For the Parthians, while they were watching the Romans closely, had little interest in the west as of now. The king Orodes II was a very shrewd king who realized the importance of keeping the many clans in line. So when Crassus entered Parthian territory, he was none too pleased because there was no apparent justification for the war. Surena was dispatched to take care of this army, and we all know what happened after that.\n\nThe tactical differences between previous eastern enemies of the Romans must be noted. Both Armenia and Pontos, while relying on a heavy cavalry component, nonetheless focused on their infantry, resulting in a mixed troop. The Romans had no real trouble with this system as both nations were defeated. In contrast, the Parthians, being nomadic in origin, relied more on their cavalry, and while they did have heavy infantry, they primarily used them for garrison duty rather than offensive weapons. These cavalry were delineated into the horse archers and the far fewer heavy cataphracts. The Romans had never encountered this type of army before, and though the Successors (particularly the Seleukids) employed a significant amount of heavy horse, it was often their infantry that would take care of business.\n\nWith this kind of army, the Romans were unprepared and suffered a terrible loss. And think historically: the Romans from Sulla, Marius, Pompey, and Lucullus had been running a train through the eastern med defeating kings left and right. And yet at Carrhae, the Romans had actually met a military equal for the first time since Carthage. I think Justin says it best:\n\n \"\"Being assailed by the Romans, also, in three wars, under the conduct of the greatest generals, and at the most flourishing period of the republic, they alone, of all nations, were not only a match for them, but came off victorious;\" -Justin 41.1.\n\nAnd that is a Roman author commenting on the Parthians! \n\nTo counter the Parthians, the Romans began to adopt their own cataphract regiments as the best way to challenge a cavalry army is to have your own cavalry. Antiochos III Megas of the Seleukids had realized this on his own anabasis against the Parthians in the 210s BC and the Romans would as well. \n\nAs a final point, I would hope that this only answered your question, but also broadened your knowledge about the Parthians. In historiography, they are often forgotten or ignored and this is not fair to a powerful empire. Especially when being compared to the Romans, some characterize them as an eastern despotic empire. Such notions need to be critiqued and we need to take a newer, critical look at the Parthians.\n\nIf you have any other questions, please let me know!\n\nSources used:\n\nPrimary--\n\n*Epitome of Pompeius Trogus*, Justin\n\n*Life of Crassus*, Plutarchos\n\n*Geographia*, Strabo\n\nSecondary:\nArsakids and Sassanians, Rahim Shayegan\n\nShadows of the Desert:Persia at War, Kaveh Farrokh\n\nAssorted articles from the Encylopedia Iranica\n\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
9txq1f | Wikipedia tells me that in the Middle Ages, Satan was viewed as "a comic relief figure who "frolicked, fell, and farted in the background"" What are the origins of this conception of Satan? What factors led to Satan taking a more prominent and serious role in the Christian theology of the time? | Also, because of I've been watching a lot of Sabrina, how related is this new prominence of the devil in the theology of the period with the rise of belief in witchcraft during the same time? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9txq1f/wikipedia_tells_me_that_in_the_middle_ages_satan/ | {
"a_id": [
"e90q4eq"
],
"score": [
313
],
"text": [
"I might prefer to say, the devil was *sometimes* a comic relief figure in the late Middle Ages. The slapstick and scatalogical humor associated with Satan and his minions was primarily a feature of late medieval civic drama. And it was a popular one. When the town of Chateaundun put on its annual Passion play, with Heaven set on one side of the large stage and Hell on the other, the seats in front of Hell cost rather more money.\n\nBut there are other ways to play the Fool besides a clown. Looking at that will get us closer to why audiences loved to laugh at the devil--and closer to the creeping fear that lay behind the laughter.\n\nIn late medieval sermon stories and didactic (educational) poems, the devil sometimes plays a role that seems odd at first: narrator of the life of Christ. Of course, Christian theology and apocryphal tradition make this perfectly logical; who else is present at every major event in his life and death? But texts as famous as *Piers Plowman* (yeah, yeah, \"famous\"...fite me) have another use for the devil besides convenience: *he can be wrong.*\n\nHere, the devil is fool not in the comic-*comedy* sense, but in the psalmist's manner: \"The Fool has said in his heart that there is no God.\" In this case, where Satan both knows God exists and acts like God exists (the different interpretations of that verse), the Fool has said in his heart that Jesus is not God. Throughout the sermons and poems that feature the devil telling the audience the story of Christ's life, he fails to realize this truth well-known to listeners and readers. There is humor here, but it is a deep irony rather than giggles or guffaws.\n\nThe idea of the Great Deceiver as instead deceived served an important pastoral function that, ultimately, connects with a major, major shift in fundamental theology that occurred in the 11th-12th century. The sermons and other didactic texts--and, yes, the street plays where demons sling shit at each other and drag around a hellmouth on wheels--place the audience in a position where they know more than the Satan. The devil doesn't understand the star and other signs at the birth of Jesus; the audience knows it's because God has become human, and so forth.\n\nOf course there's an anti-Semitic lining here, because medieval Christianity. The devil is equated with evil is equated with not recognizing the divinity of Christ despite exposure to all the signs. Just like, say, a certain religious minority group suffering frequent exile and mass murder throughout western Europe? Right. But the central thrust of the message that the audience knows more than the devil is to limit the devil's power over the audience. Deceived and foolish, he is brought down from an infernal pedestal. The devil no longer stands between humans and God; he is merely waiting if humans turn away from God.\n\nIt's no accident that growth of the devil as Fool takes root in the twelfth century. The trope is the outgrowth of the devil's loss of power with respect to the fancy word soteriology, or theology of salvation. Early medieval Christianity is associated with a couple aspects of soteriology, namely the \"Christus Victor\" idea of Christ, and the \"devil's rights\" theory of human sin and salvation. Here, the devil is the default possessor of human souls thanks to the Fall (of Adam and Eve), and Christ through the cross and resurrection wins them back.\n\nBut right around the turn of the twelfth century, a monk-bishop-theologian named Anselm--you might know him for the so-called \"ontological argument\" that modern-day philosophers call a proof of God's existence--wrote a text usually known by its Latin name, *Cur Deus Homo.* (Translated \"why God became hu/man,\" but much funnier taken literally as \"Why the God-Man.\") In *Cur Deus Homo*, Anselm lays out the soteriology that was more or less adopted by the rest of medieval Latin Europe. Christ's suffering and death on the cross *made up for* (\"satisfied\") the inherited debt humans owe God for the fall. It turns the crucifixion into atonement, and makes Christ's death and resurrection matters of justice.\n\nAnd, indeed, it has the effect of side-bumping the devil right out of the soteriological picture. Perhaps like the Egyptian goddess-demon Ammut, Satan is reduced to waiting by the wayside to trap humans who mirror the Fall with their own fall.\n\nBut just because the *devil* was framed as less of a threat in some religious texts and teachings is not at all the same thing as saying *evil* was less of a threat. In fact, many scholars will talk about the \"infernalization\" or \"diabolization\" of pastoral teaching about demons, purgatory, and sin over the course of the later Middle Ages. A big reason for this was the expanding audience of the Church. From sometime in the twelfth century on, Church leaders started to realize they had a problem: average lay people (from nobles to peasants) were taking a serious interest in religion that the Church did not have priests and preachers to meet, and so they were developing their own interpretations and modes of teaching in the stead. \n\nWith the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 as the watershed-marker year (but obviously changes began before then and only gradually took effective root), the Church creakily mobilized to provide pastoral care/religious instruction to the laity. Its major focus was moral; its major vehicle for teaching morality the avoidance of sin; the major framework for teaching about sin the virtues and vices (as in \"seven deadly,\" but also any set of numbered lists)...and between those two, by FAR the preferred option, the vices. They were considered more memorable, more likely to stick in people's minds and convince them to behave well...through fear of hell.\n\nDefinitely not all, but a *lot* of thirteenth and fourteenth-century religious instruction focused on the dangers of hell and the pains of purgatory. Note that purgatory is not an \"either/or\" case: it's a place where people already destined to heaven go after death to do the penance for their sins they ran out of time to do before dying. And yet, as the decades drew on, purgatory began to look a lot more like hell. That's just one example of the encroaching terror of evil, hell, and damnation in late medieval Christianity, as I've discussed earlier on AH.\n\nNow, these are Bad Things, not Satan. But there are two things we need to keep in mind. First, the devil in Christianity has always been a creature of the folk as much as the theologians. (One of the major developments in the last generations of witch trial research has been the recognition that witch panic was *not* just a top-down imposition, but arose out of villages and towns as much as universities and cathedral chapters). So while Satan may have receded in his fearsomeness within Christianity, the evil spirits lurking in the corners and in the dark lost none of their power in folk belief. (*You see, /u/itsallfolklore? I am finally learning!*)\n\nSecond, you might have picked up on the *slight* problem within the Christian theological tradition. The power of the devil was reduced but the power and presence of damnation and the abode of the devil, hell, increased. That...that makes God out to be kind of the bad guy here.\n\nSo in the works of VIP fifteenth-century theologians like Johannes Nider (inspiration for Heinrich Kramer in writing the *Malleus Maleficarum*...yes, THAT *Malleus Maleficarum*), a split starts to emerge. On one hand, Nider, Jean Gerson, and others focus on *consolation*. As pastors in the \"shepherds gently leading lambs\" sense, they offer troubled souls consolation in the face of the uncertainty of salvation--basically, promises of God's goodness and mercy AND of the human ability to earn it. And as pastors in the \"shepherds hoping they're not stuck with goats\" sense, they bring back the devil. And this time, not as deceived, but as *deceiver.*\n\nThe devil is no longer waiting, but lying *in wait*, ready to lure people in. For most people, this means entrapment in sin, and entanglement in the impulse to actively turn away from God's willing mercy because the person believes they cannot merit it, or are not possible of wanting it badly enough to receive it. But, say Nider, Kramer, and a hundred thousand witnesses in court, for some people this means giving in to false promises of magic and power in exchange for a sexually-charged pact with Satan: the blackened heart of early modern witchcraft.\n\nAnd so we should keep in mind: when people laughed at the devil, were they seeking comic relief for the Passion play onstage--or relief from an itching fear that the devil had his fingers around their soul?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
264p9o | I just watched Forrest Gump, and I was wondering about the accuracy and possible subtle nods to history that I might have missed. | Like, was there actually a running man? Were there scenes that only a history buff would recognize? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/264p9o/i_just_watched_forrest_gump_and_i_was_wondering/ | {
"a_id": [
"chnq55r",
"chnswp5"
],
"score": [
55,
159
],
"text": [
"Most of the events in Forrest Gump are at least loosely related to real events that took place. A person who grew up in the 60's and 70's would likely recognize most of the events in the movie as they lived through them and saw them on TV or read about them in the paper. I don't think there was anything particularly obscure or hidden, but depending on your knowledge level you could easily miss a lot of the nods to history. \n\nOther examples don't necessarily cover what you might think of strictly as \"history.\" For example, someone who doesn't follow college football might not recognize Paul William \"Bear\" Bryant, Forrest's head coach at the University of Alabama and arguably one of the greatest coaches in the history of college football. \n\nThe most subtle nod in my opinion is the interview of Forrest on the Dick Cavett show along side John Lennon. Some of the words of the interview are lifted almost word for word from the song \"Imagine\" and it is meant to imply that Forrest inspired one of Lennon's most famous and influential songs. ",
"Ah, finally something in /r/askhistorians I can chime in on. I'll just list all the blatant historical nods located within the film...\n\n-The name Forrest come from Nathan Bedford Forrest who was a confederate general and the first Grand Dragon of the KKK\n\n-Elvis Presley stays at his house when he is young and apparently Forrest, with his awkward dancing due to his legs in braces, is the inspiration for Elvis' dancing style. \n\n-Goes to football at Alabama where the coach is the legendary Paul \"Bear\" Bryant who is known for both being one of the greatest college football coaches of all time as well as wearing his signature houndstooth hat.\n\n-He becomes a college all american and meets President Kennedy. Forrest mentions how he was shot later in Dallas. \n\n-Being at Alabama means he was also present for its desegregation and the famous stand at the schoolhouse door by George Wallace. Forrest helps Vivian Malone with her dropped book as she first enters the school. Forrest later mentions how Wallace was shot while running for president. \n\n-When Forrest joins the Army, he sees Jenny in a Playboy which was right around the time of the height of Playboy's popularity.\n\n-Forrest is with the 47th Infantry Regiment, 9th Infantry Division in Vietnam. That unit was in Vietnam from 1966-1971.\n\n-Forrest gets the Medal of Honor and meets Lyndon B. Johnson. \n\n-When Forrest gives his muted speech at the anti-war rally, he is introduced by Abbie Hoffman who was a major political and social activist that started the Youth International Party and was a member of the famed Chicago 7. \n\n-Jenny's boyfriend during this time is the president at SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) at Berkeley and Forrest goes to a Black Panther Party get together. Both the SDS and the Black Panther Party were major counter-culture political and social groups in the late 60s.\n\n-The ping pong section of the movie is a throwback to Ping-pong diplomacy in the early 1970s with China where the US and China exchanged ping pong players which led to better relations between the two countries and eventually leading to Nixon visiting China. This is why Forrest is invited to the White House again, is put up in the Watergate Hotel by Nixon, and evidently leads to the discovery of the Watergate scandal when Forrest calls Frank Wills when he saw people with flashlights from his room window.\n\n-Forrest goes on The Dick Cavett Show for his ping pong exploits and meets John Lennon. Forrest, to the delight of a curious Lennon, describes China with what would later become lyrics for Lennon's most famous solo song \"Imagine.\"\n\n-The storm that Forrest and LT Dan are caught in is Hurricane Carmen. \n\n-Forrest makes the bulk of his money by investing in Apple Computers. Although this doesn't follow history that well because Forrest gets the letter saying he doesn't have to worry about money anymore in 1976 and Apple didn't go public and make it's monetary supporters rich until 1980.\n\n-Forrest running across the US coincided with a major jogging craze in 1978-1979. During this time he influences the popular bumper sticker \"shit happens\" and the smiley logo with the phrase \"have a nice day\". Although both of these are also historically inaccurate since both existed or were popular prior to 1978.\n\n-As far as the story being inspired by an actual person running across the country, Stephen Faust walked across the country in 79-80 and was popularized by doing a live weekly radio show at the different locations he visited. Peter Jenkins walked across the country from 1973 to 1979 and wrote about it in National Geographic and in his book \"A Walk Across America.\" Dale James Outhouse walked the US in 1984 and wrote the book \"Walk of the People - A Pilgrimage for Life.\" As far as a guy running it in the 70s or 80s and doing it because \"they felt like running\" it doesn't seem to be based on any specific individual.\n\n-In the background, the assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan can be seen on a TV\n\n-Jenny is assumed to have HIV, which obviously was a big scary deal in the 80s. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
fxwcbd | If someone who was enslaved grew old or was incapacitated in some way so that they couldn’t work, would they be murdered by the plantation owner? | I ask this thinking that because black people were not considered people back then, wouldn’t the white master see this as putting an “animal” out of its misery and saving resources for enslaved persons who could work?
Asking for the American South, but also would love to hear from anyone with a background in any sort of slavery | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fxwcbd/if_someone_who_was_enslaved_grew_old_or_was/ | {
"a_id": [
"fmxzx8v"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"While I understand the cruel logic that you are attributing to enslavers, it is a bit off the mark, although sadly, it must be said, not far off enough. Straight up murder of enslaved persons once their usefulness as laborers had been used up was practiced in the Antebellum South, but to be sure, enslavers would decidedly prefer to be rid of what, to them, were useless mouths without any economic benefit to be gained from providing for them. Killing them was not done, but it was not uncommon to see enslavers give emancipation to old people who could no longer work, ostensibly as a reward for service, but in actuality to push them out when they could provide no more of it. \n\nThe old African-American persons, without a penny to their name and unable to earn anything fell as a burden to the state, and it was a common enough occurrence that states felt the need to pass laws to curb the practice, and obligate the enslavers to provide for their human property in their old age instead of fobbing the costs off onto the public. An Alabama law from 1852 - the 1850s being a period when a number of such laws were passed in states such as Kentucky, Louisiana, or Mississippi - for instances, required that:\n\n > The master [...]must provide [elderly enslaved persons] with a succiency of healthy food and necessary clothing; cause him to be properly attended during sickness, and provide for his necessary wants in old age.\n\nSome pro-slavery advocates would attempt to turn that around and then proclaim that it was a positive of the system that their enslaved persons had a comfortable retirement, but even in the absolute best of circumstances this evaded the fact that it was forced upon the enslavers because of the rampant cruelty of them. More generally though, of course, the inherent cruelty of the system meant that even living that long was a rarity. Reaching old age was considerably less common for black persons in the period than for whites, due of course to the various circumstances imparted upon them by the nature of slavery, a system quite specifically designed to eke out their useful labor with far less concern than would be paid to any white man's needs, and of course, even in their younger days, enslaved persons were often neglected and provided for with only the bare minimum. \n\nFor those enslaved men and women who did manage to reach the point where they could live what can relatively be called 'retirement', their basic needs were provided for, certainly - although again it must be noted, that this was often required by law - but the bulk of care had to be provided for from within the enslaved community, often by the children who were not yet old enough to be required to work in the fields by the enslavers so thus were able to devote time to the task. The whites often did their best to continue to remind these persons of their place. Even if they were no longer working they might be called upon for entertainment, one former enslaved man recalling in an interview how the young white children of the plantation would require old enslaved persons to race for their enjoyment.\n\nAnd of course it must also be noted that as with so much of the law, it only mattered insofar as it was enforced. South Carolina, which already had one of the laxest laws in terms of required care, levied only a small fine for violations - hardly a deterrent - and rarely enforced the law anyways. The sole case of a violation ending up in appellate court, the 1849 case of State v. Bowen, involving an elderly enslaved man who was neglected and left with frostbitten feet, speaks to both the limited views of *their* needs and how the law remained oriented around the needs of white society, the judge writing:\n\n > Instances do sometimes, though rarely, occur, [in] which it is necessary to interfere in behalf of the slave against the avarice of his master. In such cases the law should interpose its authority. It is due to public sentiment, and is necessary to protect property from the depredation of famishing slaves.\n\nThe concern wasn't about the well being of the black persons themselves, but what they might be forced to resort to if not provided for and what it might mean for white property, harkening to that fear of 'servile insurrection' which always sat in the back of the mind of so many in the South.\n\nOther states were were at least somewhat better in their enforcement of their care laws, but South Carolina set the bar quite low, and the logic remained generally the same. \n\nIn any case though, hopefully this provides some sketch of the situation in which those enslaved persons who managed to reach old age found themselves in. The enslavers absolutely saw them as a burden, and while some attempted to claim that the system was one which *cared* for these persons and rewarded them with a decent retirement, it was self-delusion at best and abject lying in many cases. The necessity of many states by the mid-1800s to pass laws to forbid the practice of manumission of the elderly to avoid providing for their care speaks to the widespread lack of concern that was given to the needs of such persons, not to mention the failure of enslavers to live up to their paternalistic rhetoric.\n\n**Sources**\n\nGenovese, Eugene D.. *Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made.* Vintage Books, 1976.\n\nHudson Jr., Larry E.. *To Have and to Hold: Slave Work and Family Life in Antebellum South Carolina.* University of Georgia Press, 1997.\n\nMorris, Thomas D.. *Southern Slavery and the Law, 1619-1860.* University of North Carolina Press, 1996.\n\nOakes, James. *The Ruling Race: A History of American Slaveholders.* W. W. Norton & Company, 2016.\n\nPollard, Leslie J.. \"Aging and Slavery: A Gerontological Perspective,\" *The Journal of Negro History* 66, no. 3 (Fall 1981): 228-234."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5ci109 | Are there any historians, specifically military historians, that are panned by the academic community but still enjoy general widespread popularity with everyone else? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5ci109/are_there_any_historians_specifically_military/ | {
"a_id": [
"d9wms7r"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Stephen E. Ambrose comes to mind. He's not specifically panned for being a *bad* author quality-of-writing-wise, but in recent years (his final years and after his death, roughly 2000 to the present) serious accusations of plagiarism and a lack of objectivity (Ambrose wrote \"popular history\", general material meant to be consumed by a wide audience, more so for the narrative and less so for serious academic analysis and facts) in several of his books have come to light, and with that his posthumous reputation has taken a severe hit. u/Georgy_K_Zhukov essentially summarizes his issues [here](_URL_0_?)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3kytaf/stephen_e_ambrosehow_bad_was_he_at_history/"
]
] |
||
46lld5 | After the Qing dynasty was established, how did the imperial administration deal with using Manchu language and writing system or using Chinese ? | Weren't there conflicts? Who decided when to use Manchu or Chinese ? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/46lld5/after_the_qing_dynasty_was_established_how_did/ | {
"a_id": [
"d06581d",
"d0j71vm"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Most official documents were produced in both Manchu and Chinese until the end of the Qing dynasty. Which meant that two copies of the same documents were made: one in Chinese and one in Manchu. However in some cases documents would be produced only in Manchu and often there would be differences between the Chinese and Manchu versions of the documents. This was necessary because the vast majority of the administrative personal were ethnic Han Chinese speakers. The Manchus would need to be versed in Chinese when conversing with Chinese scholar-bureaucrats whom they respected even before the conquest. The Manchu elite, including the emperors, started to learn Chinese and even to write classical Chinese poetry.\n\nOver time, the importance of Manchu decreased as even the Manchu elite started to become more comfortable with Chinese than their own ancestral language. This trend is to continue until Manchu as a language became almost extinct in the 20th century.",
"This is a complex question and studies, like The Manchu Way by Mark C. Elliott, do not exactly address it. My feeling, based on information scattered here and there, is that the choice of language depended on:\n1) the writer/speaker\n2) the situation\n\n1) if you were a member of the Banners (Manchu, Mongol or Chinese), you were expected to be able to use Manchu. Failure to know Manchu may lead to dismissal from office. That being said, being able to use Manchu did not mean that you had to use it each and every time you wrote or said something.\nFor instance, some memorials by Hailanca are written in Manchu, while others are in Chinese, which leads to...\n\n2) in some cases Manchu seems to have been prefered, the best example being military matters. Manchu offered more security since far less people knew it. Some Manchu documents for instance bear the mention \"do not translate [into Chinese]\".\n\nBut this is only a rough sketch and it cannot account for each and every case. Plus, the more time passed, the more Chinese was used regardless of any parameter.\n\nMaybe, if you post your question at r/ManchuStudies, it will draw more answers."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
5j0dkg | Roman Legions and mass human sacrifice | I unfortunately may have just dreamed up the instance, but a legion fought a battle against (I think) the Celts, who orchestrated a mass human sacrifice in the guise of a battle. Was this a real event, or something fabricated by an ancient source, or just my brain being dumb? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5j0dkg/roman_legions_and_mass_human_sacrifice/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbccbe2"
],
"score": [
22
],
"text": [
"It's not your brain being dumb. This did indeed happen, or at least Tacitus says that it did (in Annals XIV).\n\nThe Roman general in charge of governing Britain at the time was Gaius Suetonius Paulinus. In 60/61 CE he and his troops ventured to northern Wales to invade the Island of Mona (Anglesey), which was a stronghold for celtic druids. When he and his troops arrived on the shores of the island they found there waiting a large group of men and women holding torches encircled by druids, lifting their hands to the skies and cursing the Romans. At first, Paulinus' men were shocked by this display, until he kicked some sense back into them and they charged. The islanders didn't defend themselves, but rather let themselves be killed willingly. This, in combination with the circular arrangement of the druids, their chants and the torches, gives off the impression that this was indeed a human sacrifice in which the Romans unknowingly participated.\n\nTo make matters worse, there was an uprising while Paulinus and his troops were busy dealing with the druids of Mona by the queen of the Iceni tribe, Boudica, of which you may have heard.\n\nEdit: spelling"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
256gx9 | What was life like in Rome (or rather, The Italian Peninsula) after being pillaged by the German tribes? How did the people react to such a sudden drop in the quality of their lives? | From what I understand, in a method similar to Genghis Kahn, the German tribes came south and progressively destroyed everything in their path as they travelled down the Italian Peninsula, eventually even destroying the city of Rome itself. From what I understand, it was also in these attacks that many texts, documents, and works of knowledge were destroyed in these attacks and lost forever. And then they left, leaving the Romans to fend for themselves among the ruins of their old societies.
What I mainly want to know is how did the Italian(Roman) people who survived these attacks react? They were a people who had, at the time, some of the highest quality of life on the planet. How did they react to such a dramatic change? How did they change? How did their lives and the structures of their communities change? Many works from this period were destroyed, and during the Dark Ages that followed few new works were created, so any links to sources and original documents would be greatly appreciated?
| AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/256gx9/what_was_life_like_in_rome_or_rather_the_italian/ | {
"a_id": [
"chebp1w"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Your understanding is incorrect. The Germanic tribes did not 'destroy everything in their path', and they certainly didn't 'destroy Rome'. Rome was occupied by German armies twice, but the city was most certainly still standing afterwards. The Germans also didn't just raid and leave - they stayed. And by stayed, I should point out that many of them had been living in Italy for years already as former members of the Roman army given land in compensation for their service. The final 'end' of the western Roman Empire had as much the character of an internal coup as it did an external invasion. The Germans didn't want to tear the Roman Empire or Roman society to pieces, they wanted to lead it themselves.\n\nAs an aside, the Mongols didn't do what you described either - they did sack cities that refused to submit to them, but this was done as a negotiating tactic (albeit a very brutal one), they didn't simply sack and destroy everything they encountered."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4ixgbd | Did the US give permission/support for Iraq to invade Kuwait? | [deleted] | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4ixgbd/did_the_us_give_permissionsupport_for_iraq_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"d32097g",
"d3214wd"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"No, that's not accurate. The Bush administration certainly didn't give Saddam the go ahead to invade Kuwait, although that doesn't mean that Saddam didn't *interpret* that the US had given him the go ahead. The British ambassador in the documentary you're referring to is probably referencing the infamous \"Glaspie meeting,\" named after the US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. On July 25, 1990, Glaspie met with Saddam to discuss recent Iraqi military mobilization along the Kuwaiti border. While the several different records of this meeting are contradictory, we do know that Glaspie told Saddam something along the lines of \"We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts.\" This, some have argued, represented a tacit American approval for Iraq to invade Kuwait. \n\nWhat this conclusion ultimately leaves out are other US diplomatic actions between the initial Glaspie meeting and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and these subsequent actions show a much more complicated picture (as a sidenote, I've done some research on this topic at the George H.W. Bush presidential library, so I will be using primary rather than the secondary sources for this post). For instance, five days after the first Glaspie meeting, on July 30, Glaspie again met with Saddam. Relaying the president's and secretary of state's words, Glaspie told Saddam:\n\n > The United States and Iraq both have a strong interest in preserving the peace and stability of the Middle East. For this reason, we believe that differences [between Iraq and Kuwait] are best resolved by peaceful means and not by threats involving military force or conflict.\n\nAdmittedly, this statement isn't exactly a clear warning that if Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US would respond with military force. It does, however, show that the US did not view military aggression as an acceptable way for Iraq to handle its dispute with Kuwait. The worst that can really be said about the Bush administration was that it failed to clearly tell Saddam that the US would respond with military force to an invasion of Kuwait. \n\nThe Bush administration also had no reason to give Saddam a go ahead because the president and most of his foreign policy advisers were well aware of the negative consequences such an invasion would have for US national security. The day after Iraq's invasion, the Bush administration's National Security Council convened to discuss how the US should respond. During the meeting, national security adviser Brent Scowcroft stated that the failure or the unwillingness of the US to push Iraq out of Kuwait would allow Iraq to \"dominate OPEC policies…and lead the Arab world to the detriment of the United States, and the great stakes we have in the Middle East and Israel.” The expression of such concerns by top-level Bush administration officials, I think, shows that the US never gave a go ahead for Iraq to invade Kuwait. Why would the US support an action that just a few days later they viewed as a significant threat to American national security? It doesn't add up.\n\nFar more likely, the Bush administration simply didn't believe that Iraq would actually invade Kuwait. Glaspie and many other top Bush administration officials have admitted this. Moreover, the US was attempting to mend relations with Iraq before the Gulf War in the hopes that Iraq would become a key regional ally (along with Israel) that could contain Iranian aggression. In fact, Iran was seen was a much bigger threat than Iraq before the Gulf War. These two reasons--the belief that Iraq wouldn't invade and the desire to improve relations with Iraq--are, in my opinion, much more plausible answers as to why the US did not clearly tell Saddam that the US would go to war over Kuwait. Consequently, because the US failed to clearly state its position on the matter, Saddam (mistakenly) assumed that the US wouldn''t care too much if Iraq invaded Kuwait.",
"This does not agree with the most widely accepted interpretation of the events which preceded the invasion of Kuwait. Most accounts point to Saddam misinterpreting the interest of the United States in keeping peace in the Middle East which caused him to feel betrayed. In 'American Foreign Policy and the Muslim World', the author, Mohsen Saleh, writes:\n\n \"In July 1990, only days before Iraq invaded Kuwait, U. S. Ambassador April Glasspie met with Saddam Hussein and told him, on behalf of President George H. W. Bush, that \"we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.\" Some analysts believe that Saddam Hussein interpreted this as a green light for invasion and that the U.S. had no interest in either the fate of Kuwait or the balance of power in the Middle East.\" \n\n\nWhat we can take away from this is that the United States could have possibly prevented war by giving clearer diplomatic statements on its interests in the Middle East. This does not mean that the U. S. gave explicit permission for Saddam to invade Kuwait. It does not mean that the U. S. encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait, and it definitely does not mean the U. S. supported Saddam in any fashion with the motive to help him invade Kuwait."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
7troqj | What was the reaction around the world to the Israeli Mossad assassinating and kidnapping former Nazis in other countries? Was this not in breach of international law? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7troqj/what_was_the_reaction_around_the_world_to_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dtetbvb",
"dtfhcdc",
"dtfvxyy",
"dtfz9ma"
],
"score": [
2054,
19,
4,
13
],
"text": [
"So, officially, there was only one of these operations that are known to have succeeded (there might have been more and there were a couple of operations that didn't work out) and that therefore required an international reaction and consideration of legality. While Israel did indeed try a couple of other Nazi criminals, those cases were managed in cooperation with the country where they hid, like the US or Canada, and where because of false statements these criminals made at the time of their migration they could be deported to Israel. This famous case was the capture of Adolf Eichmann.\n\nAdolf Eichmann, head of the Reich Security Main Office's Referat IV B 4, responsible for the organization of deportations of Jews to Auschwitz and elsewhere, had managed to flee to Argentina in 1950 after he had received false identity papers in the name of \"Ricardo Klement\" with the help of Bishop Alois Hudal and his Nazi-sympathizing collaborators in the Vatican. In subsequent years, he worked for Mercedes in Argentinia and send for his German family to join him in Buenos Aires.\n\nDuring his time in hiding, he was still in contact with some of his former Nazi friends and from 1956 forward was interviewed by former SS-member Wilhelm Sassen, who wanted to write Eichmann's biography. In the tapes of these interviews Eichmann reveals that unlike his later self-presentation in front of the court in Jerusalem, he indeed was an ardent Nazi and anti-Semite and was of the opinion that the movement would rise again in Germany, giving him a chance to finish what he started.\n\nIn the meantime, Eichmann was recognized by several survivors in Argentinian, most importantly, German-Jewish emigrant Lothar Hermann who passed on the information that Eichmann was living there to German District Attorney Fritz Bauer. Bauer tried to instigate a German investigation and eventual capture of Eichmann but was met with strong institutional resistance by a German justice system unwilling to confront the possibility of a German Eichmann trial. Eventually Bauer was forced to at least do something and passed on the pertinent information to Mossad director Isser Harel, who had previously received similar information about Eichmann's whereabouts from Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal.\n\nHarel dispatched Shin Bet chief interrogator Zvi Aharoni to Buenos Aires on 1 March 1960, who was able to confirm the suspects's identity as Adolf Eichmann. In light of Argentina's policy of providing refuge for Nazi war criminals, the Israeli government decided that Eichmann should rather be captured instead of asking the Argentinian government for extradition. A team under the leadership of Mossad operative Rafi Eitan was dispatched to capture Eichmann and bring him to Israel.\n\nThey captured Eichmann, held him in a safe house for nine days then spirited him on board of an El Al airplane and flew him to Israel where he arrived two days later, on May 22, 1960.\n\nAfter it was announced to the world that Eichmann had been captured in Argentina and brought to Israel, the Argentinian government reacted not very positively. While there initial diplomatic approaches to Israel remained unsuccessful, the Argentinian government lodged an official protest with the UN in June 1960 for violation of their sovereignty. The Israeli representative at the UN at that point claimed that the capture of Eichmann had only been the act of a group of individuals acting on private initiative and therefore – while representing a violation of Argentinian law – the act did not constitute a violation of sovereignty.\n\nThe UN Security Council disagreed and on June 22, 1960 it adopted [Resolution 138](/_URL_2_) in which it stated that Argentina's sovereignty had been violated and that Israel should pay reparations to Argentina. This was adopted with all votes and only Poland (then member of the Council) and the USSR abstaining from voting. Argentina and Israel eventually reached a mutual agreement to end the dispute on August 3, 1960.\n\nSo, while the UN security council had at the time the opinion that Israel had indeed breached international law, a variety of legal scholars have interpreted the situation differently: Nicholas N. Kittrie e.g. writing for the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology under the title *A Post-Mortem of the Eichmann Case* in 1964 interpreted the situation differently.\n\nWriting that it was indeed the case that Israel despite the lack of an extradition treaty could have negotiated Eichmann's extradition with Argentina – he was living there as an illegal alien under a false name after all –, this was highly unlikely given the internal political situation there. Emphasizing that Argentina and Israel issued a joint statement ending the dispute he writes:\n\n > However, after Israel made its apology the matter was declared closed in a joint communique issued by the two nations on August3, 1960. The failure of the United Nations and Argentina to insist upon Eichmann's return thus seemed technically to cure the illegality of the capture. As an individual Eichmann had no standing in international law, and whatever rights he possessed had to be enforced on his behalf by an aggrieved nation. The desire to avoid the embarrassing situation which the possession of Eichmann's person would have posed and the reluctance to awaken past memories kept the governments of Argentina (within whose boundaries he was found), Austria (of which he was a naturalized citizen), and Germany (whose Third Reich he served) from making a claim for or on behalf of Eichmann. Since all concerned nations waived their right to Eichmann, Israel appeared free, within the framework of its own law, to pursue with regard to him a conduct of its own choice.\n\nWhat Kittrie is basically saying that without a government disputing these actions, the act itself becomes retroactively legal because in international law, the maxim of \"when there's no plaintiff, there's no judge\" is applied. He further argues that there is precedence found for similar cases all over English and US case law, especially pertaining to the seizure of ship's in international or another state's territorial waters and that the legality of the trial itself as well as the court's jurisdiction were not affected by this.\n\nHe concludes that most legal commentators agree on Israel's right to try the kidnapped Adolf Eichmann, if not by adherence to the standards of international law but by the general permissiveness of it, in that every state has the jurisdiction to to punish war criminals in its custody regardless of the nationality of the victim, the time it entered the war, or the place where the offense was committed, according the legal statutes created by the Nuremberg Trials.\n\nIn the end, the question of violation of international law became moot since Israel and Argentina settled the dispute surrounding Eichmann's capture thus retroactively giving the act if not legality then at least legitimacy.\n\n--------------------------------------------\n\nEdited to add:\n\nAs reported by the [JTA](_URL_3_):\n\n > Armand Bernard of France told the Council he considered that the apologies for violation of sovereignty already given by “the highest authorities of Israel” provided Argentina with the “expression of satisfaction” she had sought.\n\nA position later adopted by the Argentinian government in August 1960.\n\n--------------------------------------------\n\nA claim has been also made that the Mossad was responsible for the assassination of Herberts Cukurs, also known as the \"Butcher of Riga\" in 1965. This claim originated from Gad Shimron's book *The Execution of the Hangman of Riga*, which was allegedly written together with the Mossad agent responsible for the assassination. In this case, however, the Mossad's involvement remains unclear and the archives have not been opened yet. Cukurs body was indeed found in the trunk of a car in 1965 together with several documents pertaining to his crimes committed in Riga after newspapers had received a note that it was there. Just what role the Mossad played in this is however still not entirely clear.\n\nThis lack of clarity pretty much suiting almost everybody involved, the assassination never drew much attention from governments or was tested for its legality under international law.\n\nSources aside those mentioned:\n\n* Bettina Stagneth: Eichmann vor Jerusalem.\n\n* L.C. Green: [Legal Issues of the Eichmann Trial](_URL_0_)\n\n* Matthew Lippmann: [The Trial of Adolf Eichmann and the Protection of Universal Human Rights under International Law](_URL_1_)",
"A question, did ties to the Franco regime in Spain influence Argentina's willingness to harbor Nazi war criminals like Eichmann? ",
"Another question: I’ve seen a lot about Eichmann and the holocaust in general lately. Is there some sort of anniversary or something else making it timely? ",
"Are there any estimates as to how many Nazis were prosecuted world wide (including in Germany)?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/tulr37&div=44",
"http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hujil5&div=6",
"https://undocs.org/S/RES/138\\(1960\\)",
"https://www.jta.org/1960/06/24/archive/security-council-rejects-demand-for-return-of-eichmann-to-argentina"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
853xo7 | I’m a skilled craftsman (stonemason or blacksmith) living in mid-seventh century Mercia (modern day English Midlands). What is my day to day like? | Recently read about Penda of Mercia and how Bede describes him as “a most warlike man of the royal race of the Mercians”.
Got me thinking what life would be like as a reasonably skilled, above-average citizen around about 650 AD when there were small, warring states in Britain all vying for power (or survival).
Also, Catholic influences conflicting with the traditionally pagan societies of the day sounds like it would make for an interesting element to these warring groups. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/853xo7/im_a_skilled_craftsman_stonemason_or_blacksmith/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvultdw",
"dvuofz8"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"This is a tricky one, simply because pre-conversion England is a particularly murky area. If we were talking about 8th Century Offian Mercia or 10th Century Æthelflædian Mercia, we could postulate that as a skilled craftsman, you'd likely live in a proto-urban *burh* settlement, or at the very least within a larger, possibly fortified village. Earlier in the period this is less secure. You might live within a re-occupied Roman site such as Rocester or Wroxeter, although much of the town around you would be slowly crumbling into ruin.\n\nAs a skilled craftsman, you'd most likely be a freeman, in the closest approximation to a middle class amongst the upper levels of the peasant classes. What this does mean is that you would put great effort into displaying your wealth and status to those around you. As a Mercian, you wouldn't use ceramics, and fancy West Saxon fashions like strap ends wouldn't reach for you around two centuries, so you would display your wealth with an ornate belt buckle and a richly-inlaid brooch to fasten your cloak. Your *seax*, hung at your waist, might have a heavily sculpted or engraved handle, and your wife might wear a well-embroidered mantle over her kirtle dress.",
"Although I wouldn’t be nobility (or whatever class was considered nobility in those days), could I assume that I’d be afforded a certain amount of respect among the merchant-class and judiciary? Could I work hard, save money and reach some stratus of power, or would I forever just work day-to-day and the only difference would be a touch of extra status due to the odd symbol I could afford due to my craft?\n\nAlso, I know that historians like Bede recorded events and details surrounding the leaders of the day, but are there records that can speak to daily life outside of the highly ranking individuals?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1xuwly | Why didn't Polish Jews lie / "change religious affiliation" during German / Nazi invasion / occupation? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1xuwly/why_didnt_polish_jews_lie_change_religious/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfey0c9",
"cfey4ye",
"cfey52f"
],
"score": [
44,
22,
14
],
"text": [
"The German View of \"Jew\" was not exclusively that of religion, but of race. So even if the \"Jew\" in the Nazi sense had converted to Christianity, it was of no matter to the Nazis. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nAnd while I do not have a source available, my professor in my Holocaust class said that there were cases of Christian Priests that were taken and sent to camps because their parents or grandparents had been converted Jews.",
"Some did, but remember that the process of Jewish extermination was an incremental one. Also remember that Poland was a modern country with extensive record keeping, it was non-trivial to adopt a fake identity with a fake family tree. The identification and ghetto-ization of the jews occurred at a time when many jews did not necessarily see it as an existential threat, so they complied.\n\nAlso consider all of the things which tie someone to a Jewish identity: their name, their place of residence, their family and friends, their business associates, their job, their legal documentation. Someone willing and able to sidestep all of those things, with the means to do so, and the forethought to be afraid of persecution would be just as likely to simply emigrate out of the country entirely.",
"The information in who was Jewish was readily available, and was usually marked by important, unhideable details like circumcision, accent, languages spoken, school, and personal connections. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Jews_to_Catholicism_during_the_Holocaust"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1b1bk3 | How did the Romans deal with sewage? | I understand that the Romans were ahead of their time by having toilets which drained (i.e. waste was flushed away with water), but I'm not entirely clear about the whole picture:
* Were toilets housed in their own separate building, or would they have been a part of the baths?
* Would the sewer system have been linear (i.e. from the toilets to the river/sea) or would there have been branches, disposing of rainwater and water from the baths as well?
* Did the Romans have any form of wastewater treatment, or did they just dispose of it into a natural watercourse (river/sea)?
Thanks for your help - and if there are any sources you'd recommend, please do! | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1b1bk3/how_did_the_romans_deal_with_sewage/ | {
"a_id": [
"c92ohzl",
"c92oima",
"c92osy8",
"c92pf28",
"c92phq3",
"c92ptfu",
"c934si0",
"c935h2a"
],
"score": [
416,
14,
22,
12,
3,
5,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Rome had a massive sewer system that is still in use today. It's called the [Cloaca Maxima](_URL_1_), which means \"Greatest Sewer\". Public toilets, yes, Rome had [public toilets](_URL_3_), and private toilets would drain into the branch sewers or into large cesspits, and then flow into the Cloaca. From there it would flow into the Tiber and then out to sea.\n\nSome of these toilets actually were sort of flush toilets as Romans brought so much water in that many homes had piping that would could flush out the sewers so you didn't have just a huge pit that reeked. (If you have ever been around a pit latrine, you would know what a hellish nightmare of a stink it is. In the army, you would sometimes put your promask on to cover the stench.) \n\nOften times the Romans would use used bathwater (we call it greywater these days) to flush these sewers. [This was not a luxury for just the upper classes, only the poorest lacked access to the aqueducts and piping system, but because they had so many public baths, toilets, and storage tanks it wasn't an issue.](_URL_0_) It was actually against the law to dump your waste into the streets, and you could be responsible for damages to a person for hitting them with it. Compare this to London as late as the 19th Century where the streets could actually run with poop.\n\nNo, the Romans did not treat their water as they had no understanding of bacteria, but they also knew of \"bad water\" and how it associated with illnesses, which is why they flushed it away as best they could. [And even if you were stationed at a fort on the frontier](_URL_4_), you had toilets that would have running water to flush away the funk.\n\n[Oh, and they did have a goddess of the sewer](_URL_2_)",
"Their urine was worth money as they cleaned their clothes in urine, agents went around the wine houses buying the stuff and slaves (known as fullers) trampled the clothes clean in a big bucket full of piss. ",
"Latrines were often public facilities ([see here how public](_URL_3_)). Sometimes these were combined with bathhouses, where they used bath waste-water to flush the excrements into the sewers.\n\nJust like now they used nearby flowing waters (such as rivers) to dump the sewage in (of course, without treatment). Because this lead to diseases, they started to [build aqueducts](_URL_2_) to get potable/better quality water from outside of the city.\nThere were also sewage collectors outside of cities, who would sell the sewage to farmers.\n\n[Here's](_URL_0_) a book discussing Roman toilets from various kinds of (social) sciences which might be interesting.\n\nAnd [here's a Roman text](_URL_1_) on water management (translated into english), which is more about getting water into the cities than out of it.",
"*\"Pecunia non olet.\"*\n\nYou might know this saying, it descends from a statement by Vespasian. Like mentioned before by u/Cybercommie, urine was used for other purposes, e.g. cleaning. Vespasian imposed a tax on urine, because much money was made from urine sellings. So partially waste management was done by private persons, but the state gained profit nevertheless.\n\nMore info here, btw: _URL_0_\n\nEDIT for language.",
"correct me if im wrong but i believe theres and episode of 'what the romans did for us' that shows a sewage system in york aswell? i know as a student its not academically sound, but for the person who can find it on youtube you can watch Alan Hart Davis wade up to his waist in crap which i assure you is hilarious as well as educational ^^",
"For toilet paper, the Romans used a sponge on a stick that would be rinsed after each use in the inflowing water. Apparently, this practice wasn't terribly hygienic, so they would also soak the sponge in sour wine or vinegar as a disinfectant. In the Bible, there is a also a reference of the Romans using such a sponge to quiet Jesus as he was preaching from the cross.",
"I'm a little late to the party, but it was my understanding that urine was collected in large vessels to be used in the tanning of hides.\n\nCan anyone confirm or disconfirm this?",
"I'm a bit late to the party, but there's a great source on the archaeology and cultural analysis of Roman latrines and sewers, including \"bathroom culture\" like grafitti and whatnot: Anne Olga Koloski-Ostrow:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nOne of her presentations was where I learned that the Romans invented the \"for a good time call...\" grafitti. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=f294MFQHMlAC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=roman+indoor+plumbing&source=bl&ots=7qxRi22lnd&sig=FO32N4PqAHs70sHrJ0uXcolRL-Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5aFRUeP0FMGx2QWW34D4CQ&ved=0CGsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=roman%20indoor%20plumbing&f=false",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaca_Maxima",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloacina",
"http://www.balkantravellers.com/images/stories/peak_season/ephesus/toilet.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Housesteads_latrines.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://www.peeters-leuven.be/boekoverz.asp?nr=9027",
"http://www.uvm.edu/~rrodgers/Frontinus.html",
"http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/romans/science/sewage.htm",
"http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/Lazio/Roma/Ostia/Ostia_Antica/Regio_IV/forica.html"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecunia_non_olet"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=anne+olga+koloski-ostrow"
]
] |
|
1qg53o | What effect has Buddhism had on Modern Society as a movement? | (I really hope this is the right subreddit for this)
I'm writing a report on Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) and I am having difficulty finding relevant, accountable sources on the topic of his impact on the modern day-of-age. The information I've found so far is either ridiculously biased or uncredited.
I would appreciate any sourced information you guys could find for me.
Thanks!
| AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1qg53o/what_effect_has_buddhism_had_on_modern_society_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"cdcgmyb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"How modern and in which countries? There's a lot of ground to cover. Buddhism is not homogeneous movement and is represented by a multitude of disparate sects and traditions. You could report on the role of Buddhism in post-war Japan, the revival of Buddhism in modern India, the loosening of religious restrictions on Buddhism in China after the post-Mao reforms, or the impact of Buddhism on the New Age movement in the West."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1w0i88 | What were the conditions in Scandinavia that led up to (or sparked) the Viking Age? | So, semi-legendary hero Ragnar Lodbrok who may or may not have existed and may or may not have done the things ascribed to him, supposedly fathered several historically known sons, but before Ragnar, what were the cultural/social/economic factors that led the Scandinavian people into 300 years of raiding and conquest? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1w0i88/what_were_the_conditions_in_scandinavia_that_led/ | {
"a_id": [
"cexm4vt"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"There are several factors in play here.\n\nThe medieval warm period and land raising (after the ice age) led to higher harvests and a population boom in Scandinavia. There were simply surplus people who could go out and raid.\n\nScandinavian societies were both \"every man is a soldier\", since by law (and earlier, tradition) almost all men were free and required to own and train with arms and generally had very even spread wealth (meaning that even the poorest among free men could afford a leather cap, a shield and a good axe). Prestige in viking society laid more in feats of arms and having a large *hird* (personal guard) that was well-fed and well-equipped than in piety or grand consctruction projects. Compared to the early feudal western Europe, there were a broader base with martial traditions and a larger cultural incentive to go plunder and fight.\n\nThe vikings had developed excellent ship building and ship handling skills. Clink built knarrs and longships were veyr seaworthy in the Baltic and North Seas and fast shallow draft ships that allowed the vikings to rapidly sail or row up rivers and shallow bays to attack where attacks were not expected. If encountering resistance, the vikings could just retreat to their ships, sail off and attack a target one or two days sailing away, as they would know that the mass of the enemy forces were still trying to travel overland from where they mast met.\n\nThe Franks weakened and then destroyed the Frisian Kingdom/Magna Frisia, which controlled much of the trade in the North Sea and had a strong navy. In this naval power vacuum, the vikings could go trading and eventually raiding with impunity - there were no real navies to speak of in the North Sea and northern Atlantic.\n\nThe period also saw decentralisation or even fracturing of lands that the vikings raided. England and Ireland was divided into petty Kingdoms. The King of France often had no authority outside Ile de France, Finland, the Baltic states, Pommerania and Prussia were populated by pagan tribes (some with similar traditions, the Estonians raided Sweden a lot too)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
8y0rxp | India's Supreme Court is considering decriminalizing gay sex, in part because "it is argued to be at odds with precolonial India's acceptance of homosexuality." What was precolonial India's perspective of homosexuality? | More specifically, is there a specific era in India's (extraordinarily long) precolonial history where it was notably and significantly more liberal regarding homosexuality than it is today? To narrow this question temporally, I'm mainly interested in the India of the two or three centuries immediately prior to British rule, but if there are noteworthy instances beyond that then feel free to raise them. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8y0rxp/indias_supreme_court_is_considering/ | {
"a_id": [
"e28aauj"
],
"score": [
84
],
"text": [
"I think part of the problem with answering this question is that \"pre-colonial India\" describes a lot of people, places and times. I'm not an expert on any of them, but I can say that there were certainly places and times in India when homosexual behavior was tolerated, much in the way that it was tolerated in Ancient Greece and Rome or throughout parts of the Persianate Islamic world. I'm thinking specifically of Mughal rule, which was heavily influenced by said Persian culture, during which homosexuality was seemingly relatively widely and openly practiced among the Mughal aristocracy (the same can not necessarily be said for the common folk). While Islam forbids \"unlawful intercourse\" these laws were apparently pretty widely ignored (though that was more a result of difficulties arising from Muslim jurisprudence than tolerance):\n\n > [T]hese legal provisions were rarely implemented since guilty was very difficult to establish. The Shariah demands incontrovertible evidence, such as confessions or four faithful eyewitnesses confirming that they saw penetration occur . . . The difficulty of finding eyewitnesses to confirm instances of penetration in effect removes private acts between consenting individuals from the realm of punishment.\n\n*Kidwai, Saleem. \"Introduction: Medieval materials in the Perso-Urdu tradition.\" Vanita, Ruth, and Saleem Kidwai, eds. Same-Sex Love in India: Readings in Indian Literature. Springer, 2000.*\n\nEven the great Emperor Babur wrote in his memoirs about the crush he developed on a boy he saw in the market:\n\n > During this time there was a boy from the camp market named Baburi. Even his name was amazingly appropriate. I developed a strange inclination for him – rather I made myself miserable over him.\n\n > Before this experience I had never felt a desire for anyone, nor did I listen to talk of love and affection or speak of such things. At that time I used to compose single lines and couplets in Persian. I composed the following lines there:\n\n > *\"May no one be so distraught and devastated by love as I; May no beloved be so pitiless and careless as you.\"*\n\nSo while this certainly wasn't the case for all of India at all times (or even all of the Mughal Empire), it isn't unreasonable to say that the current prejudice and discrimination against homosexuals in the country isn't necessarily inline with how Indians have treated the matte historically."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
2hhx5z | What was the main cause of the Triangle shirtwaist company fire? | I am writing a paper over this, and I'm having trouble pinpointing one cause. Obviously, the scrap bins are the main kindling of the fire. I just need some help with my direction. I've written over half the paper, and I feel like I'm just rambling. I need help if you'd like to offer. Thanks! | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2hhx5z/what_was_the_main_cause_of_the_triangle/ | {
"a_id": [
"cksz2bp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are two widely accepted possibilities for what started the fire: a lit match or a burning cigarette (a third possibility is that a spark from one of the sewing machines started the blaze, but this is less likely). The Ric Burns documentary mentions the lit match or cigarette, and most tours and memorials say the same thing (little bit of a tangent here but on the anniversary, someone lays out 146 yellow roses on Greene Street, each with a victim's name; seeing them all laid out like tiny bodies has a most powerful effect).\n\nI usually do a little write-up too, but as you're writing a paper on this, you know what happened. I do have a few sources to back up the claim for a match or cigarette: \n\n* \"The fire is believed to have started with a match or cigarette butt in the overflowing scrap bin under a cutter's table on the eighth floor. Smokers had caused fires at Triangle before, so even though no one enforced the posted signs forbidding smoking, they did keep water buckets on shelves along the walls (that caution didn't extend to making sure that the firehoses in the stairwells worked).\" [source](_URL_1_)\n* \"According to the fire marshal, the fire most likely began when a lit match was thrown in a waste basket near flammable material such as oil cans or cloth. Although smoking was prohibited in the factory, cigarette cases were found by investigators throughout the work environment. Employees later stated that cigarette smoking was widespread throughout the factory because employers were concerned that an enforcement of the smoking ban would harm the morale of the workers and decrease productivity.\" [source](_URL_2_)\n* \"[Isidore] Abramowitz was taking his coat and hat from a nearby peg when he noticed the fire in his scrap bin. Perhaps the cutter had been sneaking a smoke while his assistants prepared the table. Or maybe it was another cutter-they were a close-knit group and liked to stand around talking together. Or maybe it was a cutter's assistant. At any rate, the fire marshal would later conclude that someone tossed a match or cigarette butt into Abramowitz's scrap bin before it was completely extinguished.\" [source](_URL_0_)\n\nIf you're interested (or you need it for the paper), the transcripts of the criminal trial against the owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist company [are online](_URL_3_) and they are a fascinating read. \n\nGood luck with your paper! If you have any other questions, feel free to ask."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=Xw4fjRQFusQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=triangle:+the+fire+that+changed+america&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cjQlVLiMCPbIsAT3oYKIDA&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=cigarette&f=false",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=QQJrhixpS9wC&pg=PA337#v=onepage&q&f=false",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=XNEZ-sy0MJsC&pg=PA201#v=onepage&q&f=false",
"http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/triangletrans/"
]
] |
|
6yylgn | Why did Germany send the Zimmerman Telegram? | [deleted] | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6yylgn/why_did_germany_send_the_zimmerman_telegram/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmrc3ha"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Certainly more to be said here, but [this previous thread](_URL_2_) might be of interest, as well as [this one](_URL_1_), and [this previous AMA](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1eu8mn/weekly_ama_mexican_revolution_and_world_war_i/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/480jmy/what_made_germany_think_mexico_would_go_along/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6kzwwn/wwi_what_was_zimmermann_thinking_when_he_sent_the/"
]
] |
|
1a517j | What is your relationship with Wikipedia? | Do you treat it as no-no for research?
Do you edit it?
| AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1a517j/what_is_your_relationship_with_wikipedia/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8u5do2",
"c8u5iyv",
"c8u5ofj",
"c8u5pb6",
"c8u6wcz",
"c8u9178",
"c8u9hu0",
"c8u9xdb"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
12,
70,
22,
3,
6,
18
],
"text": [
"My professors compare it with 'asking your neighbour'. Sure, it can be useful and we're not going to prohibit it. You might even find some interesting ideas or sources for your research. **But it is not a proper source!**",
"I edited Wikipedia once - when I found an article which informed me that Captain Cook, who just mapped the east coast of Australia, supposedly *settled* the country... ***along with Jesus***.\n\nI treat Wikipedia with an attitude of healthy skepticism, while admiring its immensity and detail.\n",
"The most useful aspect of Wikipedia is the collection of sources at the bottom of an article. By critically reading the collected available works online, you can get far, far more information than you can by just reading the Wikipedia article.",
"Wikipedia is the first and last place I go when doing research. I use it to get a feel of the subject matter, and then to mine the references at the bottom of the page. Upon completion of my research, I return to Wikipedia and use my newly gleaned knowledge to make the page better. If I cannot update Wikipedia, then I probably did not glean a sort of fluency with the subject matter and that I need to go do more research.",
"Wikipedia is not a source. It is a collection of sources. You find anything useful mentioned in an article, you visit the citation for it (via the little number next to the information). This means that if an article is BS or cited from the daily mail you will know because you traced it back to the source. You don't cite Wikipedia, you cite the Wikipedia source!\n\n(I hate how people in education automatically discredit wikipedia without instructing people how to use it!)\n\nThe other thing you might be interested in is _URL_0_ which will direct you straight to journals and peer reviewed papers.",
"I think of Wikipedia as something similar to a gaming hint sheet. It's not a fully sourced reference, but it does give clues to further research -- as others have pointed out, the cites at the bottom of articles are the most helpful. The key to leveraging Wikipedia is to visit any primary references listed and analyze those sources yourself.",
"It's surprisingly accurate/reliable/helpful on a number of issues, particularly the military history of World War II which is exquisite. However politicized/controversial issues or more obscure issues are obviously skewed or lacking.",
"/u/yodatsracist had a great quote from a professor (I think it was him/her) that summed up my feelings about Wikipedia:\n\n\"Wikipedia is the best place to start. It is absolutely the worst place to stop.\"\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://scholar.google.com"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
18udy0 | How come radicals took power in both the french revolution and the russian revolution but not the american revolution? | In france the radical jacobins wiped out the opposition and the bolsheviks in Russia did exactly the same thing, but in the United States no such thing happened. How come a similar event didn't happen in the american revolution? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18udy0/how_come_radicals_took_power_in_both_the_french/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8i4b1o",
"c8i8k7j",
"c8iara2",
"c8ibjnp"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Revolutions as in colonies separating from their colonizers tend to be different from internal regime-toppling (regime replacing?) revolutions. From what I know they usually keep and/or improve upon the existing infrastructure and merely stop depending on the colonizer (c.f haiti, latin american revolutions). Also, the government they set up was a lot more radical when *they* did it. Republics had been done before, but not based on egalitarian ideals, and they usually ended up being oligarchies (Venice, Rome) which they were actively trying to prevent.",
"Be careful, I think a strong argument can be made that the radical faction did in fact take over the government. The fact that Jefferson didn't start executing people ( although he had no problems with the French doing it and many people certainly thought he would do something similar in the United States) shouldn't diminish the fact that the Jeffersonian Republicans were a radical departure from the Federalists in the so called revolution of 1800. I think /u/TRb1783 would agree. ",
"The situation in France during the Revolution was many, many degrees worse than that of America. I cannot speak to the Bolshevik Revolution, as I'm not as well versed there, but when it comes to comparisons between the American and French Revolutions, my knowledge abounds.\n\nThe biggest difference between the two is geopolitical positioning. America was, conveniently, in the new world and separated by many thousands of miles from its mother country. While local control was established, it was never the less a massive drain on British supplies to maintain a substantial fighting force in the Colonies. This was also coupled with a singularity in the American Revolution that was absent in France. From the outset, the enemy was clear, where as the enemy in France was an identity, not an entity (at least at the outset).\n\nThe American Colonies also benefited heavily from French patronage beginning in 1778 that tipped the scales in their favor. France lacked any such support (although it petitioned the Americans several times). This would come back to actually be a cornerstone in the French Revolution, as crippling debt prevented loaning, and facilitated a massive economic depression that brought France to its knees.\n\nIn France there was also a substantial counter-revolutionary movement from within the country, which appeared at roughly the same time as external threats came to bear against the National Assembly threatening the geopolitical status quo. \n\nIn short, the situation in France that predicated the radical turn of the Committee of Public Safety was the very severity of structural problems - both economic, political, social, religious, and geopolitical - that were faced by the nation.",
"The leaders of the American revolution were not radicals in the sense of someone who wants to overthrow the current social and economic order; they were wealthy men with property and land. In that sense, you could describe the American revolution as more of a secession; the upper classes in the USA broke away from the upper classes in Britain, but the overall structure of society was maintained. \n\nIn contrast, the French and Russian revolutions sought to overthrow the existing social structure; the old upper classes were going to be forcibly removed, which almost inevitably involves violence and terror. It takes men who do not shy away from such things to conceive of, plan and execute such a revolution. To quote another such radical: \"A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.\" (Mao). When you get a group of such men who successfully rise to power, their old habits tend to stay with them.\n\nIn short, it is a misnomer to lump the American revolution with the French and Russian (and Chinese Communist, etc) revolutions. Their leaders had very different motives and backgrounds, which would express themselves in their political behavior."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
58gyi5 | Were any Greek wars in antiquity won through biological warfare? | As the title says. Are there any examples of wars in Greek antiquity whose victories can be conclusively attributed to the intentional application of biological warfare? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/58gyi5/were_any_greek_wars_in_antiquity_won_through/ | {
"a_id": [
"d90xbmy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"No.\n\nPoison and disease certainly played a role in Greek warfare. At the battle of Plataia in 479 BC, the Persians made the initial Greek position untenable by poisoning the Gragaphian Spring, the Greek army's only water supply. The city of Syracuse was repeatedly saved from capture because their enemies (whether Greek or Carthaginian) were forced to encamp near marshy ground to besiege the city, and were inevitably gripped by epidemics. During the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC), the Athenians initially decided to withdraw within their walls and abandon the countryside to the enemy, but in the packed conditions of the city, a devastating plague of unknown nature broke out, severely reducing Athens' manpower reserves. When the Spartans heard about this plague, they wisely decided to restrict their regular invasions of Athenian territory until it blew over. There is also the famous story of the mercenaries of the Ten Thousand, who, during their retreat through the Persian Empire in 401/400 BC, found and ate some 'mad honey' and wandered around hallucinating for a day. Modern scholars have argued that the honey in question was probably made from yellow-flowering *rhodondendron luteum*, containing acetyl-andromedol, which causes the symptoms described by Xenophon.\n\nHowever, none of these examples involve the deliberate application of biological weapons with decisive effect. Often the involvement of factors such as disease was accidental; cases where poison was used on purpose were not decisive.\n\nIf you'd like to read more, there's a book on this very topic: Adrienne Mayor's *Greek Fire, Poison Arrows, and Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World* (2003)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3ovhgy | Was there any attempt to revive the Weimar Republic's decadent & grandiose culture in Cold-War Germany? How were Women perceived (sexually) in Cold-War Germany? | Sorry for my vague title, I know next to nothing about Cold-War Germany. I know that during the Weimar Republic's "Golden-era" (especially 1924 ~ 1929) there was a lot of decadence to be had, things were very lavish (e.g. Prostitution although illegal was excepted, Organised Crime, Sexual liberation for LGBTQ communities) & people could be fairly open about their sexuality (e.g. Magnus Hirschfeld's *Institut für Sexualwissenschaft*).
Due to Hitler coming to power in '33, Things like Hirschfeld's centre was closed down & the perceptions of sex changed from being pleasurable to a "means to an end". However after the fall of Hitler in '45 & the Allies occupying & splitting Germany into two (until 1990); Did anyone in either Germany try & revive Weimar culture? Why?/Why Not?
Also how were Women perceived in Cold-War Germany? Specifically East Germany, because obviously Germany underwent the Nazi's & then specifically not only did the GDR undergo Nazism but they were subjected to Communism as well? How did the two ideologies differ in their views on a Woman's roles?
I ask because Women went from being fairly liberal in Weimar's "Golden-era" to being seen as solely the producer of Aryan children (with propaganda like "Kinder, Küche & Kirche") in Nazi Germany. So how were women perceived in the GDR compared to the FRG?
I'm embarrassed to ask this with it being to do with Psychology and all, but having next to know knowledge on Cold-War Germany I don't know this & therefore ask;
Even though some of the first cases of sexual reassignment surgery date back to the 1930's, with the increasing development of HRT during 1960's & Dr. John Money's theory (even though it's widely discredited now) theory on Gender development & Nature vs Nurtue (with the production of Anti-Androgens, even though both Testosterone & Oestrogen had been independently isolated & synthesised long before that) How was coming out as being transgender perceived in both Germany's? How easy was it to transition?
Thank you, to anyone who can answer my questions :) | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ovhgy/was_there_any_attempt_to_revive_the_weimar/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw17mbd"
],
"score": [
43
],
"text": [
"**Part I**\n\nBefore going into the sexual politics of both the GDR and the FRG, there are some common misconceptions about German history that need to be addressed first. \n\nAlthough the Weimar Republic has since the 1930s become somewhat synonymous with decadence and sexual freedom, this experience was far from universal nor was it completely unchallenged. Although individuals advocating sexual freedom like Hirschfeld emerged as public intellectuals in the Republic, it does not necessarily follow that their advice seeped into everyday practice. Nor were all sex reformers as radical as Hirschfeld, most mainstream reformers emphasized healthy sexuality as a function of marriage, not sexuality for its own sake. Public celebrations of sexuality and other \"decadent\" pastimes generally tended to shrink once outside urban centers like Berlin. Historians of Weimar Germany today draw a more differentiated picture of Weimar's culture of sex. For example, examinations of Weimar's various discourses about the body and nudism often betray a profound concern over racial degeneration, strict militarization and regimentation of nudes, and an association of the health of an individual's body with that of the wider health of the nation. Many of [Hans Suren's bestselling nudist books- NSFW warning for naked German people](_URL_1_) have *völkisch* overtones and celebrate an aesthetically pure Germanic body type. \n\nDespite the fact that the Weimar era also saw the emergence of the \"New Woman\" into the public eye, most German references to modern German womanhood in print could be quite condemnatory and these attacks often spilled over into condemning her sexual profligacy and un-German materialism. Especially in the Catholic south and Protestant countryside, the New Woman became a symbol for much of what was wrong with Germany's Republic. Furthermore, even though the New Woman was a reality for many Germans, beneath the glitz and glamour of Weimar fashion was a sexual dynamic that was often quite disadvantageous towards women. While the showgirls of Berlin's cabarets symbolized a the new objectivity and openness, at the end of the day they were still very much objectified cogs in an entertainment machine. Moreover, new fashions and a modern lifestyle were expensive habits. In a very perceptive 1931 article [\"Twilight for Women?](_URL_0_), Hilde Walter noted that beneath the mass of advertisements for the modern woman was an actual mass of working women who were underpaid and had to now shoulder the extra expense of appearing \"modern\" to keep their jobs. In her estimation, liberation often entailed a new set of burdens. \n\nWalter's essay also noted that attacks on the new woman ran the gamut of the left and right, which underscores another aspect of sexuality and Weimar: its politicization. The most prominent advocates for sexual reform like Hirschfeld prominently connected sexuality with wider political reforms and they tended to be partisans of Germany's left. The Austro-German Wilhelm Reich, one of the most radical of the Republic's reformers, argued that sexual repression served the interests of capitalism and other social injustices. Right-wing German commentators castigated figures like the sex journalist and *raconteur* Hugo Bettauer as a puppet of the \"reds.\" The NSDAP's paper *Völkischer Beobachter* relished in tales of Weimar decadence as part of an overall stratagem to discredit the Republic as unGerman. This highly politicized atmosphere surrounding sex helped propagate the impression of the Weimar Republic as a freewheeling Bacchanalia, when it was in fact much more complex. While there were prominent advocates for sexual reform and alternative sexuality, they were far from the only voices weighing in on sexual matters. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=3894",
"http://photosofwar.net/22156/naked-germans-taken-from-man-and-sun-aryan-olympic-spirit-bestselling-nudist-book-by-hans-suren-1924"
]
] |
|
32k5jh | Did Pre-Columbian Naive American cultures practice prostitution? | I know they practiced slavery and was curious if they did prostitution or some form of it. Most of the searches I have conducted have come up with only modern day human trafficking articles. (For people who don't know "Pre-Columbian" means before Europeans arrived in the Americas). | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/32k5jh/did_precolumbian_naive_american_cultures_practice/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqc9gjx",
"cqceae0",
"cqcvs52"
],
"score": [
163,
54,
3
],
"text": [
"Yes, OP misspelled \"Native\" in the title. That doesn't mean you get to now write a 'punny' answer taking his use of \"naive\" literally. We have already removed several of these jokes from the thread, which are not in line with our rules or expectations.\n\nThank you",
"\"Native Americans\" span 2 continents and at least 15,000 years, encompassing a dizzying array of cultures, so it does help to be more specific.\n\nSahagún's *General History of the Things of New Spain* does specifically address of category of women called \"the harlot; the carnal woman\" (*auiani; auilnenqui*):\n\n > The carnal woman is an evil woman who finds pleasure in her body; who sells her body -- repeatedly sells her body; an evil young woman or an evil old woman, besotted, drunk... She consumes her inner substance -- a brazen, a proud, a dissolute woman of debauched life; a fraud -- gaudy, fastidious, petty, vain. She is oblivious of what all know her to be... She parades; she moves lasciviously; she is pompous. Wheresoever she seduces, howsoever she sets her heart on one, she brings him to ruin. She makes herself beautiful; she arranges herself; she is haughty. She appears like a flower, looks gaudy, arrays herself gaudily; she views herself in a mirror -- carries a mirror in her hand.\n\n(Much of this is repeated later in a section on \"the prostitute\" (*monamacac*))\n\nNotwithstanding that the text was written by Christianized Nahuas under the direction of Spanish priests, the negative protrayal is consistent with we know of Postclassic Central Mesoamerica. The \"harlot\" is not only sexually licentious, but is haughty, vain, drunk, and shameless. Further description goes on to describe how she chews chicle loudly, and brashly pushes her way through the streets. In the reserved and prudish culture of the Aztecs, these women were outrageous in every aspect.\n\nOne interesting aspect is that these women would often adorn themselves with red flowers and wear their hair loose, traditional symbols of virginity. So even as they were acting contrary to the expected behaviors of women, they were portraying themselves as the epitome of feminine purity. An interesting echo of the sort of virgin/whore dichotomies presents in the tropes of the naughty schoolgirl or sexy librarian. \n\nMale prostitution is much less well known, to the point that I can think of any examples of writing about it within the Aztec heartland. Part of this is the disputed status of male homosexuals within this cultural area. Pete Sigal has written some interesting interpretations of linguistic and artistic evidence arguing for an acceptance of a passive-active male homosexuality being accepted (at least the active portion), but the general consensus is that homosexuality was quasi-illegal at best and outright punishable at worst, but this does get into some confusion (again) with accounts being written by Spanish priests after the fact. Some of the Spanish accounts make reference to \"sodomites\" on the Gulf coast, where we do think homosexuality was less prohibited. There is a mention or two of young men -- boys really -- being offered to the Spanish alongside young women for what is implied to be sexual use.\n\n\n\n",
"I've found words for \"prostitute\" and \"brothel\" in NA dictionaries, for instance Wintu (which experienced contact fairly late, in the early 1800's) has *sedehas poqta* (prostitute) and *sedehas qewel* (brothel), which are derived from the word for coyote (coyote is a mythical figure of bad judgement). \n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://books.google.com/books?id=AmOdguNyj1EC&lpg=PA532&ots=mfGsV6AWeL&dq=coyote%20prostitute%20dictionary&pg=PA532#v=onepage&q=coyote%20prostitute&f=false"
]
] |
|
20zd0f | Unfired rifles at the Battle of Gettysburg | I'm reading *On Killing*, and if anybody has a link to a complete analysis of it I'd be very grateful. I'm having a bit of trouble with many of Grossman's historical claims, but one of them that struck me were his figures about unfired and multiply loaded rifles att Gettysburg.
He cites the fact that 90% of found rifles were found loaded and immediately draws the conclusion that this must be that this must be because their bearers were unwilling to fire. Additionally many of these were double and triple loaded, which he concludes must mean that their bearers were unwilling to pull the trigger even while performing the rest of the firing drill.
I have a few problems with his reasoning:
* He also states that most casualties were due to artillery, which rather suggests that many of the fallen simply were killed before having a chance to fire their weapons.
* I can see quite a few more likely alternative reasons for multiply loaded weapons. Missing to place the percussion cap, or perhaps using faulty caps, would in all likelihood have the same effect, as would a panicked soldier trying to keep pace with his peers (not having loaded in time to fire, then trying to keep in step by starting to set the next load on top of the first).
This also raises a couple of questions:
* Grossman also claims at multiple points that soldiers avoid killing by firing above their enemies' heads, why would this not come into effect at Gettysburg and instead manifest itself in unfired rifles?
* Of the rifles found, he doesn't state how many were found from each side and where? Most of the casualties at Gettysburg were caused at Picket's Charge during the Confederate advance. Why would it seem out of place that nearly all of the Confederate casualties never had a chance to fire?
* What was the state of training of the respective sides, and of infantry of the era. They could certainly march and drill, but is there anything to suggest that double and triple loaded rifles weren't a product of anything other than an inability to operate under stress? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/20zd0f/unfired_rifles_at_the_battle_of_gettysburg/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg8a8jg",
"cg8doqh",
"cg8g49s",
"cg8gm5c",
"cg8kuwq"
],
"score": [
3,
37,
3,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"Alternatively, I've read that a lot of soldiers would pour the powder besides the barrel to avoid the kick-back from the gun, making the bullets way less lethal. Does On Killing talk about that too?",
"[*Battle Tactics of the Civil War*](_URL_0_) actually talks about this statistic a bit. The author Paddy Griffith basically agrees with you in suggesting some of the problems with his assumption (that Civil War soldiers *refused* to fire). If a person was killed in between volleys, or before they fired their weapons, youd see a higher number of loaded weapons on the battlefield. In addition, many of the weapons given to Union soldiers (and *especially* the second hand rifles procured by the Confederates) were of substandard quality. Many misfired or worked poorly in combat conditions, this led to situations where soldiers simply dropped their rifles and picked up a new one from a fallen comrade, especially if their's misfired. So, Griffith argues that many of the weapons left behind on the field *wouldnt* have been fired, but instead were dropped for one reason or another. \n\nTo the point of multiple loadings, again youre pretty spot on. In the chaos of battle, a soldier could make mistakes when operating their weapon. For example, if they accidently reversed the loading process, and put the ball in before the powder, the rifle would not work. But surprisingly, Griffith argues that the battle conditions would make it difficult to know *if your own weapon went off*. That led to situations where soldiers would have one misfire, not realize it, and continue to load their weapon. Then, either the soldier would be killed (and obviously drop their weapon), or they would realize their mistake, drop their weapon and scavenge a new one. \n\nSo you can see how a larger proportion of \"defective\", loaded weapons would end up on the field. Now, I *personally* am suspicious of Grossman's 90% statistic. It seems too large. Maybe youre right, and Pickett's charge skewed the numbers a bit, but on the face of it, I am suspicious of how he produced that statistic. But Ive also not seen his sources for that either, so its hard for me to say for sure. But it seems like a lot right?\n\nAs to his point about firing above the heads of the enemy, that was actually a major problem in the Civil War. But it was more a result of poor discipline and bad training practices. Soldiers almost *never* received target practices, so they really didnt have a good understanding of how to use their weapons accurately (except what they figured out in the field). Many soldiers aimed the weapons too high, and thus fired *over* their targets. Sergeants often recommended that soldiers actually aim at the enemies *knees*, because it was assumed they would still over aim, but this time hit the sweet spot. So it seems that the soldiers were more prone to over aiming, rather than intentionally missing their shots. \n\n > What was the state of training of the respective sides, and of infantry of the era.\n\nInfantry of the 18th and early 19th centuries focused almost exclusively on maneuver drills. Officers argued that an army that looked good on the parade ground would perform well on the battlefield. Thus, troops were regularly instructed on combat drills, transitions from line to column and back, wheeling in various combinations, passing one line through another, and other battlefield maneuvers. Most well drilled armies were actually pretty good at performing those maneuvers in battle. But this came at the expense of target practice, which is a very modern practice. For example, Griffith talks about one regiment in the AoP which was formed in 1861, but received its first regimental target practice *in 1864*. Another regiment which was assigned to the target training remarked how odd the practice was. Actually, Grant pushed the AoP to take some target practice right before the Overland Campaign. So, many troops would have had little or no training in how to operate their weapons in a non-combat scenario, which explains (along with misfires and crappy guns) how they could mess up reloading their weapons so often. ",
"One might also consider the laborious nature of loading the weapons at that time. Even a well-trained soldier would take 30 seconds to a minute to re-load and fire. This meant a loaded weapon was a very valuable commodity in battle - once you fire you're unarmed for a significant chunk of time (particularly long in those circumstances.) If a soldier were maneuvering or advancing, I wouldn't expect them to fire until and unless they had a good target. Consider your example of Pickett's charge - would you fire early and walk across that field unarmed, or would you save your (likely only) shot until you got to the wall and needed to kill the guy in front of you? I'd bet most of the weapons found in the middle of the field were loaded, and those at the end of the charge more likely fired.",
"There is also a correlation != causation problem here. \n\nBlack powder firearms are notoriously unreliable and the more you fire them the less reliable they become (until you clean them). \n\nSo lets say that each time the firearm is discharged it has a 5% chance of fouling. That number is too high but it'll work for us. \n\nThat means that if you take 100 guys and you have them load and fire that 95% of the guns go off. The remiander have a ball and charge down their barrel with no easy way to get it out. Now, of those guys some percentage won't notice that their musket didn't fire. We'll say 1 in 5 because it makes the math easy and because battlefields are noisy and confusing places. I will further assume that the guy who misses a hangfire like this never picks up on it; again, not a perfect assumption but not a terrible one either.\n\nSo the ones who notice scramble away to clean their guns and see if they can't get them working again while 96 guys (95 with working guns and 1 with a hang fire) go on.\n\nThe next volley sees ~5 more guns foul (I'm rounding up from 4.75) and another missed hangfire. We now have 92 guys (2 with hangfires). Already the percentage of people in the firing column with nonfunctional rifles with rounds stuck in them is at 2%. \n\nIf that pattern continues we end up 50% of the column holding nonworking guns after just 36 rounds fired. The convergence on 100% is asymptotic (though, of course, that's not how it really works) but we are well towards 90% in less than 100 rounds. ",
"I'll provide a short analysis on the operation of muzzle loading (rifled)firearms.\n\nAs stated elsewhere in this thread, loading a muzzle loader is a precise and time consuming chore. They had various \"short cuts\" for measuring powder and having pre-wadded shots (if smoothbore), but nonetheless you still needed to remove your ram rod, load your powder, load your shot/wad, replace your ram rod if you intended on not losing it, placing a precussion cap (the primer which the hammer struck, lighting the powder) and finally shooting the firearm.\n\nSince muzzle loaders were first invented the shooters had a shortcut. Pre load your shot (with wad if smoothbore), replace your ram rod, and close the hammer. Once you were in a situation to fire, all you had to do is quickly load a precussion cap and fire - providing a 20-30 second advantage.\n\nThis now leads me to answer your question. Pre loading your shot was extremely common. MANY men would have been killed, wounded, misfired, or fled, etc while having a pre-loaded gun as well as during regular refiring.\n\nI tend to think that this shortcut, or routine operation of the firearm may have been incorrectly exploited by a historian who may not have had the knowledge of a well known system. Considering 1 million+ Springfield 1861's were produced and many still around today, I find it hard to think a little more insight to the operation wasn't had before publishing his findings.\n\n(Additionally: This method is still in use by muzzle loading enthusiasts/hunters to this day. It has become a niche skill in the shooting world since repeating rifles took over after the Civil war.Presently In Canada, muzzle loaders are the only weapon permitted to be transported while loaded - provided a percussion cap is not in place and the action is closed. This is due to the fact they may have had it ready to fire, but never came across a target to shoot at. The only way to remove the round is to fire it, but the gun is considered \"safe\" if loaded without the cap. Obviously the firearm is required to be locked and stored away from live ammunition (percussion caps in this case))"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Tactics-Civil-Yale-Nota/dp/0300084617"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3j8058 | How were brass instruments made during the Classical period? | Did the best composers in history thrive with flawed instruments? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3j8058/how_were_brass_instruments_made_during_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cun6frg",
"cun8imw"
],
"score": [
8,
5
],
"text": [
"Did you have any in mind. Non historical but thinking of the classic trumpet that existed at the time, it was a horn with no valves, similar in function and build to a modern bugle.\n\nBrass is easy to work and a horn such as that could be hand beaten and rolled, then brazed together with a metal such as silver. I would imagine some templates and forms could be used for each specific range, as it would only have a few notes it could hit within the musical scale without modern valves. You can also do minor tuning to the pitch and tone by reshaping the bell.\n\nI have no clue what the level of quality was, but I would hazard to say that it greatly varied. Still, the instrument is simple enough that a skilled craftsman could produce a high quality example with care, time, and trial and error.",
"Presumably you're referring to natural horns? That is, brass instruments with no valves?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3wiuiv | Why (and when) did Venetians start writing in Italian instead of their own language? | Wikipedia tells me that even when Venice was still an independent republic the Venetians were already writing in Tuscan Italian rather than in Venetian. Why did they start doing that? When did it happen? Did they write in Italian for some purposes and Venetian for others? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3wiuiv/why_and_when_did_venetians_start_writing_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"cxwra6u"
],
"score": [
67
],
"text": [
"Brief history of Italian:\n\nAs the Roman Empire began to crumble, the languages of the decentralized Italian regions began to diverge. By the 14th century, some of these tongues were mutually unintelligible, though most were close enough. Serious writing was still mostly expected to be in Latin, but many forms of popular entertainment--love songs, low theater, graffiti--had switched to vernacular. \n\nIn around 1305, Dante Alighieri wrote a very influential treatise called *De vulgari eloquentia,* \"on the eloquence of the vernacular.\" In it, he argued that Italians should stop writing in Latin and start writing in their mother tongues, because it was easier to express yourself more naturally. Here's the curious thing--Dante didn't thing of Latin and vulgar as different languages, but as different registers of the same language. This shows in the fact that he never refers to Latin as Latin, but only as *grammatica,* because it has rules you have to learn in school, whereas your mother tongue comes naturally. He grouped the vernaculars into three categories: *lingua di oui* (French), *lingua d'oc* (Provencal), and *lingua di sì* (Italian), based on their respective words for \"yes.\" Much of *De vulgari* concerns the discussion of which Italian dialect is richest and most beautiful. \n\nDante was already a pretty famous poet when he wrote this, and The Divine Comedy later made him a legend, but he was not alone. In the same century, two other authors cemented the Tuscan dialect as literary Italian: Giovanni Boccaccio, with his collection of stories called the *Decameron* (which you should go read right now because it's seriously hilarious), and Francesco Petrarca, called Petrarch, another brilliant poet. The latter two were actually much more popular than Dante in Renaissance Italy, and it is their language that formed the basis of literary Italian, thanks largely to the efforts of a very influential humanist named Pietro Bembo (1470-1547). Now this language was not exactly the same as pure Tuscan dialect, but consisted of a melange of Italianized Latin and Latinized Italian. It simply leaned very heavily on Tuscan because the three great authors all happened to be of Florentine extraction. Their fame was such that people started learning their language just to read their books. Boccaccio and Petrarch became so revered for their style in prose and poetry (respectively) that you simply could not be taken seriously as an author if you did not imitate them. The first dictionaries of the Italian language contain almost no words that were not used by those two. \n\nThus, ironically, Latin was replaced by an equally artificial language that no one really spoke but everyone wrote in. And there's a simple economic reason for this: it's what you had to do if you wanted any chance of reaching a sizable audience. In fact, there are many examples of authors rewriting their own books to fit in. The most famous is Ludovico Ariosto, who first wrote *Orlando Furioso* (\"The Madness of Roland,\" a thousand-page Arthurian epic) in his native Ferrarese, as a gift to the court of Ferrara in 1516, and then five years later produced a more Tuscanized edition for wider publication (with bonus chapters). \n\n**TL;DR** I know I didn't actually say anything about Venice, but I hope that gives you some idea as to why Italians were writing in various languages. Basically, ever since the early 14th century Italian was developing as a literary lingua franca based mostly, but not entirely, on a purified form of the Tuscan dialect. It mostly existed to facilitate communication between Italians of different cities and to produce culturally unifying works of art. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1gfn14 | What exactly was the "Trail of Tears"? | What was the Trail of Tears precisely? What events led up and caused it? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gfn14/what_exactly_was_the_trail_of_tears/ | {
"a_id": [
"cajtgu8",
"cajuuh7"
],
"score": [
2,
13
],
"text": [
"The Trail of Tears was the removal of Cherokee Indian tribes from the northern region of Georgia in response to the discovery of gold in the region. It was caused by the Indian Removal Act signed by Andrew Jackson. It was a journey that followed different paths to reservations made in Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma). ",
"The \"Trail of Tears\" was the forced removal, that is, ethnic cleansing, of American Indian tribes into Indian Territory, Kansas, and surrounding regions. This was all facilitated by the passage of the [1830 Indian Removal](_URL_0_) (a law that is still on the books). Most tribes were removed through forced overland marches; however, some, such as the [Choctaw Nation](_URL_3_) were removed via boats. \n\nThe term, \"Trail of Tears\" usually refers to the forced removal of southeastern tribes, such as the [Muscogee, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole](_URL_1_); however, it can be also used for other tribes forcibly removed by the US government. There are as far-reaching as Modoc tribes from California/Oregon forced into Indian Territory, and briefly even the [Nez Perce](_URL_2_) from Idaho/Washington."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Indian.html",
"http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/T/TR003.html",
"http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/N/NE015.html",
"http://www.choctawnation.com/history/choctaw-nation-history/trail-of-tears/"
]
] |
|
88gb28 | Were people really worse off during the Middle Ages than during the Roman Empire? | Following the decline of Rome, the world experienced human migration, plauge, declines in the sciences, arts, and trade.
But was the average person living in Europe worse off than a few centuries before? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/88gb28/were_people_really_worse_off_during_the_middle/ | {
"a_id": [
"dwkp4zf"
],
"score": [
38
],
"text": [
"While I don't want to damper any discussion or new insights, it should be noted that [this question has been answered before](_URL_0_) by the wonderful /u/bitparity."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1okplt/for_the_average_person_did_quality_of_life/"
]
] |
|
2mvube | Historically, Has an executive order ever nullified or changed a pre-existing law? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2mvube/historically_has_an_executive_order_ever/ | {
"a_id": [
"cm80qfp",
"cm8544w"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"in the USA.",
"as a technical matter? no. only congress can write and change the laws. it's not uncommon for the courts to override executive orders that try to make new laws, as opposed to interpreting laws. that was the principle upheld in youngstown sheet & tube co. v. sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952). \n\nbut the executive branch has an enormous amount of discretion as to how to interpret the laws in the absence of a judicial decision requiring the administration to act in a particular way. for example, whether to prosecute a given violator is ultimately a matter of prosecutorial discretion. obviously, it's impractical for law enforcement to go after every single person who violates the law. go on any freeway and you'll see people breaking the law left and right.\n\nthe current immigration executive order has to be understood in that context. essentially, obama has decided that there is nothing to be gained in enforcing the immigration laws against certain classes of persons. in principle, at least, it's no different from a district attorney's office refusing to prosecute jaywalking cases. \n\nwhat is different about the recent executive order is the scale-- reagan and bush 41 established a similar program to fill a gap in the immigration reform and control act of 1986. dissatisfaction with this program led to further reform in the form of the immigration act of 1990."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
1t3e8o | Okay. How many people *really* died in the Nanking Massacre? | I am born in China. Everybody learns that 300,000 people died in the Nanking Massacre when the Japanese occupied the city and massively killed civilians. This 300,000 number is constantly hammered to us, being on gigantic signs on events related to remembering the massacre, and a must-mention whenever a textbook/TV program mentions the massacre. It's always the "Nanjing massacre where 300,000 died". However, my English history textbook says 200,000.
I wondered who is right, so I asked questions on Japanese and Chinese forums (I'm fluent in both languages). Unsurprisingly, the Chinese people flamed me for being a "traitor to the Han race" (would sound incredibly racist in America!) and gave a ridiculous-sounding unsourced answer of "200,000 is the international consensus, but in reality 300,000 died", and downvoted my question into oblivion. And the Japanese answerers started a flame war between themselves, with denialists giving a denialist answer and other people flaming him.
Clearly, Chinese and Japanese netizens seem quite stuck on politically-motivated numbers (although at least in Japanese forums you witness a debate, rather than saying you are a traitor). So, *how many people really died in the Nanking Massacre*?
**EDIT**: Can somebody please explain the downvotes? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1t3e8o/okay_how_many_people_really_died_in_the_nanking/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce48nx5",
"ce49ebq"
],
"score": [
13,
4
],
"text": [
"300,000 is probably one of the more quoted figures, partly as a result of Iris Chang's book the Rape of Nanking. She in turn cited it from a 1938 Japanese diplomatic report. For comparison, the Far East War Crimes commission reported over 260,000 casualties. What needs to be noted however is that it was not just civilians that were killed. A good 50,000 or so soldiers were killed in the Battle for Nanking that preceded it, and there was undoubtedly a significant amount of collateral damage in the battle. Also, a large amount of Chinese prisoners (perhaps around 50,000+) were executed as well as part of the Nanking massacre. Whether or not they are included in the casualty figures is uncertain depending on the source, which may delineate between civilians and non-civilians. \n\nUltimately though, it doesn't really matter how many people died. The fact that civilians were butchered at all, let alone on a large scale, is already pretty horrendous. Asking those sorts of questions on Chinese and Japanese forums is just flamebaiting. What really matters is to keep an eye on your sources for bias and to acknowledge how it may impact their analysis or reporting. For instance, in the above Rape of Nanking book by Iris Chang, she attributes the Rape of Nanking to the Japanese bushido code and the warrior mentality, which is a point of view that could be due to cultural bias. She discounts the fact that Chinese troops during the Warlord period, for example, routinely sacked cities and massacred civilians, Chinese and especially Japanese ones, albeit on a much, much smaller and limited scale than the Nanking massacre. This would seem to indicate that rape and massacre of civilians may be a general theme across warfare rather than a purely Japanese phenomenon. \n\nJust keep in mind, especially for these extremely nationalistic topics, Chinese historians will tend to have a certain bias, Japanese historians will have a certain bias, and even Western historians will have a certain bias, although probably not to the same extent.\n\nI will bring up one more point as a point of comparison. Consider the Indian Mutiny of 1857. Here, there were several massacres of British citizens by sepoy mutineers during the initial stages of the rebellion. In vengeance, the British executed many suspected \"mutineers\" and sacked several cities that they had conquered. Contrast this to the Tongzhou incident and the Nanking Massacre.",
"It is, quite simply, impossible to know. Although there seems no doubt that thousands of unarmed people were killed by Japanese soldiers there, there are a wide [variety of estimates](_URL_3_). For example, John Rabe, the famous German who is celebrated today for his efforts to protect Chinese civilians from the Japanese army, argued at the time that the combined civilian/soldier death toll was [50,000 to 60,000](_URL_0_). \n\nAs you can see from the chart in that Wikipedia article, the Chinese government's claim of 300,000 stands out above the estimates from historians. I haven't seen convincing evidence to support the 300,000 claim. \n\nI recommend that you check out any of the articles on this subject by David Askew, such as \"[The Contested Past: History and\nSemantics in the Nanjing Debate](_URL_2_).\" He also has written more detailed studies, such as [one in which he convincingly shows](_URL_1_) that Nanking's civilian population at the time of the incident, even after having been swelled with refugees, did not exceed 250,000 people."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/articles/Askew.html",
"http://chinajapan.org/articles/13.2/13.2askew2-20.pdf",
"http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/re/k-rsc/ras/04_publications/ria_en/02_3.pdf",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_the_death_toll_for_the_Nanking_Massacre"
]
] |
|
1ntjj7 | Which constitution was more democratic? The Articles of Confederation? or the 1st draft of the Constitution (before the bill of rights were added)? and why? | We had this discussion in my political science class and it ended up being very interesting! What does reddit think? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ntjj7/which_constitution_was_more_democratic_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccm3jo4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because the House was elected directly by the people, it is hard to conceive of an argument in which the articles was more democratic. However since suffrage laws were determined by states and not the Federal government I think it is by and large a moot point. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
d55imb | Why didn’t Asia and Africa experience what Europe did during th Black Death? | The fact that the plague decimated Europe’s population is always brought up, but I’ve never heard of any kind of illness of equivalent magnitude hitting civilizations in Asia or Africa. Were any of those cultures also severely affected by plague, or another disease, to the same scale as Europe? If not, why not? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d55imb/why_didnt_asia_and_africa_experience_what_europe/ | {
"a_id": [
"f0k25w2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm never the specialist either in Asia and in Africa, but the following previous questions and answers might satisfy OP's interest. In short, the plague outbreak around the middle of the 14th century certainly hit at least the latter, but the source problem prevented us from estimating the plausible figure. \n\n\n\n* (East Asia): The answers by /u/mikedash in [Why can't I find very much information about the 14th Century black death in Asia?](_URL_1_) should be OP's starting point. I also summarized the problems in Chinese/ Mongolian contemporary sources in [Is there any Mongolian accounts of dealing with Black Plague?](_URL_2_) AFAIK only Japan, separated by the Chinese sea and not conducted much trade with Yuan China, could certainly evade the outbreak in East Asia. \n* (Middle East) I also wrote a very brief summary in [What was the response to the Black Death like in the Islamic world?](_URL_3_]) before. Put it simply, the outbreak ravaged Syria and Egypt just as it did in Europe, but it was just one of the many catastrophe that hit these regions in the 14th century so that we cannot distinguish the exact damage caused by the plague alone from those of other catastrophe with ease.\n* (Africa) I was impressed greatly by /u/bobbleheader's recent answer in [Africa during the Black Death](_URL_0_). You can also check /u/Commustar's comment in \n[What do we know about the effects of the Black Death on African societies?](_URL_4_) \n\n(Edited): Fixed the broken link to the last question thread (thank you for /u/Commustar's notice)!"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cyydzb/africa_during_the_black_death/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8lkygx/why_cant_i_find_very_much_information_about_the/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ardc1c/is_there_any_mongolian_accounts_of_dealing_with/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/alsi6m/what_was_the_response_to_the_black_death_like_in/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/aztdeu/what_do_we_know_about_the_effects_of_the_black/"
]
] |
|
8efret | Did Australia and/or New Zealand see an economic boom (similar to the US) post-WWII? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8efret/did_australia_andor_new_zealand_see_an_economic/ | {
"a_id": [
"dxv5km8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I can't speak for New Zealand, but yes, Australia absolutely saw an economic boom in the post-war period- and one that actually outstripped the U.S. economic boom in sheer rate of increase of GDP. Where in the period between 1950 and 1969, the U.S. grew annually at a rate of 3.9% a year, Australia grew at a rate of 5.5% a year. This was a period of 'full employment', where labour demand chronically exceeded supply, simply because the economy was booming to such an extent. \n\nThe solution to these chronic labour supply issues, according to a bipartisan agreement of Australian politicians of the era, was to import workers from Europe; the majority of these came from Britain, and with a prominent proportion coming from Northern Europe and then Southern Europe (resulting in the large Greek and Italian communities in Melbourne and Sydney). 2.4 million immigrants arrived in Australia in the 1950-1970 period - a large amount of people considering that the population of Australia in 1950 was about 8 million. During this period, despite the addition of such an enormous amount of immigrants to the workforce, the average level of unemployment was two per cent (which in economic terms is close enough to zero to mean that there was very little long-term unemployment).\n\nSo yes, the post-WWII era was a golden era, economically.\n\nReference:\n\n* James Walsh (2012) 'Mass Migration and the Mass Society: Fordism, Immigration Policy and the Post-war Long Boom in Canada and Australia, 1947–1970' in the *Journal of Historical Sociology*"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8nmo9v | What are some good books about the history of the cultures around the Arabian sea? | I'm curious how the cultures of the Indian subcontinent, Arabian peninsula, and horn of Africa evolved and interacted with one another and the broader world. These regions were always footnotes in most of my history books growing up, while the Mediterranean got chapters. Are there any comprehensive books out there on the subject, or would my time be better spent reading individual books about the respective regions? Thanks! | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8nmo9v/what_are_some_good_books_about_the_history_of_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzzhpl6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I recommend that you have a look at /r/AskHistorians/wiki/books"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
14j3gw | [Update] What cannon is this? | [Here](_URL_0_) are some more pictures along with the original photo. Taken in Bizerte, Tunisia at a (spanish) WWII fort I believe. In the last thread some people speculated it might be a makeshift cannon made with leftover parts. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/14j3gw/update_what_cannon_is_this/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7djfvg",
"c7dmte1"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, it's French. \"Tarbes\" is a city in France that had (and still has) a large armament industry. The markings would *seem* to indicate it's a 90mm gun, but I wouldn't bet too hard on that.\n\nTake that for what it's worth... ",
"It's most likely a heavily modified [DeBagne Mle. 1877](_URL_0_). Tarbes is a city in France that had a large arsenal in it. The DeBagne cannon was the only 90mm weapon used by the French military that I could find evidence of. Also, if you note the notches on the breech, they appear to be the same in both pictures. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://imgur.com/a/Il56z#0"
] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bange_90mm_cannon"
]
] |
|
4to01m | Why was Neil Armstrong selected over Buzz and Michael to be the first to step foot on the moon? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4to01m/why_was_neil_armstrong_selected_over_buzz_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5j1xfy"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Armstrong was the mission commander, and Aldrin was the pilot for the lunar module *Eagle.* Due to the *Eagle*'s design, the pilot's station was further from the hatch, so it was easiest for Armstrong to exit first. Aldrin mentions this in his autobiography *Magnificent Desolation*, and adds that he didn't mind going second at all."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2o86gi | After the dissolution of the Austro Hungarian Empire were there any movements to revive it again? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2o86gi/after_the_dissolution_of_the_austro_hungarian/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmksvqj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"At the Yalta Conference one of the topics negotiated was what would happen to Germany after the war, and Churchill proposed that Germany be split into three countries, the southern one containing Austria and Hungary as well, because he liked the old aristocratic order I guess\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Duitslandchurchill.png"
]
] |
||
3cp5id | Was the 14th Amendment ratified? | In light of the recent rulings of the SCOTUS legalizing gay marriage in the U.S., I've been seeing a bunch of posts talking about how the recent ruling was passed under the 14th amendment. The assertions go on to say that since the 14th amendment was never ratified, this recent ruling was never ratified, and is not actually legal.
I was hoping this sub can tell me if this is valid or not. Since the mods have a strict rule on sources, I figured this was a great place to ask. Thank you! | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3cp5id/was_the_14th_amendment_ratified/ | {
"a_id": [
"csxo5qh"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The 14th Amendment was [ratified](_URL_1_) on July 20 1868 (via proclaimation by Secretary of State Seward).\n\nThe order of ratification by the [states](_URL_2_) were: \nConnecticut, June 30, 1866 \nNew Hampshire, July 6, 1866 \nTennessee, July 18, 1866 \nNew Jersey, September 11, 1866 (subsequently, on February 20, 1868, the legislature rescinded its ratification, and on March 24, 1868, readopted its resolution of rescission over the Governor's veto, and on April 23, 2003, revoked the resolution of rescission) \nOregon, September 19, 1866 (subsequently rescinded its ratification on October 16, 1868, and ratified on April 25, 1973) \nNew York, January 10, 1867 \nOhio, January 11, 1867 (subsequently rescinded its ratification on January 13, 1868, and ratified on March 12, 2003) \nIllinois, January 15, 1867 \nWest Virginia, January 16, 1867 \nMichigan, January 16, 1867 \nMinnesota, January 16, 1867 \nKansas, January 17, 1867 \nMaine, January 19, 1867 \nNevada, January 22, 1867 \nIndiana, January 23, 1867 \nMissouri, January 25, 1867 \nPennsylvania, February 6, 1867 \nRhode Island, February 7, 1867 \nWisconsin, February 13, 1867 \nMassachusetts, March 20, 1867 \nNebraska, June 15, 1867 \nIowa, March 16, 1868 \nArkansas, April 6, 1868 \nFlorida, June 9, 1868 \nNorth Carolina, July 4, 1868 (after having rejected the amendment December 14, 1866) \nLouisiana, July 9, 1868 (after having rejected the amendment February 6, 1867) \nSouth Carolina, July 9, 1868 (after having rejected the amendment December 20, 1866). \n\nRatification was completed on July 9, 1868. The amendment was subsequently ratified by: \nAlabama, July 13, 1868 \nGeorgia, July 21, 1868 (after having rejected it on November 9, 1866) \nVirginia, October 8, 1869 (after having rejected it on January 9, 1867) \nMississippi, January 17, 1870 \nTexas, February 18, 1870 (after having rejected it on October 27, 1866) \nDelaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected it on February 8, 1867) \nMaryland, April 4, 1959 (after having rejected it on March 23, 1867) \nCalifornia, May 6, 1959 \nKentucky, March 30, 1976 (after having rejected it on January 10, 1867). \n\n\nThe [Library of Congress](_URL_0_) has a number of sources on the amendment and it's passage and effects. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html#American",
"http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=741",
"http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-112/html/HMAN-112-pg99.htm"
]
] |
|
a2z3a7 | I always hear people say: "We know for sure that Jesus did exist". How do we know this? I've heard that there was no mention of him in Roman writing, so is it contextual evidence or is there more concrete evidence? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a2z3a7/i_always_hear_people_say_we_know_for_sure_that/ | {
"a_id": [
"eb2ae9l",
"eb2ko1d",
"eb3jq9s",
"eb3v67a",
"eb4cpfe"
],
"score": [
2198,
604,
101,
69,
23
],
"text": [
"This is a FAQ. Check out [here](_URL_1_)\n\nAnd [this](_URL_0_) answer by /u/talondearg",
"As an add on question, Josephus' \"Testimonium Flavianum\" is often cited as the only \"non-christian\" source that mentions Jesus directly. How solid is the historical consensus on the validity of this claim?",
"I may have missed this somewhere, but what evidence is there of document Q? Couldn’t Matthew or Luke have copied the other? ",
"Just a question for Historians (Both religious and world etc.) as a side question to the original post.\n\nIs it possible Jesus would , or would not be mentioned as Iesus or Iesos in ancient nonreligious writing, even maybe being mentioned as Joshua/Yeshua?",
"I've reviewed this question several of the times it has come up on AskHistorians and read the FAQ as this is quite interesting to me. From the perspective of a historian would there be as much/more/less evidence of a similar vein for the existence of the some of the mythological figures, such as Hercules, as compared to the evidence for Jesus?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/259vcd/how_much_evidence_is_there_for_a_historical_jesus/chf3t4j/?context=3",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/religion#wiki_did_jesus_exist.3F"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5vaug2 | Which type of people where typically standing in the front row of a major medieval battle? Were they elite warriors or rather convicts/ cannon fodder? | This question builds on the hypothesis that people in the front row in a melee battle were very likely to die. First, is this assumption correct?
If so, for an individual point of view it was not very desirable to be in the front row but in a strategic point of view, having the best warriors in the front would more sense (I assume).
I am also interested in battles of ancient Rome or Greece if that is your expertise. Probably the answer to the question varies from point in time and how important the first row was for an army setup vs the honor involved of dying in battle of a particular culture (?) | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5vaug2/which_type_of_people_where_typically_standing_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"de101ci"
],
"score": [
62
],
"text": [
"This is certainly only a partial answer, but my impression is that certainly in the central middle ages (c.900-1200) that the best and bravest soldiers were expected to be in the front line of battle. We know this because when chroniclers want to emphasize how awesome some is, they'll have them fight in the frontlines. The biographer of Bishop Gerannus of Auxerre (910-14) has a wonderful juxtaposition of the selfless bishop leading his own small retinue out to fight the raiding viking army, while the evil viscount of the city (boo-hiss!) watches from behind the city walls. Similarly, Godfrey of Bouillon, first Latin ruler of Jerusalem (1099-1100), developed a reputation during the First Crusade, certainly amongst his own Lotharingian and German troops, of being an excellent fighter who was always the first to charge the enemy. Despite not being the brilliant tactical commander that some of the other crusaders were (e.g. Bohemund), his reputation for personal bravery seems to have secured him something resembling universal respect amongst the notoriously bitchy crusade leadership.\n\nThis, of course, is the theory. I can't say with any certainly that the best soldiers actually were in the forefront of the fighting, but contemporaries certainly thought they *should* be.\n\nOn a side note, you should note that there weren't really any cannon-fodder in medieval armies (not least because there were no cannons!) and you certainly wouldn't find any forced soldiers such as convicts. Medieval armies were made up, on the whole, of specialists, drawn from the nobility and their entourages in the central period."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1zvp79 | If a Polish person is proud of their heritage, which events in history would they maybe be proud of and why? | I was told recently that the Polish were fierce warriors for hundreds of years. I flat out didn't know this and it made me wonder about the accomplishments of Polish people. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1zvp79/if_a_polish_person_is_proud_of_their_heritage/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfxpz4y",
"cfyhbl1"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It is true that Poland has a long history of warfare. If you are ready to do digging of your own, I can point you in some directions, based on what I remember form school and few university courses. Some of the more well known figures and battles form Polish military history: \n\n- Boleslaw Chrobry (\"chrobry\" roughly means \"brave\"), ruling 992-1025, first crowned king of Poland, was famous for numerous wars against his neibourghs. He came as far east as Kiev, briefly took control of Czechy and Slovakia, and succesfuly defended against German emperor Henry II. \n\n- In 1410, allied Polish and Lithuanian forces crushingly defeated powerful Teutonic Order in Battle of Grunwald, forever changing balance of power in the region. It is, without a doubt, best known Polish victory as far as Poles are concerned, historically often used in propaganda, nowadays reenacted every year. \n\n- Jan III Sobieski, ruling 1674 - 1696, was known as a great warrior before he was crowned - in fact, his military skill was one of the reasons he won the election. His by far most famous accomplishment is Battle of Vienna in 1683, where he aided Habsburgs in breaking Turkish siege of the city. Supposedly, it was biggest cavalry charge in history of warfare.\n\n- Speaking of cavalry, you might be intrested in hussary - polish elite heavy cavalry. They had some very impressive victories, like in Battle of Klushino, where they soundly defeated enemy despite being outnumbered 1 to 4. That is recurring theme, as army of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth never was particulary big, even when we could in theory afford it. Hetman Stanislaw Zolkiewski, commander under Klushino, is by the way one of the most renowed polish generals.\n\n\nI'm sorry for not giving you more insightful info, or providing you with good sources. Few history books I have at hand are in Polish anyway. But since there is not much going on in this topic right now, I figured I would hop in and tell you about some basic stuff. ",
"As someone who works on the region and someone of Polish heritage, I would point away from the military accomplishments and try to examine some of the cultural legacies. At the height of confessional conflicts in the sixteenth century, Poland-Lithuania was arguably the most religiously diverse and certainly most tolerant state in Europe. In addition to its marginal Roman Catholic majority, it also included subjects who were Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic (from among the traditional churches), but also Lutheran, Calvinist, Anti-Trinitarian and Anabaptist communities. The Anabaptists, in particular, were ruthlessly hunted down by both Catholics and Protestants elsewhere in Europe. In Poland-Lithuania, many found not only safety, but legal protection via royal decree. The Polish-Lithuanian state was also home to diverse Jewish communities. These included a small group of Karaite Jews, who, due to their rejection of the Talmud, were viewed as heretics by most mainstream Jews. Lastly, it also included an Islamic Tatar populace that were not only tolerated, but served with distinction in the military campaigns of the Commonwealth. In this period, Polish subjects spoke a variety of languages, including Polish, Ruthenian, German, Yiddish, Lithuanian, Latin, Armenian and Tatar.\nThis diversity often stood in stark contrast to most sixteenth century European states, where confessional strife was not only an ever present threat, but royal policy ruthlessly promoted confessional uniformity. \n\nThe crowning moment of this period of confessional tolerance was the 1573 Confederation of Warsaw, drawn up by the religiously diverse nobility. It enshrined religious freedom in public and private for all free subjects, regardless of whether they were nobles, townfolk or otherwise. Prior to actual crowning, anyone elected to the Polish crown had to swear an oath to uphold these ideals. \n\nScholars have referred to Poland-Lithuania as \"the state without stakes\" and \"a state without (religious) conflagration.\" Poland-Lithuania never witnessed an inquisition, never saw an auto-da-fe, never had its own Oliver Cromwell. \n\nI highly recommend a recent piece of scholarship on the Polish-Lithuanian conviviencia in Early Modern Vilnius:\nDavid Frick, Kith, Kin, and Neighbors: Communities and Confessions in Seventeenth-Century Wilno (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013);\nAlso worthwhile and accessible content-wise:\nJanusz Tazbir, A State without Stakes: Polish Religious Toleration in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (New York: The Kościuszko Foundation, 1973); Norman Davies, God's Playground: A History of Poland, Vol. 1: The Origins to 1795, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1389pr | Did the Mongols cause the black death? | I think I read it somewhere that when the Mongols attacked Europe they spread the plague there but I can't remember the source (probably a world history textbook). Can you guys verify this so I know I'm not just remembering random shit? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1389pr/did_the_mongols_cause_the_black_death/ | {
"a_id": [
"c71on25",
"c72iqc4"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"By Black Death, I assume you are referring to the major outbreak between 1346 into the 1350's. This was actually not the first incidence of the Bubonic Plague as it is believed to have existed in the 500's CE. \n\nThe pandemic leading to the Black Death is believed to have originated in China, at during the mid 1300s when the Mongols controlled much of Asia. Though the Mongols did not cause it, they did contribute to it spreading by using germ warfare - poisoning wells and catapulting diseased corpses into cities during sieges. The specific period of the \"Black Death\" was introduced in the Crimea by the Mongols catapulting their own diseased corpses into the cities the besieged. Fleeing ships landed in Sicily and had been unintentionally carrying infected rats; as all cargo ships at the time tended to have rats preying on stowed food. From there it spread through and ravaged Europe. \n\n",
"It's also worth noting that what the Black Death actually *was* relative to modern bubonic plague is a contested question, which carries with it the additional burden of making it difficult to establish how whatever it was would have been spread, intentionally or otherwise. \nSamuel Cohn in The Black Death Transformed: Disease and Culture in Early Modern Europe brings up a number of reasons why he thinks that sequence of outbreaks was something other than *Yersinia Pestis* (bubonic plague), among them the absence of the rat vectors amid the very detailed accounts of dying animals at the time, the seasonal and climate issues with flea vectors on rats or otherwise, and the radically different rates of mortality (where Black Death was somewhere around 30-50%, bubonic plague is relatively easily contained to single digits through basic quarantine, and grouping the afflicted doesn't increase the contagion rate once fleas/rats are out of the picture). \nHowever, the scientific community has been very successful in extracting definitive samples of *y pestis* from different burial areas of plague victims, up to and including mapping [a near-complete genome](_URL_0_). This supports the idea that bubonic plague was definitely present at that time, and keeps it in strong contention for being the key agent of Black Death. \nAs those scientists partially acknowledge, this is only a first step as the epidemiological analysis, the connection to the plentiful historical accounts, what other diseases may have interacted with it, environmental/nutritional/etc factors, and (relevant to this discussion) the means of transmission are still up in the air. But I think it's important to keep in mind the limitations of medical history and retroactive diagnosis and what that might mean in assessing what role the Mongols may have played. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7370/full/nature10549.html"
]
] |
|
9z4xhr | If the USSR was an atheist state, why is the Eastern Orthodox Church so well represented in Russia today? | After decades of imposed atheism, why is the church still so strong there? Was it an underground thing, a revival of faith, or something else? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9z4xhr/if_the_ussr_was_an_atheist_state_why_is_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ea7chsx"
],
"score": [
688
],
"text": [
"It was something else.\n\nYour question is mostly about the current state of things, and I'm not sure that there are some historical research about it but you don't have an answer yet and I'll try to do my best.\n\nIt's hard to answer your question because it's hard to have a good definition of what is 'strong', what is 'faith', what is 'revival' and so on. I'll try to do my best, but please, bear in mind, that my definitions could be very different from yours.\n\nFirst of all, atheistic approach in the USSR was relatively successful. Despite some underground movements (i.e. catacomb churches) at the end of 1970s soviet european population was mostly agnostic/atheistic, especially in the big cities. It was relatively hard and inconvenient to be a true believer because one could easily have some problems at the workplace for any church-related activities. You won't go to jail if you decided to baptise your kid, but it'd be strange to explain your party comrades why would you even think about it. So if you want to have a good career, you won't do that or you would try to do that very, very quietly.\n\nAs a result you have several generations of people who don't really know what the church is (and, mostly, don't really care). But I have to say that Russian Orthodox Church was still strong at the time because you can't kill such an organization in one day, and it had millions of true believers (who were attending churches regularly and who were reading the Bible). At the same time a lot of non-attenders would say (if you asked them) that they believe in God, and they had baptised their kids, and they're russian orthodox, but I don't know if these people should be counted at all.\n\nBut the numbers weren't so bad for the Church, anyway. In 1937 42% of the population said they belongs to the Orthodox church ([link](_URL_3_), and 1937 was a very bad year to believe in God in Russia, so the real numbers would be higher if people weren't afraid).\n\nIt seems that WWII was a factor for the Church revival. For example, there were 596 newborns in Samara (then Kuybishev) in January 1945. 356 kids were baptised the same month (not including crypto- or hidden baptismes). Hundreds of thousands were attending Easter services in Moscow (1944) and so on. \n\nAfter the war (actually, during the war) life became much easier for the Russian Orthodox Church. It wasn't easy in any way, and it depended on the current ruler (Khrustschov was bad, Brezhnev wasn't so bad) but it was easier and it was safer and you wouldn't go to jail just because you read the Bible.\n\nIt all changes at the end of Perestroyka (1988-1990). I believe that it was partly based on the desire to go back to russian cultural roots (Church, Russian empire and so on). But it wasn't the only factor. The thing is, people were hungry for some spiritual guidance, and they wanted some religion in their lives. Or even magic. For example, it was the time when TV-preachers and TV-healers became very popular: you could sit before your TV set and Alexander Kashpirovsky would heal all your diseases in 15 minutes by speaking some words ([video](_URL_0_)), or you could put a can with water before your TV set and Allan Chumak will charge your water with positive energy (and this water would heal all your diseases if you'd drink it — [actually, it's fascinating](_URL_2_)). Books by Blavatskaya (theosophy stuff) or Rerich (Agni Yoga) or Karma's Diagnostics by Sergey Lazarev were extremely popular as well.\n\nIt was absolutely crazy but people wanted that and people were ready for that (contrary to the popular belief so-called *samizdat* wasn't only about dissident literature — actually, I think it was mostly about completely other stuff, and some of the most popular underground xeroxed books in the late USSR were books by Erich von Deniken and Life after Life by Dr. Moudy, so people were ready for the magic even if this magic looked completely ridiculous).\n\nWould you call all these people orthodox or even christian? A lot of them would say they believe in God, if you'd asked them. I don't have an answer.\n\nIt's too long, so I'll try to make it shorter:\n\n1. USSR was an atheist state, but the result of all this atheist propaganda was not an atheism per se but de-christianization. \n2. A lot of soviet (and, later, russian) citizens would say they're orthodox but they're talking mostly about some primitive cultural codes — you have to baptise your kid, you have to paint eggs on Easter and eat some rice on Christmas. Oh, and also don't kill anyone, it's bad. And don't steal. And don't forget to put an icon in your car — Saint Nicholas will help you if something happens (this tradition is extremely popular even now).\n3. Russian Orthodox Church is really powerful now, because it is actively supported by the Russian authorities (it wasn't a thing with the USSR, it was vice versa) and because it's the real owner of these culture codes.\n4. A lot of people would say they're orthodox, but most of them haven't read the Bible so it's up to you whether to count them or not.\n\nAs the last evidence, I want to show you the results of the sociological survey from 2017 ([link](_URL_1_)).\n\n42% of people who called themselves orthodox christians *don't* believe in God (or not so sure about it)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://youtu.be/oFDMJ3KkKrg?t=2316",
"https://www.levada.ru/2017/11/16/17049/",
"https://youtu.be/62u8m7bJDGs?t=318",
"http://www.hist.msu.ru/Science/Conf/lomweb01/truhin.htm"
]
] |
|
114q6z | Did other countries at the time, know what was going on in Nazi Germany with 'the Final Solution' and other crimes against humanity? | If so what and when did they do about it, if anything at all? Also did the allies do anything similar such as medical experiements on humans or is it the case of if it happened we will never find out? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/114q6z/did_other_countries_at_the_time_know_what_was/ | {
"a_id": [
"c6jbovu",
"c6jbwb5",
"c6jcdvr",
"c6jcyww",
"c6jd7in",
"c6je02u"
],
"score": [
17,
30,
6,
15,
10,
3
],
"text": [
"The British and Soviets certainly knew about it by 1943, but didn't publicise it for the sake of preventing the Nazis from speeding the process up.",
" The United States-led human experiments conducted in Guatemala from 1946 to 1948. [here.](_URL_0_)\nAlso. [Unethical human experimentation in the United States.](_URL_1_)\n\nEdit: what, people don't like reading facts?",
"A book related to this: [Official Secrets] (_URL_0_)\nBreitman concludes \"yes.\" He reissued it last year as I recall with some updates.",
"As I understand it, reports from resistance fighters and escapees came in, and aerial photographs had been taken of some of the camps, but the extent to which they were death camps rather than just large prisons with harsh conditions wasn't clearly understood, simply because the idea of extermination camps was so unprecedented. ",
"Yes, the allies knew. I would say the short answer is that the Allies primary goal was winning the war and not (or not always) stopping the genocide. They certainly knew about it before 1943, it's hard to say exactly when (a lot of the intelligence files esp. Soviet ones remain sealed). Various elements of the allies knew about it but its one thing for British code breakers to overhear extermination orders and another to convince the British government that it is legitimate and to officially act on it. \n\nThe Czech government in exile (with the assistance of the British SOE) assassinated Richard Heydrich in 1942. At that time he was the executor of the Final Solution, chaired the Wannsee Conference and Hitler's most likely successor. Did they do this to stop the Final Solution? No, it was done primarily to confer legitimacy on the Czech government in exile. This is what I meant up there by winning the war (or other ambitions) being the primary goal over stopping the Holocaust, in many cases at least. \n\n",
"There are some helpful answers in this [similar thread](_URL_0_)."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_experimentation_in_the_United_States"
],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Official-Secrets-Planned-British-Americans/dp/0809001845/ref=la_B000APSJWQ_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1349703483&sr=1-1"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/108uh4/during_world_war_two_to_what_extent_were_people/"
]
] |
|
43c4fa | Did the German occupation of the Baltic states vary from the rest of the Soviet Union? | Given that the Soviet Union only occupied the Baltic states only about a year before the Germans, and Reichskommissariat Ostland was established as a distinct area, were they treated any differently by the German administration? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/43c4fa/did_the_german_occupation_of_the_baltic_states/ | {
"a_id": [
"czh81un"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"One thing that really stands out is the way the Lithuanians were very willing to join the Germans in their war to exterminate Jews in Eastern Europe. This did not mean the Germans were any easier on the Lithuanians than other Slavic nations the Nazis overran during World War II. The details can be found in the book \"Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin\" by Timothy Snyder. The Baltics states were treated harshly by the Germans, but the Poles, Belorussians and Ukrainians were treated even worse. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
17qeal | How much truth is there to Rasputins death story(s)? | It seems like every time I reread the Wikipedia entry on him, I either find new information, or find that previous information is disputed.
So much of it seems beyond belief.
So what's fact and what's fiction? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17qeal/how_much_truth_is_there_to_rasputins_death_storys/ | {
"a_id": [
"c881oh0"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"I personally haven't done much research into it, but from what I have learnt, they are just legends. Some level of luck can allow people to survive improbable circumstances, of course, but it is very unlikely. It is much more likely that, as quite an imfamous figure at the time, it has slowly become embellished and so on.\n\nI'd also like to point out that (I'm almost certain) they have his penis on display somewhere.\n\nEDIT: NSFL [Rasputin's penis](_URL_0_)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2009/10/1/11/rasputins-preserved-penis-15273-1254410264-5.jpg"
]
] |
|
4d8t9n | What was it like being a homosexual in 1950s U.S.? How did homosexuals find eachother? | [deleted] | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4d8t9n/what_was_it_like_being_a_homosexual_in_1950s_us/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1p3q39"
],
"score": [
81
],
"text": [
"This [thread](_URL_5_) has a few good comments on this. Surprisingly it seems that not a lot has been talked about gay life in this era on AH.\n\nBeing gay in the 1950s was difficult... to say the very least. As you can see from this [1950s PSA](_URL_2_) gay behavior in the US was viewed in mainstream culture as predatory, vile, and criminal. An evident example of this can be seen in the Lavender Scare, the lesser know corollary to the Red Scare in the 50s & 60s. In 1953, President Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10450 which outlawed gays from working in the federal government. This caused a massive federal witch hunt to investigate employees suspected of gay behavior, ultimately resulting in 5000+ gay men and women losing their jobs, many of whom were veterans in WW2. Executive Order 10450 was not removed until 1995 under Bill Clinton, only to be replaced by the much derided Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.\n\nThe primary method for how gay people found each other, at least for gay men, was through gay bars. These bars were typically known to be gay by word-of-mouth, where either the entire bar, or back dance rooms in the bar, were understood to be specifically for gay people. Gay bars moved around a lot though, as they would close down often and new ones would have to spring up to replace the old ones. This was typically due to police interference. Part of the way people kept a gay bar running consistently was through paying off the police, or hiring the Mafia. Cruising, walking/driving around a public location to find a sex partner, was also popular among gay men (although I'm not sure what time period this became popular). \n\nPrint culture also saw a surge in literary representation for gay people in the 50s. Magazines like ONE, for gay men, and The Ladder, for lesbians, would list addresses of gay gathering places. These gathering places, along with various house parties were more popular meeting places for lesbians and POC. Lesbian bars did exist but women typically weren't very free to roam around town alone at this time and because of segregation few POC occupied the same spaces as white people.\n\nThis is extremely brief, but hopefully it gives you a better idea of gay life in the 1950s.\n\nAlso, just a note: most, if not all, gay people (men, women, trans) prefer the term gay over homosexual. I would suggest using that term instead when asking questions about people, even historical. As you can see from the videos I've linked, the term homosexual has often been used as a derogatory, animal-like term by popular media in the US (e.g. [CBS Reports 'The Homosexuals'](_URL_4_)).\n\n\n**Sources:**\n\n[Creating a Place For Ourselves: Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Community Histories](_URL_1_)\n\n[The Lavender Scare]\n(_URL_3_)\n\nAlso, an excellent autobiographical read which delves into being a lesbian as a POC from the 40s onward is Audre Lorde's [Zami: A New Spelling of My Name](_URL_0_)\n\nEdit: Spelling, switched links to WorldCat"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.worldcat.org/title/zami-a-new-spelling-of-my-name/oclc/18190883&referer=brief_results",
"https://www.worldcat.org/title/creating-a-place-for-ourselves-lesbian-gay-and-bisexual-community-histories/oclc/35638247&referer=brief_results",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17u01_sWjRE",
"https://www.worldcat.org/title/lavender-scare-the-cold-war-persecution-of-gays-and-lesbians-in-the-federal-government/oclc/52197376&referer=brief_results",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2UNcDHa5ao",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ogkjm/how_were_gay_people_treated_in_the_united_states/"
]
] |
|
21phbe | Starting Medieval History how? | How would I start to learn about Medieval History? What books should I buy? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21phbe/starting_medieval_history_how/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgfa74w",
"cgfa8nv",
"cgfac9z"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You're talking about 1000 years of human history over the span of a continent, so that's pretty vague.\n\nTell me what brings you to the subject, and I can make some recommendations.",
"What is your background to medieval history? \n\nAre you high school, college, post graduate?",
"Is there also a particular country you are speaking of? for example, the Medieval history of Spain is very different than say, the Medieval history of Denmark."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5qazal | Big fan of the Durant's Story of Civilization. Out of curiosity, should this series still be read for info, or just as historiographical literature? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5qazal/big_fan_of_the_durants_story_of_civilization_out/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcxr887"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I can only speak to the portions that I've listened to (I got *Age of Faith* on Audiobook) on Islam, but on those he is very clearly a non-specialist. It has not aged well and doesn't even compare well to its contemporaries, as quite a lot of those (by specialists) are still quite worthwhile."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits