Dataset Preview
The full dataset viewer is not available (click to read why). Only showing a preview of the rows.
The dataset generation failed
Error code:   DatasetGenerationError
Exception:    ArrowInvalid
Message:      Failed to parse string: ' what kind of picture should one include? No two oak trees will look the same (though they will look similar)' as a scalar of type int64
Traceback:    Traceback (most recent call last):
                File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/builder.py", line 1870, in _prepare_split_single
                  writer.write_table(table)
                File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/arrow_writer.py", line 622, in write_table
                  pa_table = table_cast(pa_table, self._schema)
                File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/table.py", line 2292, in table_cast
                  return cast_table_to_schema(table, schema)
                File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/table.py", line 2245, in cast_table_to_schema
                  arrays = [
                File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/table.py", line 2246, in <listcomp>
                  cast_array_to_feature(
                File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/table.py", line 1795, in wrapper
                  return pa.chunked_array([func(chunk, *args, **kwargs) for chunk in array.chunks])
                File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/table.py", line 1795, in <listcomp>
                  return pa.chunked_array([func(chunk, *args, **kwargs) for chunk in array.chunks])
                File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/table.py", line 2102, in cast_array_to_feature
                  return array_cast(
                File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/table.py", line 1797, in wrapper
                  return func(array, *args, **kwargs)
                File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/table.py", line 1949, in array_cast
                  return array.cast(pa_type)
                File "pyarrow/array.pxi", line 996, in pyarrow.lib.Array.cast
                File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/pyarrow/compute.py", line 404, in cast
                  return call_function("cast", [arr], options, memory_pool)
                File "pyarrow/_compute.pyx", line 590, in pyarrow._compute.call_function
                File "pyarrow/_compute.pyx", line 385, in pyarrow._compute.Function.call
                File "pyarrow/error.pxi", line 154, in pyarrow.lib.pyarrow_internal_check_status
                File "pyarrow/error.pxi", line 91, in pyarrow.lib.check_status
              pyarrow.lib.ArrowInvalid: Failed to parse string: ' what kind of picture should one include? No two oak trees will look the same (though they will look similar)' as a scalar of type int64
              
              The above exception was the direct cause of the following exception:
              
              Traceback (most recent call last):
                File "/src/services/worker/src/worker/job_runners/config/parquet_and_info.py", line 1417, in compute_config_parquet_and_info_response
                  parquet_operations = convert_to_parquet(builder)
                File "/src/services/worker/src/worker/job_runners/config/parquet_and_info.py", line 1049, in convert_to_parquet
                  builder.download_and_prepare(
                File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/builder.py", line 924, in download_and_prepare
                  self._download_and_prepare(
                File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/builder.py", line 1000, in _download_and_prepare
                  self._prepare_split(split_generator, **prepare_split_kwargs)
                File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/builder.py", line 1741, in _prepare_split
                  for job_id, done, content in self._prepare_split_single(
                File "/src/services/worker/.venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/datasets/builder.py", line 1897, in _prepare_split_single
                  raise DatasetGenerationError("An error occurred while generating the dataset") from e
              datasets.exceptions.DatasetGenerationError: An error occurred while generating the dataset

Need help to make the dataset viewer work? Make sure to review how to configure the dataset viewer, and open a discussion for direct support.

title
string
content
string
post_score
int64
top_comment
string
comment_score
int64
Unnamed: 5
null
Unnamed: 6
null
Unnamed: 7
null
Unnamed: 8
null
Unnamed: 9
null
Unnamed: 10
null
Unnamed: 11
null
Historical accuracy of McCarthy's "Blood Meridian"
I recently read Cormac McCarthy's *Blood Meridian*, and I'm interested in opinions regarding the historical accuracy of the novel's depiction of the Glanton gang and general circumstances of mid-19th century life. I understand McCarthy based the novel largely on Samuel Chamberlain's *My Confession: The Recollections of a Rogue*. I'd love to read it, but available copies are currently out of my price range. I'd appreciate any recommendations for books or resources describing mid- to late 19th century life in the American Southwest. I'd also be interested in books other than Chamberlain's detailing the exploits of the Glanton gang.
58
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fgl02 According to the Texas Historical Association, Glanton and his gang did contract with authorities in Chihuahua to hunt Indians, and Glanton did kill Mexicans for extra scalps. He also eventually seized the ferry crossing and was attacked by the Yuma Indians. I own a copy of Chamberlain's book published by the Texas Historical Society, a great massive hardback which includes water color paintings by Chamberlain as well. Very entertaining, but Chamberlain is a known liar as a few claims involving his presence at various battles have proven false. Many of his stories such as the Mad Priests massacre of young women came second hand, and another encounter with a ghost was likely fueled by mescaline. McCarthy likely used Chamberlain's memoir primarily as a source for Judge Holden, as it is the only historical account of the Judge existing. One interesting account from the memoir is Judge Holden lecturing the Glanton Gang on geology. The scientific knowledge of Judge Holden seems advanced to me, and the Glanton Gang disregards the Judges views on the age of the Earth because it differs from the Bible.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Is it possible that the purported mass suicide atop Masada was just a product of Josephus' writing? Could something else have gone down up there?
I.e., Jew/Roman scribe Josephus decides it might be prouder for his (former?) people to go out in suicide, rather than describing the rapes and slaughters that actually occurred. Or that the Romans/history would rather think the Jews broke their own rule, and even the mighty Sicarii assassins were afraid to take on their men... and, as his is the only account... i am aware that there is archeological evidence that lots were cast, my dad participated in the excavation with Yadin back in the day, and I have been there to see the sun rise more than once and hear the story of the suicide ad nauseam... but... couldn't those stones with names have been used for other purposes? Isn't the fact that Josephus tells a similar story about a siege at Jotapata suspicious, or was that the way mass suicides were/are done? I wrote a paper on it in college, I think they cast lots in the siege at Jotapata too... anyway, was curious for more opinions, thanks.
99
According to Kenneth Atkinson, there is no "archaeological evidence that Masada's defenders committed mass suicide." Zuleika Rodgers, ed. (2007). Making History: Josephus And Historical Method. BRILL. p. 397. [Serious doubt](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201113.html) has been cast on some of the conclusions of the original excavations.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How many europeans (soldiers and civilians) actually spoke English in WWII?
In films, it's pretty common to see at least someone who speaks decent English when american troops arrive at a certain place. Is that accurate? Was it easy to find someone who spoke the language in Europe at that time?
108
Forgive my intrusion, but could you cite your sources? Even though by the Second World War the English language had gained substantial influence in Europe, French was still the main language of communication and diplomacy. French had yet to be replaced as *the* lingua franca of Europe.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
When a town was looted in ancient times, how agressive were looting soldiers to eachother?
In ancient times, the looting of enemy towns by victorious armies was quite common. When the soldiers enter the town and begin their looting, how do they behave to eachother? I mean, would they attack their fellow soldiers to snatch the loot from them? I could imagine that happening out of greed. So how agressive were looting soldiers to eachother?
52
In late medieval English armies (from around 1370 onwards) the division of spoils was part of the contract of service men signed with their captains/the royal household. The king would get 1/3 of the personal loot of every captain. 1/3 of 1/3 of each soldier's spoils also went to the king if the value of their spoils were worth over 10 marks. Soldiers could take enemy prisoners for ransom on their own initiative, but if the captured foe was of sufficient importance (like the king of France, his relatives, and direct subordinates), they were to be handed over directly to the king. The unwritten rule was that the king would compensate you for taking your prisoner, but there were no explicit rules about how much that compensation would be.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Can you help my students think outside of the box for their History Day projects?
I currently teach World History in an Alternative Learning Environment at the high school level. Some of my students are competing in the 2014 History Day competition. Their projects have moved on to the State level, and they are in the process of fine-tuning them. One issue facing them, however, is research fatigue. They have been working tirelessly on their projects since November, and most of them feel that they have reached a dead end with their projects. Any and all help would be appreciated, as I am also exhausted at this point. In return for your help, I will have the students list you in the credits for their projects. If you want to share an address, I will also have them write and send a Thank You note, as I'm trying to teach them both perseverance and gratitude. Here are their topics and focuses: - Alan Turing (conviction for sexual indecency, wartime efforts, British law regarding homosexuality in the 1950's) - The Little Rock Nine (school desegregation, issues with integration into the military, other prominent school integration stories) - Right to a Fair Trial (6th amendment, state law regarding due process in Oklahoma, appellate processes, maximum sentencing practices) - Malcolm X (his erasure from Civil Rights history, the dichotomy between Malcolm X and Dr. King, speech transcripts and/or recordings) - America's efforts to end polio (quotes, results of efforts, video clips, audio) I am absolutely not asking for you to do their projects. Rather, I ask for guidance for them. Send them in a direction that you think would help them, but let them discover it. Archives and databases for primary sources are also helpful, but allow the students to interpret the sources themselves. I'm really proud of these students for their work, and I would hate for them to stop pushing themselves. Just point them in the right direction. Thank you for any and all help. If there is any interest in this post, I will link to some of their projects in progress, along with a link to our school website.
53
When I was an undergrad, one of my art history/classics/archaeology profs told our class that papers about a particular sculpture didn't interest him. He wanted to know about the toenails on a statue, he said. He wanted to know something unique and insightful. He wanted us to drill down to something extremely specific and then work our way back out from there. Sometimes it was difficult to pick out really particular things before you'd already delved into the material, but once you did, it had a way of really making the research and learning process more interesting. On the toenail example, you might start by just looking at this single statue's tonails, but then you end up looking at the evolution of toes/feet in sculpture generally, and how this particular artist excelled/sucked at this challenge. Or maybe you end up investigating the technique of sculpting that particular part. Or maybe you look at the cultural/artistic biases shown by the detailing on the toes versus the detailing of the face/genitals/hands, etc. As a senior classics/religion major, I ended up looking at the policies and partition systems in Byzantine double (coed) monasteries. It was a ridiculous paper about a phenomenon we have very little information on, but it was a great project for an undergrad to work on. It ended up giving me some insight on all kinds of things related to monastic life and the evolution of monastic architecture that I never would have had if I'd stayed at a more general question (ie. what was monastic life like in the Bzyantine empire?). Your students have been looking at this material for a long time. Ask them to pick out 2-3 really small things in their research that they'd like to zoom in on. Then alter the direction of the project to be about that specific issue/aspect, and the project as it stands will be the background for that more focused work. The two awesome things about this style of work are: * As a researcher, you are really pushing yourself and your ability to find good sourcing and you tend to learn a lot of interesting esoteric information as you go down the rabbit hole. * As a presenter (conference, contest, journal), you tend to be exposing the judges to information they haven't seen before. History teachers should all know about the Little Rock Nine. How many of them will know about Ernest Green's background as an Eagle Scout? How did the scouts deal with segregation then? How was his experience as a Senior different from the other nine? How did his experience shape his work as Sec of Labor under Carter? That kind of info is more likely to engage a judge than well-researched material that they have seen before. TL;DR: Get more focused. Ridiculously focused.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
In the context of historical and historians' usage of the label "empire", is it useful to see U.S., Chinese, or Russian empires existing in the world today?
I know this is complex question, with many answers depending partly on the definition of 'empire' one uses. What I'm really interested in figuring out is what the contours of a debate like this would be -- partly because I'm interested in asking students studying the history of modern empires this question in the last week of class.
55
Thank you for all of the comments. Would it help if I told you the definition of empire we are working with in the class? (You can critique the definition, with pleasure, but we needed something with which to work...) "Empire is an agglomeration of multiple polities and diverse populations bound together in an uneven relationship in which one polity exercises significant control over the others and, in many cases, claims sole sovereignty over all of the polities. This relationship is characterized by an intricate network of political, economic, cultural, legal, communication, and demographic ties. An empire is born when disparate polities or peoples becomes suborned to a dominant polity. It can be said to have ceased to exist when the constituent polities re-establish sovereignty over themselves or become so integrated into the dominant polity that there is no longer any significant difference between them either by law or in practice. In many cases, however, one empire segues into another, a process that is denoted by the transfer of the imperial metropole to a new location." What I will be asking students is whether the U.S., China, or Russia fit this definition TODAY. However, I don't want to restrict y'all from also answering the question within the context of your own definitions of empire, if you prefer.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
On old maps, why is the Red Sea colored Red while other bodies (incl. the Black Sea) remain colorless?
Here are two maps I'm referencing: [Pierre Desceliers' planisphere. Arques, 1550](http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/mapsviews/desceliers/large17690.html) [Battista Agnese 1564](http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/unvbrit/m/001add000025442u00004000.html)
87
[Jo Mano actually wrote a paper on coloring that she gave at the Association for American Geographers mid-Atlantic meeting last year.](http://www.msaag.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/3_Mano.pdf) See pp. 24-25. In short, it's connected to older conventions that refer to the Biblical naming of the sea as red, and so it's a common convention from medieval T-O maps and other *mappaemundi* as well. Remember that most geographers producing these maps, and most of the people buying the prints, would never lay eyes on the Red Sea. Therefore they placed great stock on classical and Biblical accounts and the reflection of those things on the map, and such maps would presumably reflect a more learned (and thus reliable) cartographer if they included that convention which learned people expected to see. As you might imagine, this would be a bit confusing to those who *did* actually go visit the place, so it took time to die out even after Portuguese activity was commonplace in the area. [edit: Obviously there are a lot of maps that are uncolored entirely, or missing this convention, so it wasn't universal--but it was a recognized part of a map as a text.]
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Why were there so many cults between the 1960s and the 1980s?
I'm really curious if anyone has an answer as to why there seemed to be so many large cults between 1960s and the 1980s. Is it media sensationalizing a more common event or were there factually more large-congregation cults in those years than in the past and in more recent decades? When I think of cults I think of violent/suicidal cults like the Manson Family, Jonestown, Waco Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate, (Scientology?) but also some of the more "benign" cults like alien worshippers the Raelians, Christian cults like the Moonies. Almost all of these movements began, reached their peak, and petered out between 1960 and 1980, I know of them survive to contemporary times, but if I'm not mistaken those are the outliers. Are there any ideas as to why this is so, or is my perspective a little skewed?
56
Not a historian, and let the downvotes commence (and I gladly defer to real historians), but I felt like examining the assumptions of the question. Let's look at your examples: * [Manson family](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson): 1960s * [Jonestown](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown): 1970s * [Waco Branch Dividians](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Davidians): 1950s-1990s * [Heaven's Gate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_%28religious_group%29): 1970s-1990s * [Scientology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology): 1950s-present * [Raelians](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raelians): 1970s-present * [Moonies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonies): 1950s-present Just looking at these, while two did peak during 1960-1980, it seems like that's not the norm. I'm also not saying that these are the only examples that should be considered; I couldn't tell you what 1920s or 1930s cults aren't on this list. Were there so many cults between the 1960s and the 1980s?
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Any Thai Historians here? Can you help with a family puzzle?
My grandmother was half Thai. She has stories of growing up in Bangkok in the 30's...being tied to her chair to finish her food, her feet were bound, etc... As some of you may be aware, there were a number of coups d'etats during the 30's, and my grandmother was caught up in one. She was five or so years old and was ushered out of the country with her mother, hiding in the footspace of a car, whisked to the airport and brought back to the UK. Her father stayed behind and was killed. Only, from what I can discern, the 1930's coups were bloodless. My grandmother asserts that her father was a Thai prince. Her mother was a governess in Bangkok. Look, I know this sounds like the plot of "The King and I", but this is the family history I've grown up with. When my great grandmother returned to England, she settled in Birmingham and held a scholastic position at the University of Birmingham for some time (I forget what right now. I assume this is verifiable, but I haven't put any work into it at this point. Suffice to say, I know that's what she did). My grandmother and her sister were placed in an orphanage. Again, I forget why and this isn't the focus of what I'm asking. What I would like some help with, if anyone can offer it, is with identifying my great grandfather. I have a name. My grandmother's birth certificate has the Father's name as "KROM". I have seen another piece of paper. I forget what is was, but a lengthier name was on it: NAI KURM INKAWANID. My grandmother says the last name is pronounced INGAVAJIAH. The cursory research I've managed to do suggests that NAI KURM is a slightly mangled version of a regal appellation used around that time: NAI, which denoted a Senior page in the court and KROM, which was an honorific given to peers. I have more information on the British part of the story, but that's all i know about the Thai side of things. Hoping someone can throw some light on the subject, as I've come to a grinding halt.
70
Contact the good folks at /r/Genealogy, they are better at this sort of thing than we are. First, start by researching the British end of your Great-grandmother's story. Those records are more likely to be online, while any relevant records in Thailand are probably mildewing away in a forgotten archive, if past rumors about Southeast Asian government archives have any truth to them. Were any of your ancestors of Chinese ancestry? That would complicate the story but also help explain some of the more puzzling aspects.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Why did the Greeks consider Macedon "semi-barbaric" and Epirus as more barbaric than Macedon?
Just to clarify, these were terms I've heard on podcasts, probably either Hardcore History or The Ancient World. Also, did the Macedonians speak Greek or something closely related? Because another podcast, The History of English, claims they didn't, and that would account for their "barbarian" status. If that's the case, what did they speak?
51
The answers here are either incomplete or improperly informed, so I'll help you out on this one. Quite contrary to what /u/rstone2288 claims, the Macedonians were not considered barbarians because of their subjugation by the Achaemenids. First of all, the Macedonian state was a client-state of Persia, not a satrapy, following Mardonius' successful attack on Macedonia and Thrace in 492, although they had been in alliance since at least Persia's nominal conquest of Thrace in 513. During the Second Persian War Macedon remained a client kingdom, assisting Darius in his passage through northern Greece and Thrace under duress, but Alexander I in good Macedonian form tried to play both sides (the Greeks thought of the Argeads as being treacherous and untrustworthy) and provided a great deal of assistance to the Greeks, including personally informing the Greek army encamped in the Vale of Tempe in Thessaly that the Persians could easy march around the Vale and outflank them, allowing the Greeks to retreat to Thermopylae. When Mardonius finally fell back from Macedonia he left the state of Macedon more or less independent. The reasons for the Greek view of the Macedonians is pretty simple. They kind of were a bit backward. Now when I say that what I mean should be very clarified. First of all, there are actually two Macedonias, Upper and Lower Macedonia. Lower Macedonia is mostly the coastal region and it's separated from the Upper Macedonian highlands by a ring of mountains, through which there are only a handful of passes. Upper Macedonia was inhabited almost entirely by non-Greek speakers, mostly Pannonians and various groups related to the Epirotes, Molossians, and Illyrians. Throughout the history of the Macedonian state the upland barons owed some sort of allegiance to the lowland rulers, although just to what degree varied pretty significantly. To the Greeks, and even to the Macedonian rulers, these people were very much barbarians Lower Macedonia is a different matter. The exact composition of Lower Macedonia is pretty knotty and very confused, but it seems mainly to have been inhabited by Thracians and speakers of the Macedonian dialect of Greek, which is extremely backward and archaic. Here's the thing, though. These people, although they spoke a form of Greek, were not really accepted as civilized or Greek by the Greeks proper. Although they shared many traditions with the Greeks and were probably related rather closely with the people who brought the Doric dialect into the Peloponnese their customs and speech were extremely backwards by the Classical Period. The Macedonians preserved many customs that had died out sometime during the Dark Age, or sometimes even earlier, and in many cases their practices were more akin to those of the barbaric Thracians than to Greeks. These were people who preserved the old function of the *wanax*, the lordlings in the system of vassalage we see in Homer, long after they died out elsewhere. They preserved the tradition that a man (presumably this was for aristocrats) had to wear a red sash around his waist until he had killed a man in battle. After reclining at table was introduced some time in the Archaic Period or later, diners had to sit at table and were not allowed to recline until they had killed a boar on foot with no traps and nothing but a spear (poor Cassander, although an accomplished hunter, was still sitting in his thirties). The Greeks went so far as to say that the Macedonians didn't mix their wine, which was something only barbarians like the Persians and Thracians did. So in Greek eyes even the Lower Macedonians were not really civilized. What of their rulers? Well, at the Olympic Games in 500, Alexander I was allowed to compete in the foot race after he produced a family tree tracing the Argeads to the Temenids of Argos and eventually back to Heracles, making them Greek. It was a somewhat grudging acknowledgement, mostly on political grounds, and even as late as Demosthenes we find a refusal to really accept that that makes them really Greek. By the Classical Period most Greeks seem to have accepted the story, even if they didn't accept that that made them real true Greeks--Herodotus tells the story of how Perdiccas and his brothers fled from Argos to Illyria and Macedonia with a perfectly straight sense of honesty (although it's debated just how the ruling class was related to the Greeks most scholars think it's more likely that they were related to the Dorians who swept south, rather than any pre-Dorian refugees). So the ruling class, at least, was acknowledged to be sort-of Greek. Basically, it's complicated, partly because Macedon was a state comprised of a very small number of rulers lording over a vastly more diverse group of countless cultural groups and sub-groups. The ruling class, although nominally Greek, was considered treacherous and untrustworthy, resembling in their morality barbarians like the sneaky Thracians more than Greeks (they really kind of were untrustworthy. One scholar of the Peloponnesian War handily provides a chart to help readers figure out who the hell Macedon was allied with at any given moment in the war--sometimes they changed allegiance several times in a year, depending on who was winning!). Although the Macedonians had accepted a lot of Greek customs, or preserved a lot of customs that the Greeks had abandoned long ago, that didn't really cut it. As Green notes, the veneer of Greekness even on the ruling class was very thin, limited more or less to a few very artificially contrived customs that had been adopted, the awkward use of Attic or koine among polite company, and the army, which had adopted even before Philip some customs used by the Thessalians (/u/rstone2288's characterization of the pre-Philippic army is *extremely* unfair and very inaccurate. Although infantry levies in most of the baronies of the Macedonian state were primarily light infantry carrying slings and javelins, the Macedonians had adopted early in the 5th Century a corps, several thousand strong, of "Foot Companions," equipped and fighting as hoplites to serve as the backbone of the army)
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Why was there Macedonian resentment towards "the successors"?
The successors to my knowledge were 30,000 Iranian boys who were basically kidnapped and placed into the Macedonian army as part of Alexander's Fusion Policy. Why did the Macedonian's in the army feel resentment towards them? Were they being directly replaced? Did they see this as disrespectful? Thanks for any help x
53
While I will leave the details to someone better suited I can refer you to an explanation given by J. R. Hamilton in the introduction of Selincourts translation of Arian the campaigns of Alexander. While the exact belief and intentions of Alexander can never be known it is recorded that in his prayer at Opis he wished that "Macedonians and Persians might live in harmony and jointly rule the empire". In other words Alexanders wished the Macedonians to see their now conquered opponents as their equals. This flied in the face of everything the soldiers grew up on that the Persians were uncultured barbarians who posed a threat to their freedom and who they where fighting to avenge the atrocity's committed against them in the previous war. Hamilton writes that Alexanders teacher Aristotle is said by Plutarch to have "written to Alexander advising the young king to behave towards the Greeks as a leader but towards the "barbarians" as a master". This gives insight into the feelings of the time that the Persians were not their equals or comrade in arms but conquered foes who should be treated as lesser beings. To add to all this is a second insult in that Alexanders soldiers who had fought by Alexanders side from battle to battle and siege to siege felt they were being unceremoniously replaced by the next generation (by barbarians no less) who didn't suffer with them against all the odds but where instead becoming the soldiers who would reap in the glory that they had fought for. i.e the old guard can tend to resent the new guard at even the best of times. In conclusion Alexander had already taken on Persian manners and dress so, while he *might* have wished to train the Persian boys in the Macedonian style of fighting to show his loyalty to His homeland, it was still seen as an in bulk replacing of the soldiers who had won him his empire by his new beloved young Persians.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How was Otto Von Bismarck viewed in East and West Germany?
null
58
In the one narrative he was seen as a wise statesman whose death paved the way to WW1 and on the other one he was regarded as the architect of a *Prussian* Germany responsible for national socialism. During the 100th anniversary of Germany there was a dispute in the GDR, between [Neues Deutschland](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neues_Deutschland) and [Junge Welt](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junge_Welt). He was condemned in the former and praised in the latter. Source: *Alexander Fischer and Günther Heydemann, Geschichtswissenschaft in der DDR., West Berlin: Duncker &amp; Humblot, 1988.*
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
What exactly caused the Bengal famine of 1943 and how much is Churchill to blame for it ?
The topic of Churchill's famine "secret war" comes up quite often on Reddit, but I've never found a satisfactory answer that didn't seem biased in some way. The wikipedia article on the 1943 famine: [link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943) - the article is marked as disputed. There appear to be a lot of theories floating around that Churchill actually engineered a genocide, with justifications along the lines of him being racist (which I feel are somewhat irrelevant). And then the topic usually devolves into accusations of being a genocide sympathizer or on Indian forums accusations of being a traitor, or just "Churchill was as bad as Hitler". (a lot of Indians liked S.C.Bose a lot, who was seen as a counterpoint to Gandhi, and he sided with Hitler - so there is an agenda to make Churchill seem equally evil). Unfortunately this sort of thing almost inevitably happens in any discussion on this subject, and everything about the famine (the cyclones, the brown rot, the economics) all get dismissed. The economist Amartya Sen seems to have taken a stance on the famine similar to the wikipedia post, arguing that urban economics was largely to blame. There also seems to be some dispute amongst Indian historians, with some essentially echoing the wikipedia/Sen view, and others saying that the British actively chose not to help Bengal, or that the role of the cyclone and brown rot was minimal.
67
The famine is very much real. The estimation of the number of victims range from about 1 to 4 million. The famine was the result of an unlikely set of circumstances. Bengal was not self-sufficient in food. A lot was imported for the artisans and craftsmen making their living there. One of the primary breadbaskets of Bengal was Burma, which was over-run by the Japanese January-May 1942. The harvest of Bengal itself and nearby regions was bad due to the brown rot, the cyclones and other circumstances, further worsening the problems. The British also siezed or boats, tugs and other vessels in the region to prevent their use by the Japanese to cross the Salween and Chindwin rivers, where the last British line of defence was placed. This prevented riverine and coastal shipment of food, which would be the normal way to transport food in the region. The origin of the famine was a failed harvest and the loss of Burma. It was worsened by the British seizure or destruction of riverine and coastal shipping vessels. However, the main blame for the British lies in the callous indifference to the famine that both the local civilian authorities and the central government in London. Wheat was shipped from Australia to Ceylon for further transport to Egypt to be stockpiled for an eventual relief effort for the famine in the Balkans (created by the Germans by seizing the harvests there) but remained until late 1944 when the British landed in Greece. Churchill certainly did not engineer the famine in Bengal, but he was ultimately responsible for the lack of a relief effort for it.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Where did the practice of thanking people come from? Is there a rough equivalent to "thank you" and "you're welcome" in most languages or are there other practices? In periods with a more formalized class structure, would one in an elevated social class have thanked someone in a lower class?
null
58
You're in the right place for the first and last question. The middle one might be best suited for /r/linguistics though!
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How common were bounty hunters in the American West?
Were they successful? Were there many? What did they have in common with each other, if anything? Any information about bounty hunters is welcome.
129
hi! there's lots of room for someone to answer your specific questions, but as for "any information about bounty hunters", here are previous posts on that &amp; related topics: * [How often were "Wanted Dead or Alive" criminals returned alive, and how did Dead or Alive bounties actually work?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15ng40/how_often_were_wanted_dead_or_alive_criminals/) * [Were bounty hunters around in the 'Wild West' and were they similar to how pop culture portrays them?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1v7v10/were_bounty_hunters_around_in_the_wild_west_and/) * [Is the concept of a criminal being "wanted dead or alive" historically accurate, or a Hollywood invention?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19ylwq/is_the_concept_of_a_criminal_being_wanted_dead_or/) * [Why are stereotypical depictions of old paper (i.e. Wanted Posters or official documents) shown to be burnt around the edges?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1soegt/why_are_stereotypical_depictions_of_old_paper_ie/)
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How does the level of political polarization in the U.S. today compare to the years just prior to the Civil War?
null
88
This is probably more of a question for /r/Ask_Politics, but I can give you a basic reason why this is so difficult for anyone to answer. The attempt to compare political polarization to pre-Civil War polarization is very, very difficult not only because of the shifting parties, but because of the alterations in culture. For example, today we allow parties like African-Americans and women to vote, whereas before the Civil War we did not. The alterations in the political landscape could conceivably have led to party polarization as parties hoped to move towards things like affirmative action (or against it) in order to better establish a base among the other voting groups that are no longer just "white males" (simplifying, here). The other problem is the question of "How do we measure polarization?" Is it based on how often one votes a party line? Is it based on how many laws get passed vs. filibustered + defeated because compromise couldn't be reached? How accessible are the records on all that, if that's the method, and how are we to measure them in the fluctuating parties as the Republicans and Whigs existed? Also, how does polarization get affected by voter turnout and mass communication changes since then: are we accurately measuring the polarization of *everyone*, or just the politicians? Also, how do we know whether or not polarization has occurred among the general populace, or if we've simply self-sorted to live among people who are like-minded (as some argue California has over the past 3 decades, for example) and thereby contributed to *politician polarization* without *public polarization*? Or, in that self-sorting, did we fall prey to the group polarization effect? It's a difficult question to answer, and it's not one I can give you an answer to. I don't feel qualified, and I don't know any studies on the subject to suggest (most I've seen relate to California, which I learned about, and only about the recent decades), but I hopefully can help clear up *why* this is so difficult to understand and why you may not get an answer. Good luck!
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Are there better job opportunities for historians depending on which history they study? Which fields have more demand?
As in are you better off studying Asian history rather than American history, for example?
53
I can't grab a link right now, but the American Historical Association publishes a report once in a while evaluating the field. Their last was in 2013 and it showed that you do have slightly better odds with an Asian History focus, but if I remember correctly you still have less than a 50% of finding work in academia. Outside of academia, there aren't really any ways to track job success accurately. But in American non-academia there probably isn't great demand for an Asian historian. So basically its a huge risk no matter what you choose and you can't really "plan" a history career anymore. It sort of depends on who you know and your timing, which no one can predict.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How violent/peaceful was the transition of the Holy Land from predominantly Christian in the early centuries after the fall of Rome to predominantly Muslim by the middle ages? In what ways did Eastern Christian civilization influence the Islamic states that succeeded it?
null
84
Hi, I specialize in the Byzantines but I have read quite a bit on the Arab conquest of the Middle East. The transition was at first, a social revolution, not so much of a religious one. In fact, when the Muslims came, the Holy Land and the Middle East contained a plethora of Christian denominations, with the state Orthodox christianity of the Roman/Byzantine Empire being the largest. As the population in the Holy land was predominantly non-Greek, it often viewed Orthodox Christianity associated with the ruling class of Greeks, who made up the core of the empire's population at that time. The empire itself was better off when unified, religion-wise, thus all sects and heresies of Orthodox Christianity were often persecuted, with government approval. Many times there were schisms and even armed revolts due to the differences between the many sects and the state Orthodox church. Other than various types of Christianity, Judaism was also tolerated, but the lives and rights of the jews were highly regulated. Despite the Western Empire falling, the Eastern Roman Empire managed to retain the richest parts of the empire, thus the Imperial administration continued to function without interruption. This was a very effective administration for its time, capable of meticulously levying taxes from the population. These taxes, however, were pre-determined and non-flexible. Thus a natural disaster or war devastation for example, could lead to the affected people being forced to pay the pre-determined amount of tax, leaving them often with nothing to provide themselves with, due to the aforementioned special circumstances. Many subject peoples viewed these taxes as another form of Imperial oppression and this was most likely the case with the native population of the Holy Land as well. Especially in Egypt, the Copts saw Greeks as the overlords and the Orthodox faith as a form of persecution against their Coptic church. The Byzantine-Sasanian war of 602-628 changed many things to the worse. The already substantial tax burden levied by the Imperial government was enlarged even further. Armies of both sides ravaged through Middle East and the Holy Land. The war left the empire weakened and the Holy Land ripe for the taking. As the Muslims conquered the Levant in the first half of the 7th century, most of the population remained Christian. Their conquest of the Byzantine Empire stopped at the gates of Anatolia, much due to the reasons I state in this [answer.](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2axjy1/what_factors_allowed_for_the_sassanids_to_be/cizu0z5) The muslims didn't seek to actively convert the population. Instead, they forced the people of the book, Christians and Jews, to pay the poll tax called Jizya, which they used to finance their state administration and armies. For the population of the area, this was actually a relief, for the Jizya was much lower than the Imperial tax levied by the overlords of Constantinople. The situation for the various of Christian sects also improved. No longer did the Orthodox church rule over them all, but under the Muslim Caliph, all of the different Christian denominations were treated equally. This went for the Jews as well, whose situation was improved significantly by the Muslim conquest. This kind of tolerance was a vital instrument in keeping the Caliphate together. It contributed greatly towards the loyalty of these subjects to their Muslim rulers. There was some resistance towards Muslim rule, especially regarding the many major churches which were converted into mosques. However, this resistance was never major enough to challenge Muslim rule and the major Christian threats came from outside, mostly from the direction of the Byzantines. In fact, Muslim rulers of the Holy Land and the Middle East often used Christian soldiers in their armies and especially in their navies. Needless to say, although the Jizya was a moderate tax, it was a tax still. In time, it prompted the population to slowly convert. This conversion was gradual and began from those who wished to obtain a high status in their society. As for influences the Byzantine Empire had on the Islamic States, certainly, administrative structures were passed on. The tax collection system was inherited from the Byzantine authorities and this was used to collect the Jizya. The muslims were especially keen to imitate Byzantine successes in warfare and tactics. Emperor Leo VI makes a few remarks of this in his military manual *Taktika* (early 10th century), where he states that the Saracen heavy cavalry is almost as good as Roman, but not quite, having adapted Roman tactics and equipment to their own use. As a conclusion, we can say that the Muslim conquerers imposed a policy of tolerance in the Holy Land on a population which had been subjected to heavy Imperial tax and sometimes ethno-religious persecution under Imperial Roman/Byzantine rule. This led to an easy transition of power in the Middle East, in the conqueror's perspective, and paved the way for a gradual conversion of these lands to Islam. I hope this answered your question. For reading, I recommend *The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire* by Edward Luttwak. It quite thoroughly displays what went wrong in the Byzantine administration of the Middle East and I've used it as a source many times. *Warfare, State And Society In The Byzantine World 565-1204* by John Haldon might also offer some good insights on Byzantine-Arab relations. For contemporary sources, see *The Taktika of Leo VI*, attributed to the Byzantine Emperor Leo VI and translated in english by George T. Dennis.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Why weren't the Persians able to use archers and mounted archers to defeat the Greek and Macedonian hoplites?
null
57
While you wait for answers specific to Persians fighting Phalanxes, you might want to check out [this thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/tq8ka/how_effective_was_the_horse_archer_back_in/) about horse archers' strengths and weaknesses in ancient warfare (if you haven't already).
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How "connected" was northern Europe to the Byzantine empire in the 1000's?
I was reading about the varangian guard and it was said that some swedish laws prohibited the inheritance of land if someone was in "greece" (their word for the byzantines). When reading about the varangians, it seems that the world was pretty connected back then. I mean if Swedes had information about available jobs in Constantinople, thats pretty impressive. Could the same be said about the rest of europe? Or was it all an informational backwater zone?
50
First, about the Varangian Guards: It wasn't uncommon for non-Byzantines to be a part of the Varangian Guard. In fact, they were originally from Sweden or Nordic countries. ([source 1](http://books.google.com/books?id=rKj8_W9wL7kC&amp;pg=PA12&amp;dq=The+Varangian+Guard+988-1453#v=onepage&amp;q=%22originally%20recruited%20from%20Norway%20and%20Sweden%22&amp;f=false), [source 2](http://books.google.com/books?id=m-LaiejJocYC&amp;pg=PA248&amp;dq=How+the+Barbarian+Invasions+Shaped+the+Modern+Worldv#v=snippet&amp;q=%22varangian%20guard%22%20viking&amp;f=false)) This has two main causes. One was Emperor Basil II's distrust of Byzantines. That sounds backwards since he was himself Byzantine, but by looking at his history, it makes sense. He had been through rebellions and backstabbings and crusades and more. Through all of that, he had learned to not necessarily trust the Byzantines. He had, however, seen Varangians in Rus (Kiev), and knew that they were reliable. The second reason is that, even though they were Swedes, they weren't always coming from Sweden or whatever Nordic country. Often times, members of the Varangian Guard were came from other militaries. For example, the original Varangian Guard wasn't sent from Northern Europe; they were sent from Kiev (actually as a wedding dowry, but that's not really important here). So, saying that a Swede went to the Byzantine Empire to join the guard wouldn't be entirely accurate. They were probably already active in the area. Second, about the connectivity of Europe in the 1000s: A lot of Europe was connected, and there was lots of travel throughout many countries. The biggest reason, as it often is, was Christianity. The Holy Roman Empire, Kiev, and the Byzantine Empire were some of the most evangelical nations at the time, so they were often spreading the reach of Christianity. Another major contributor to Europe's connectivity was the Kingdom of Hungary. They acted as a major link between the Holy Roman Empire (headed by King Stephen of Hungary's brother-in-law Henry II) and the rest of Europe. The Byzantine Empire's connection to this was through Otto Orseolo of Venice, who was King Stephen of Hungary's sister's husband and also a close ally of Emperor Basil II of the Byzantine Empire, who, you guessed it, was the one who founded the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Empire. Another thing to note would be that these relationships were changing constantly. However, the concept remained the same: Christians want to spread Christianity and they like other people who agree with them. So, as long as Christians were moving throughout Europe, Northern Europeans would have had a chance to connect with Southern Europeans. The exact countries that were allied together may have changed decade-to-decade, but it all worked the same way. **tl;dr: A combination of Christianity and alliances made it possible for most of Europe to be somewhat connected**
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
At what point do the dates of key historical events become ambiguous? What factors contributed to more precision in dating historical events? Were laymen aware of "the date" 2000/1500/1000/500 years ago? Thanks.
null
78
I would expect your final question is quite dependent on 'where.' Middle class Roman citizen? Likely. Anishinaabe transhumant hunter? Unlikely. The precision of dates is heavily limited to the precision of their first recording. A Spanish navigator five hundred years ago is accessing a standardized calendar (the Julian, IIRC) and synchronizing that calendar with other calendars every so often. That synchronization continues, unbroken, into our own calendar, so, less extenuating circumstances (like a loss of synchronization noted in the primary source or a disparity between primary sources) we can assume these dates are exact. On the extreme opposite end you have radiochemical dating which can have a minimum error of millennia. The problem is that histories (where we get a huge balance of our information) are sources written after the fact. In some cases they were collected from interviews, recollection, from traditional narratives, all of which have some degree of inaccuracy, and that is if they're recent enough to synchronize well with a dating system. To my knowledge not every dating system has a "year 1," or [epoch.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_(reference_date\)) The Hebrew calendar's epoch, for example, was established significantly after the Hebrew people began observing certain lunisolar periods and events. As time has gone on it seems as though most calendar systems have adopted epochs for primarily historical reasons. [This thread is absolutely terrific and has extensive discussion toward this very issue.](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19pgf6/what_is_the_earliest_recorded_date_that_we_can/)
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Is there any evidence to democracy in ancient civilizations before the Athenian City state of Ancient Greece?
Edit: The title shoud probably read: "Is there any evidence of democracy in ancient civilizations before the Athenian city state of Ancient Greece?" Sorry about that, mobile fucked it up.
62
It depends on what you want to consider a democracy. Even before the Greek cities the most basic form of government for a village was a council led by the elders where the community can discuss the developments of its politics, at least for the rightful political subjects recognized by that community. This is anyway not democracy as we can think of now, if you think about that it's the prototype of every possible form of government that is born after the prehistoric age, as you can have forms of monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship or democracy born by similar conditions. More so in ancient and medieval times no political leader was completely entitled with absolute power, every king usually must refer at least to a council of nobles or notables from his reign if not at some comunal parliament from all around his country (at least for financial matters ). No dictator was assumed to ignore the will of his community that usually would state limits and temporal extent of his dictatorship. Even the Roman emperor has to consider the humors of the Empire to stay in charge more than a season, squeezed between Senate, Pretorians, the different armies of the empire and the ruthless population scattered all around the roman sphere of influence. On the other hand not even the Greek model was an example of a modern democracy, and even if it presented openings on a larger scale of population (at least in Athens ) still managed to exclude from the political activities many subjects like women, immigrants and people with no property. So, what do you mean for democracy? A council of people of the same place talking about matters of their own community?
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How were disabled veterans treated in Medieval society?
If they lost a leg or an arm, what would happen to them? Assuming they survived the injury, what would they do when they returned home? Would they get money from the king honoring their service? Or were they left to fend for themselves? What jobs could they do?
51
I think you are (perhaps intentionally) conflating modern military service and concepts of veterancy with historical ones. If you are serious in attempting to understand contemporary treatment of 'disability' then you might be interested in the [story of John the Blind, king of Bohemia](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2aknrj/how_did_one_go_about_kidnapping_a_medieval_knight/ciw7qaz).
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How did different soldiers fight side by side in the Crusades while their home nations fought one another?
So, I'm seeing this from the point of view as a Welshman. It's well known that the English and French fought each other for centuries, so how did English and French soldiers not kill each other while fighting side by side in the Crusades? That's not to mention the other countries at ends in the Middle East.
64
Well, the rivalry or enmity between England and France really started during the Hundred Years war, the continuation of that conflict for such a long time made many Englishmen (to use a broad term) dislike Frenchmen (again, broad term, as the Burgundians and Gascons were allied with England for a long time and didn't necessarily see themselves as French). The whole concept of Nationalism didn't appear until later. For example, Richard the Lionheart, the famous Crusader king, was king of England but he didn't stay there longer than 10 months in the entirety of his 10 year reign. He fought side by side with King Philip of France during the crusade but Philip went back early. He waged war with France but he didn't even speak English. Many nobles and kings did speak English as a first or second language though, he probably didn't see himself as English and used his kingdom more as source of revenue. The crusades were still holy wars and knights/soldiers were expected to put aside their own rivalries/enmities. There is no actual report of this being the case for many men but neither do sources say that it happened frequently.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How did mainland China come to be occupied predominately by Han people?
null
57
hi! additional input is welcome, but FYI, you may be interested in a few similar posts * [How did China come to be 90% Han Chinese?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1c16vn/how_did_china_come_to_be_90_han_chinese/) * [Why is such a high proportion of China Han? How has ethnicity developed in China over its history?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/20jc9d/why_is_such_a_high_proportion_of_china_han_how/) * [How did the Han come to dominate China? To what extent was one's ethnicity an important factor in the Communist Party?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2728pv/how_did_the_han_come_to_dominate_china_to_what/) * [What made the Han Chinese so successful as an ethnic group in terms of population?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1igv1m/what_made_the_han_chinese_so_successful_as_an/) * [Is the concept of the Han Chinese race a modern one?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/217whj/is_the_concept_of_the_han_chinese_race_a_modern/)
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
When/Why did citizenship become a "thing"?
Wikipedia defines citizenship as the status of a person recognised under the custom or law of a state that bestows on that person (called a citizen) the rights and the duties of citizenship. * When exactly did citizenship become something of meaning? What were the reasons behind it? * When citizenship first became used...was it used to discriminate other ethnicity?...was it acknowledged by outsiders?...was it generally accepted by the people? * How did this effect the migration of persons from city to city (or state to state)? Were there as strict laws as there are now?
70
Citizenship first came about in the ancient Greek polis. Prior to the Greek invention of citizenship people were bound to their family groups as their strongest tie and they didn't really have a firm bond to their place of living. Greek citizenship changed that by establishing an official bond to their city-state. This type of citizenship arose with the development of *nomos*, or rule of law, as the guiding force behind Greek society. Under nomos every man was bound to the law and none were above it, all were equal in regards to the law within the polis. This equality under the law is what established citizenship. Of course, not everyone was equal, slavery existed and women couldn't be citizens, but everyone had to obey the laws. There is some debate on which city-state first conceived of citizenship, but Athens is usually considered the first. Some historians claim it was Sparta, but they're a minority. Citizenship in Greece had nothing to do with discriminating by ethnicity. Citizenship was acknowledged by other city-states, because they too, had citizenship in their land. There were outsiders that had no concept of it, so if Jason was a citizen of Athens and he went out to meet Jean from Gaul, Jean wouldn't have any idea what Jason meant when he said he was a citizen. Citizenship was accepted by the people of the city-states, because it had to be if they were to be engaged in the political process. Migration and adopting of a new citizenship did happen. Birthright citizenship was the most common method of obtaining citizenship, but if you were a man who wasn't a barbarian you could move to a different city-state and become a citizen in most cases.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Why are haunted housed historically depicted as Victorian-style in pop culture?
That is, what is the origin of the "classic" haunted house with Victorian architecture? Does it stem from early film or a real life attraction? I frequently see the same style haunted house in cartoons, decorations, advertisements, etc. and wonder why there is such a consistency. Edit: Response from /u/Crabrubber led me to Wikipedia, which led me to the website below that describes what I was referring to and provides some additional information. [Horror Style: Why Second Empire Scares You](http://www.tripplannermag.com/index.php/2012/10/horror-style-why-second-empire-scares-you/)
70
The classic Hollywood haunted house from horror movies is French Second Empire style and not the later Victorian/Queen Anne style. The archetypal houses in "Psycho" and "The Addams Family" have clear Second Empire details like a square central tower and mansard roofs. As to why this became the archetypal "horror" style, after the American Civil War, several state mental hospitals were built in this style, such as the [Athens (Ohio) Lunatic Asylum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Lunatic_Asylum) and the [New Jersey State Lunatic Asylum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greystone_Park_Psychiatric_Hospital).
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Is there any factual basis to the 'palm to palm' medieval dance style we see in modern movies and TV?
The dance style I'm referring to is the one where each partner presses one palm to the others' and they move in circles while maintaining eye contact (and exchanging flirtatious banter). Is this just a trope or does it have a historical basis?
62
Factual basis yes. Absolute proof no. We start to have a very good idea of how people danced and dance's from about 1500 on. The documentation from the medieval period is mostly based around court dances, so it's hard to say how the common people danced, but we can trace the steps of the nobility much better then one would expect. It should also be said that "Palm to Palm" is not a feature of every courtly dance, but a specific move in dances that are more about making complicated shapes then dancing in two rows. I've been taking a historical dancing class for the last year and a half in England for my MA.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How dangerous were herbal aboritificients in Western Europe and Central Europe in the high middle ages?
null
52
If you mean dangerous in terms of "effective", then there is decent evidence of widespread knowledge amongst certain groups (midwives and difficult-to-document "wise women", prostitutes) in the later Middle Ages (so, let's say after about 1300) of how to procure a fairly late-term abortion through the use of drugs. I don't see why the same couldn't have been true at an earlier point. It may have been the case that an oral culture of abortifacient birth control existed amongst women (John Riddle argues this), basically for family planning reasons, but the evidence is hard to come by. The archival evidence I've looked at (from the context of prostitution, fifteenth century, southern Germany) shows women demonstrating knowledge of abortifacient drinks where the key ingredients seem to have been cloves, Queen Anne's Lace, and periwinkle, with strong alcohol as a mixing agent. Purely on anecdotal evidence, this seems to have been very effective (I have a yet-to-be-published case from 1471 of a woman aborting at 24 weeks, though not sure how they managed to verify the age of the foetus). **Stuff to read:** John Riddle, *Eve's Herbs* Wolfgang P. Müller, *The Criminalization of Abortion in the West: Its Origins in Medieval Law* Hope that helps!
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Fresno, California is almost always at or near the top of "worst American cities" lists for some attribute. What are the factors in Fresno's history that led to the city's excellence in being so awful?
The title is the queston. Fresno is always at or near the bottom of "best cities for ...." lists, if not the top of "worst cities for ..." lists. Fresno seems to excel at unflattering statistics, but why did it become that way?
76
As a followup question: I live in Modesto, which is nearly always at the bottom of these sorts of list as well, and I'm also curious as to what sort of factors caused these Central Valley cities, which have a surprisingly large population collectively, to consistently be placed on these lists.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
What sort of organized crime was there in the US southeast during the early/mid twentieth century?
Aside from the KKK and other paramilitary organizations, of course (although if they acted as crime syndicates I would be very curious!). I saw [this map](http://i.imgur.com/1SOtxWu.png) from 1967, and I was struck by how the crime syndicates are pretty much all centered in California, the Great Lakes, and the northeast. What about in other places, particularly the southeast? Were there regional crime syndicates, or more broadly, was there organized crime operating in a similar way as in the northeast, Great Lakes, and California (say, out of Atlanta or New Orleans)?
50
I just happen to be researching prohibition. Organized crime tended to be organized in large cities, and there weren't very many large cities in the south in the early parts of the 20th century. Those that were large and in the south tended to be ports. For example, in 1920, New Orleans came in 17th place overall in city size in the US with a population of just under 400,000. It was the largest city in the south east. Atlanta came in at half that size, Dallas even lower, Jacksonville at about 100,000, and Tampa and Miami hardly registering on a list of the largest cities. Compare those to New York with almost 6,000,000 people, or Chicago with 3 million. By 1940 the situation hadn't changed too much on a relative scale. As your map shows, there were crime families, mostly Italian/Sicilian in those few large and not so large port cities of the time. Most of them did what you would expect: Racketeering, sports betting, importing illegal goods, and so on. The Klan itself was a horrible organization but I would hesitate to call it a crime syndicate despite perpetuating murder and arson. The Klan itself was a legal organization and primarily participated in legal activities, no matter how terrible we realize they are now. Much of the racial violence associated with the Klan was localized in the south despite the majority of its membership being elsewhere. They had a large presence in many Northern and Midwestern cities where they fought against boot-leggers quite fiercely. Prohibition was the main unifying theme across all local Klan groups. Nativism was a major cause of the Klan on the east coast and in the Midwest where there were large numbers of immigrants. Edit: I can add more later if you want, but it's way past my bedtime. My sources are a bit thin on organized crime in the south east since it's not my focus, but it is mentioned in other books about prohibition from time to time.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
What was Cuba's interest in Angola?
Was it truly ideological? Was Cuba trying to establish itself as some kind of world power in its own right? Was it some material interest? I guess the question also applies to Cuba's activities in the Congo.
51
Hi there. I wrote [an answer to a similar question](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2apdr1/how_did_relatively_weak_regional_countries_like/cixs7qm?context=3) a little while ago that you might enjoy taking a look at. True ideological/internationalist explanations are popular in the current literature, as opposed to a 'power grab' or Soviet direction. Hope its useful!
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
What are the earliest descriptions we have of the aurora borealis (Northern Lights)?
And what causes did they ascribe to them?
50
hi! there's *lots* of room for more input on this question, but here are a few previous threads to get you started [What did people think the northern lights were before science explained it?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1heigj/what_did_people_think_the_northern_lights_were/) [What did ancient societies and nomadic groups think when seeing Aurora Borealis?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19euxt/what_did_ancient_societies_and_nomadic_groups/) [How have people tried to explain the northern lights through the ages?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17liyz/how_have_people_tried_to_explain_the_northern/)
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
What major differences were there between The USSR communism and Chinese communism?
Also, how did these differences affect the paths these countries took?
52
(Excuse my English, not my first language)Until Stalin's death in 1953, USSR's ideology was Marxism-Leninism, an authoritarian form of communism based on Lenin's theories. Russia being an agricultural society, they focused on industrialization, especially in heavy industries (necessary according to Marx to achieve socialism and useful if a war was to happen to protect the country). Their attempt to collectivize agriculture was a failure and brought a lot of oppositions from the peasants. They also tried to modernize the country's infrastructures with a vast politic of public work (mostly ineffective). The agricultural society had to disappear to allow for a new urban, industrial society to rise. However, as popular distrust in the government grew, in 1955 Khrushchev publicly acknowledged Stalin's "failures" and went on another path, with a lighter form of interventionism. This is where the difference with China is. China still followed a marxist leninist doctrine, adapted as Maoism. It focused far more on the peasants and the agricultural society that was prevalent in China and collectivization of the lands worked far better. Since a lot of opposition to Mao came from town "intellectuals", Mao emphasized on farming even more, and the intellectual elite became one of his biggest target, a lot more than in Russia.Also, instead of sending political opponent to forced labor (aka gulag), Maoists believed in self-criticism. The "enemy of the people" were to be re-educated in camps, where they were publicly shamed and conditioned to accept Mao's doctrine as an indisputable truth, with no use of physical torture necessary.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
The comic *Lucky Luke* is based on an Italian American sheriff by the name of Luciano Locarno. Can anyone tell me about the real-life man?
While reading about depictions of the American West, I stumbled upon a popular comic series entitled *Lucky Luke.* As the question suggests, Lucky Luke was based upon an Italian American sheriff by the name of Luciano Locarno, who "lived between 1860 and 1940." I've had difficulty finding any information about the historical sheriff and would appreciate any information or leads. Thanks! I understand this is a bit obscure.
68
I have to say I suspect this person is fictional, since the name sounds awfully like a blend of the American mobster's name [Lucky Luciano](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Luciano) and the (Italian-speaking) Swiss city [Locarno](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locarno).
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Were there any British monarchs who could speak a native British language such as Welsh, Scottish, or Cornish?
I just read that Henry VII's background was Welsh and his father was named Edmwnd Tudur and his father was named Owain Tudur, both very Welsh sounding named. Did Henry speak Welsh? Were any other British monarchs able to speak a local language?
67
Might I add a question? How long after the Norman invasion before the monarchs even spoke English?
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Why is the song, "Entrance of the Gladiators" so commonly associated with the circus?
null
72
This genre of march was known as a "screamer." Screamers were lively marches (typically at a much faster tempo than would be practical for actual marching, around 130-150 beats per minute) which would get the crowd excited for the spectacle. Frederick Fennell and the Eastman Wind Ensemble put together a recording of famous screamers in 1962; you can listen to snippets of the songs [here](http://www.allmusic.com/album/screamers-mw0001351671). Among these songs is "Entrance of the Gladiators," here under its title as released in North America, "Thunder and Blazes." The original was written by Julius Fučík in 1897, and it was arranged for band by Louis-Philippe Laurendeau, a Canadian composer. He published Fučík's march in 1910 with the publishing firm Carl Fischer, on which he served as an editor (and which still exists today). From there, it got picked up by circuses around the country, and the rest is history!
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How long did it take to build ships such as the ones Columbus and the Spanish Conquistador's sailed?
I can't find anything reliable on Google for the time it took to build ships such as the ones I mentioned in the title. Modern day construction of ships often takes place under a covered space, which obviously helps with decreasing weather delays. Did weather set back shipbuilders in the 1400s and 1500s or did they work in the rain and wind? Also, how steady was work for a shipbuilder, was it hit and miss such as is the case of construction workers today or was there generally a steady stream of new ships in addition to the repair of older ships?
85
Yeah, just send a PM asking politely and giving the URL of this thread. Also consider asking /u/vampire_seraphin, who does underwater archeology, they might have something to contribute. Realize that the ships of the Venetian Arsenal were being assembled out of pre-fabricated standardized parts, which was pretty unusual for ships of this era, to say the least. Also remember that most of the venetian fleet was made up of small galleys and galleasses, ship types that for a variety of political and economic reasons continued to be used in the sheltered water of the Mediterranean long after they had fallen out of use in the Atlantic. Also keep in mind that the 18th-century ships-of-the-line that took 2-5 years to construct were quite a bit larger than the 15th-century carracks that Columbus used in his new world voyages. A crude illustration follows: * Columbus's flagship, the *Santa Maria*, was built around 1460 in Pontevedra in Northwestern Spain. It was only about 19 meters long, had a gross tonnage of about 150 metric tons, and a full crew of only 40 souls. It all of 4 real 90mm bombards for armament. The *Santa Maria* probably took about a year to construct and was wrecked shortly after landfall in the New World in **1492** due to pilot error. * The American heavy frigate *U.S.S. Constitution* was laid down in **1794**, but (setting an American traditon of overengineering and overspending on naval vessels) due to design and budgetary issues was not launched until 1797, in Boston, Massachusetts. The *Constitution* IS about 207 feet from billet head to taffrail, and has a displacement of 2,200 tons. After it's launch, it served in the American Navy as a commissioned vessel for nearly a century before becoming a museum ship. So comparing the 15th-century carracks to 18th-century frigates is kind of like comparing apples and oranges, or possibly apples and gorillas. 300 years of technological development and arms race resulted in bigger ships that are ever-more expensive and take longer to build. Which is why today the U.S. Navy recently built the *Gerald R. Ford* aircraft carrier that is over 1,100 feet long, has a displacement of over 110,000 tons, and took nearly 5 years to build, not counting a lengthy R&amp;D cycle.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
I'm currently reading War and Peace and I have a question.
I'm up to the part where Emperor Napoleon and Tsar Alexander make peace at Tilsit. With Alexander's permission, Napoleon gives one of the soldiers in the Russian regiment a Legion of Honour decoration. It is later remarked by another that this soldier would then be receiving a pension from the French government as a recipient of the Legion of Honour. Was this relatively common in real life then? What would have happened to the pension when Russia and France went to war again in 1812?
60
Yes, the recipient of the Legion d'Honneur did get a pension - and it was transferred to his widow when he died. If the Award was awarded posthumously, the widow got the medal and the pension. Legion d'Honneur widows were a powerful political force in the post-Napoleonic society, as it was hard to counter any protest they staged (to get their benefits etc) since their husbands had died for the nation and they had been awarded the highest honour France had at the time.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Why was it that Germany produced so many scientific innovators around the turn of the 20th century?
14 of the first 31 Nobel prizes in chemistry went to Germans, lets not forget the likes of Plank, Schrodinger and Einstein. What were the conditions that contributed to this?
68
I'd suggest a look at their education in the 19th c. http://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/dsp0144558d332/3/The%20Unrecognized%20Mechanism.pdf Pages 3 and 4. "Despite the fact that Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony and Baden did not form a unified political entity until 1871, they followed parallel paths in their scientific development. It is a very familiar narrative the one that describes how Germanic science followed a meteoric rise during this period, which in turn caused at first the surprise and later the consternation of French and English scientists and politicians (Knight 2009, 196-219)."
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
When was the last time that global population was less than the previous year?
null
64
I'd argue for 1919 or 1920: the flu pandemic is estimated to have killed 50-100 million people (Wikipedia), mostly in late 1918, whereas UN estimates give an average rise in world population of about 10 million a year at this point (1750 million in 1910, 1860 million in 1911)[source, table 1](http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf). So we can be certain world population had dropped from 1 Jan 1918 to 1 Jan 1919, with possibly a further drop to 1 Jan 1920. The UN publish population estimates every year from 1950 ([source](http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_history3.aspx)), and there's at least a 40M increase every year, so we can exclude that period. The only other plausible period seems to be during WWII, but you'd need something like 25-30 million excess deaths in a single year which I don't believe happened. EDIT: I have now read the paper the estimate was based on: Johnson NP, Mueller J., . Updating the accounts: global mortality of the 1918-1920 "Spanish" influenza pandemic. Bull Hist Med. 2002 Spring;76(1):105-15. They state "in the order of 50 million" and can allow for 48-60 million deaths, but say it could be higher due to underreporting. Other estimates of the death toll have been lower, ranging from 22 million (1920s) to 30-40 million (2001). But even the lowest of these is sufficient for my argument, as at least 2/3rds of the deaths were in 1918 and the population rise you're trying to counter is safely under 15 million.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Is there any evidence to back up the CIA's assertion that "the Soviet space shuttle" Buran was a rejected NASA design fed to the Soviet space program as counterintelligence?
A few years ago I came across this article on the CIA's website https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/96unclass/farewell.htm It is a fascinating read about the Soviets interest in stealing western tech, and how US intelligence sabotaged them by giving the Soviet spies faulty plans. In the section "A Deception Operation" there is a single fascinating line "The Soviet Space Shuttle was a rejected NASA design". The source is an unspecified "Conversation with James Fletcher, Administrator, NASA". I cannot find the conversation online. It is common wisdom that Buran was based on stolen plans, but I can't find it anywhere else that the plans were fed to them. It is possible that the information was placed in a poor context, but it clearly implies that this was a calculated US action. Can anyone help me find out more about this? It's been bothering me for years!
56
It's hard to pin down the veracity of the specific claim about the Buran programme, but it's true that in the 1980s Western intelligence services seriously compromised the Soviets' ability to collect scientific, technological and industrial (collectively known as S&amp;T) intelligence in the 1980s. In 1980, the French domestic intelligence service DST recruited Vladimir Vetrov, an "ardent francophile" and a lieutenant-colonel in the KGB's Directorate T, responsible for S&amp;T collection. In his relatively short tenure as a French agent (codename FAREWELL) that Vetrov provided the DST with more than 4,000 documents relating to Soviet S&amp;T collection, including the names of several hundred KGB officers in postings around the world. In February 1982, Vetrov was arrested and imprisoned after stabbing two people — apparently in the midst of a nervous breakdown and out of fear that his espionage had been discovered. In August 1983, a year or so after he was jailed for the stabbings, a KGB investigation concluded that he had been spying for the West. In January 1985, he was executed. But despite the fact that Vetrov's career as a double agent lasted little more than a year, it had far-reaching ramifications for Soviet S&amp;T collection. In July 1981, French president François Mitterand handed Ronald Reagan a copy of the FAREWELL dossier, giving American intelligence remarkable insight into the nature and techniques of Soviet S&amp;T operations; in April 1983, Mitterand expelled 47 Soviet intelligence officers from France. In the US, the CIA and FBI (which is responsible for counterintelligence) launched a joint operation to identify Soviet S&amp;T agents within the US — and to carry out a sort of combined disinformation and sabotage campaign. According to Tim Weiner's history of the CIA: &gt; America struck back. "It was a brilliant plan," said Richard V. Allen, Reagan's first national security adviser, whose staffers devised it. "We started in motion feeding the Soviets bad technology, bad computer technology, bad oil drilling technology. We fed them a whole lot, let them steal stuff that they were happy to get." Posing as traitorous employees of the American military-industrial complex, FBI officers sent a procession of technological Trojan horses to Soviet spies. These time bombs included computer chips for weapons systems, **a blueprint for a space shuttle**, engineering designs for chemical plants, and state-of-the-art turbines. &gt; &gt; The Soviets were tying to build a natural-gas pipeline from Siberia into Eastern Europe. They needed computers to control its pressure gauges and valves. They sought the software on the open marketing in the United States. Washington rejected the request but subtly pointed to a certain Canadian company that might have what Moscow wanted. The Soviets sent a Line X officer to steal the software. The CIA and the Canadians conspired to let them have it. For a few months, the software ran swimmingly. Then it slowly sent the pressure in the pipeline soaring. The explosion in the wilds of Siberia cost Moscow millions it could ill afford to spare. Eric Raynaud and Sergei Kostin, two journalists who have written the most complete account of Vetrov's life and death, refer to the space shuttle as a Soviet clone of American technology, but don't discuss whether it was part of the US disinformation operation: &gt; Incompetence, favoritism, lack of vision — Directorate T seemed to be a collection of everything [Vetrov] despised the most within the KGB. The Buran spacecraft is a revealing illustration of this. Before questioning its utility, simply out of mimicry or out of fear of falling behind in the arms race, the Soviets launched their own space shuttle program, based on designs stolen from Western technology. This shuttle completed only one experimental spaceflight. When asked after the Cold War why they made that spacecraft, a few engineers answered that they had no idea why, it was just about copying the Americans. There seems to be [some uncertainty](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18686550/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/how-soviet-space-shuttle-fizzled/#.VIrvL4tVwRk) about Buran and American intelligence's role in sabotaging it. As the *Studies in Intelligence* link in your original post demonstrates, the CIA are pretty keen to take credit for Buran's failure as part of the FAREWELL deception. But other sources seem to suggest that while Buran was essentially a clone, the programme began before Vetrov's recruitment (and so it could well have been based on intelligence about the US shuttle programme gathered without the FBI's knowledge) and that its failure isn't specifically attributable to US counterintelligence activities. Some good sources for more Vetrov and the FAREWELL operation: * Eric Raynaud &amp; Sergei Kostin, *[Farewell: The Greatest Spy Story of the Twentieth Century](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=onE_YgEACAAJ)* (2011) * Christopher Andrew &amp; Vasili Mitrokhin, [*The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB*](http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Sword_and_the_Shield.html?id=9TWUAQ7Xof8C) (2000) * Tim Weiner, *[Enemies: A History of the FBI](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7VMSy9n6zBgC)* (2012) * Tim Weiner, *[Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4SZeGEZiGwoC)* (2008)
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Given the finds at Gobekli Tepe etc, how advanced do you think civilisation of those times was? What kind of amenities / tools would a typical person have at their disposal? Also, do you think there could be even older equally or more "advanced" finds waiting to be dug up?
null
61
You'd probably want to direct this sort of question to /r/askanthropology since this Gobekli Tepe is based in prehistory, and is the concern of archaeologists rather than historians. Purely as a point of academia. And I'd expect vague, non-conclusive answers because we don't really know.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How did the process of POW release work at the end of WW2? for all sides. Thanks
null
98
Also I would be interested as to whether there were any last minute massacres of prisoners by commanders bitter at their country's defeat?
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
What are some good books to read on the Stasi, the KGB, and any other major secret police organizations?
I'm absolutely fascinated by cold war history, and I want to read as much as I can about these secret police entities.
63
I recently read Gulag: A History by Anne Applebaum. Its a Pullitzer prize winner, and a really great read. Though its mostly about the Gulag culture... but its got a lot of history in it as well. Brilliantly written and seriously unputdownable. Edit: [Goodreads link](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/224379.Gulag_)
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Why did Henry V succeed in Conquering Normandy while his Great-Grandfather Edward III was unable to?
Like Henry V in 1415, Edward landed in Normandy in 1346 with the intent to conquer. However, although Jonathan Sumption explains that Edward soon abandoned the idea. Although he went on the take many important Norman towns, such as Caen -- and ultimately win a great victory at Crécy and take Calais, he was unable able to institute a permanent occupation. Three generations later, Henry V succeeded in taking Harfleur in 1415 and defeating the French at Agincourt. In 1417 he returned, landing in the same area that Edward III had 71 years before, and was able to conquer all of Normandy by 1420. What made this possible? Was it a change in military strategy? Developments in England's financial and political structures? The disarray of the French due to the Armagnac-Burgundian civil war? Thanks in advance for any and all responses!!
83
I'll let someone else comment on the French side of things. Perhaps changes in siegecraft were important as well. However, one key improvement for the Campaigns of Henry V compared to Edward was a comparatively more realistic strategic and logistical sense. Edward tended to base his campaigns out of Gascony, and look to force concessions from the french monarchy by land campaigns. (The 1346 campaign only landed in Normandy because of adverse weather.) This tended to be unfruitful because Gascony has difficult sea communications back to England, and French ports in Normandy could render them vulnerable to raiding and interdiction. Edward typically managed naval forces by creating a large armada thru impressing private ships every now and then to convoy his armies to Gascony. These large fleets took time to assemble and sail to Gascony, giving the French a strategic advantage (the French used a small professional fleet of italian galleys in addition to locally available shipping.) in all campaigns out of Gascony. Henry's strategy of a direct cross channel campaign, based on securing the channel by besieging and occupying the major naval ports allowed him to exploit and follow up his successes in pitched battles. He had a more sustained naval effort based on a fairly complex series of renewed contracts with public ships, but privately run crews to maintain sea communications. This system proved fruitful but it was dismantled after Henry's death because the regency didn't have the political capacity to raise funds necessary to maintain it. Because Henry had stable communications by sea, his armies could press home field victories and lay successful sieges. The source for this naval and strategic comparison is N.A.M. Rodger's "The Safeguard of the Sea: A naval history of Britain 660-1649"
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
On Downton Abbey, they have Estate Firemen in the 1930s. How realistic would this be? Would they really have firemen?
null
53
You are referencing a particular event that is set in 1924, not the 1930s.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
What was Russian exploration and colonization of Siberia like?
I would love to see some books on this too. Also, a bonus question: Do the Russians have a "Lewis &amp; Clark" admiration for explorers who went through Siberia?
95
Check out 'East of the Sun'. It is a history of Russian conquest of Siberia from the middle ages to Soviet times. http://www.amazon.com/East-Sun-Conquest-History-Siberia/dp/1880100851
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How was Judaism introduced to the Khazars, how did it change once it was introduced, and what were the lasting effects?
If possible, I'm most interested in what kind of syncretic religion/culture emerged from Tengriism/Judaism touching and what the lasting effects were. That said, I'll happily consume any favorite facts or illuminating chunks of information about the Khazars in general.
104
This is a big and interesting topic that hasn't necessarily been explored on /r/AskHistorians in the detail that it deserves. While you are waiting for answers you might be interested in reading some previous threads on similar topics for the background info: * [**Who were the Khazars and where do they fit into European History? Why did they convert to Judaism?**](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gcql6/who_were_the_khazars_and_where_do_they_fit_into/) - 11 comments, over 1 year old. * The topmost comment provides a good overview of the Khazars in general and also discusses the possible reasons for their conversions to Judaism. * [**What happened to Khazarian nobility after the fall of the empire? Was David Al-Roy a Khazar?**](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2cqaxj/what_happened_to_khazarian_nobility_after_the/) - 7 comments, over 5 months old. * /u/gingerkid1234 gives a strong, sourced answer on the "Khazarian hypothesis" which deals with the possible connections between the Khazars and the Ashkenzi Jews. * [**Origins of Eastern Europe's Jews?**](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2b0am6/origins_of_eastern_europes_jews/) - 6 comments, over 6 months old. * /u/gingerkid1234 once more talks on the topic, this time giving only a brief summary of the Khazars in relation to Judaism and talking more about the history of Judaism in Eastern Europe. * [**The King of Khazars is said to have seen himself as a "defender of Jews everywhere". In the Early Middle Ages, would the Jews of Europe have known about Khazaria? Were there any recorded instances of European Jews migrating to the Khazar state, for a better life?**](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2270x8/the_king_of_khazars_is_said_to_have_seen_himself/) - 8 comments, over 9 months old. * There were a fair number of top level answers in this one, but there wasn't as much discussion or evaluation as other.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How valuable were books in the early Roman Empire?
Were books a common thing or something rare and treasured? Were they available to the common man or something reserved for the elite?
70
Books were taken down by hand, whether they were in the form of a 'book' or a scroll, and thus immensely expensive. The primary reason libraries existed was because copying was such a difficult process, and thus scholars needed a place where they could have access to these works. The other thing to consider is that there was no formal system of education, and thus, at best, we can expect literacy rates to have been well under 50%, and probably a lot closer to 10-20%. Exact numbers are pretty much impossible, so we mostly have to guess. The rich and even moderately wealthy would all have been trained in letters, as this was a pre-requisite for any sort of government work or senior position of any kind in the Legions. Speaking of which, the vast majority of 'books' in the Roman Empire were not private works on philosophy or history, but government documents. The Roman Empire was bad at a lot of stuff, but one thing they were exceptional at was record keeping, and the output of the military and civilian apparatuses in keeping records of service, land, and law were extensive.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Why did the ancient Mesopotamians use chariots in lieu of cavalry for so long? Why did this change?
I've read that nomad warriors raided Mesopotamian lands on horseback while the Mesopotamians themselves still used chariots. Why did they use chariots so exclusively for so long?
78
hi! I collected these links on the use/decline of chariots in warfare for another post the other day; they may be of interest to you. The tl;dr is that the horses at that place/time were too small - do take a look at some of the images in the posts. use in warfare * [How were chariots used in Bronze Age warfare?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1g432c/how_were_chariots_used_in_bronze_age_warfare/) * [How could chariots be used militarily?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ivctv/how_could_chariots_be_used_militarily/) * [Why were chariots so effective in ancient warfare?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1968tz/why_were_chariots_so_effective_in_ancient_warfare/) * [How did chariot battle tactics differ between the middle-eastern nations (say, at the height of the Persian Empire) and those of the British isles (say, during the Roman invasion)? How were they similar?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1q36sy/how_did_chariot_battle_tactics_differ_between_the/) decline * [Were chariots ever used by European powers? If not, when and why did the chariot stop being used in combat?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2hc7jx/were_chariots_ever_used_by_european_powers_if_not/) * [Why did chariot usage decline?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/10smgp/why_did_chariot_usage_decline/) * [When did war chariots stop being used ?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2jkztt/when_did_war_chariots_stop_being_used/) * [Why did people stop using chariots in warfare?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ur9rs/why_did_people_stop_using_chariots_in_warfare/)
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How big of a problem was alcohol abuse/alcoholism in the Red Army during WW2?
null
50
The atrocious conduct of the Red Army following their conquest of Eastern Europe and East Germany was largely influenced by their blatant abuse of alcohol. In fact the NKVD allegedly reported back to Moscow complaining that 'mass poisoning from captured alcohol is taking place in occupied Germany' as it was seriously limiting their combat capabilities. Additionally, "It seems as if Soviet soldiers needed alcoholic courage to attack women". They were often so drunk they could not finish rapes, and in some cases used the bottle which caused devastating injuries (Antony Beevor, *Berlin*, 2007). It should also be noted, compared to the other armies of World War Two, the Red Army's excessive drinking was linked to Russian culture: &gt;[i]t was not the amount that Soviet soldiers drank that proved so disastrous for women - in comparion, for example to how much American soldiers drank - but rather the way they drank. As scholars of Russian drinking habits have repeatedly noted, Russians drink in binges, reaching a stage of intense intoxication over a period of several days, and they are quite sober before the next binge. The availability and high quality of alcohol available in Germany did not help the situation. One SDP informant recorded a hard and fast rule for dealing with Soviet troops: 'So long as he [the Russian soldier] is sober, one has almost nothing to fear Only under the influence of alcohol and also when several are drunk do the excesses begin' (Norman Naimark, *The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945–1949*, 1995).
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
During segregation in the U.S., with facilities divided between whites and blacks, which ones did asians use?
Also, same question for middle-easterners and hispanics. And for that matter, what about mixed race people?
63
You might want to look at these previously answered questions [What was it like to be Asian/Latino in the segregated south? Did the segregationist laws still apply to you?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1e38qd/what_was_it_like_to_be_asianlatino_in_the/) [How were other minorities treated during America's period of racial segregation?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/uf2a7/how_were_other_minorities_treated_during_americas/) [What was the status of Jews and Asians in America during racial segregation?] (http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1b9at4/what_was_the_status_of_jews_and_asians_in_america/)
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Did the ancient Greeks, Persians, Indians, Scythians, Germanics etc. ever realize or indicate that their languages were related? Was there even a slight bit of thought given to this idea?
Explaining a bit more, one reference that comes to my mind is that of the Japhetic race in the Bible. If there's something in the Bible which is more of a Near East product of non-IE culture, surely there must be something in the larger IE tradition.
82
I think OPs question was, did at any point the above peoples realize their languages belonged to the larger Indo-European language family?
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How did the Chinese CP react to the end of the cold war?
How did the Chinese Communist party react to the end of the cold war? What kind of debates were going on within the party? Where there any policy adjustments that can be traced to this event ?
77
First of all, it should be noted that Chinese economic reform started out way before the Cold war ended, they began in the early 1980s and have already bore fruit by the time the Cold war ended. Second of all, this is a pretty difficult question to answer because above all, the end of the cold war was overshadows by Tienanmen square 1989 in China. You can argue that the fall of Communist regimes in Eastern Europe helped to prompt the crackdown on protesters in Tienanmen square, but the primary event for China was never the end of the cold war per see. Paradoxically then, if you want to link the end of the Cold War and Tienanmen, is that the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe slowed down reforms in China. The lessons the CCP learned from Tienanmen and Solidarity in Poland was that political liberalization was dangerous to the survival of the regime, so was, for that matter, a powerful private sector. And you can see decrease in capital availability to private/semi-private sector enterprises in the aftermath of 1989. As well as rollback on political reforms. Geopolitical speaking the fall of the USSR was a boon to China which saw it as the primary threat from the 1970s onwards. But then again, Chinese military budget have already sharply decreased during the 1980s. Chinese internal party politics at the high level tend to be pretty opaque to the point where I don't think it's useful or possible to distill the exact dialogue on the end of the cold war. Except possibly as a warning to the CCP against liberalization.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How did the Romans view Zoroastrianism?
null
58
&gt; this question doubles as an illegal (shh) placeholder point as I gather sources Caught! And removed.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
[Meta] Is there any way to have posts tagged based on era, and / or automatically show the number of flaired user responses to a post in its title?
* I often find myself coming here to look at specific "eras" - I know these are difficult to define but I would really love a way to filter posts by "ancient" or "modern". * I often see posts with 2-5 comments, but have no idea whether it's "worth" clicking into (e.g. whether the comments are helpful and sourced). I doubt it's possible, but it would be really great to have a way to find out how many flaired users have responded to a post without clicking into it. Even if the above cannot be achieved, are there any existing ways to simulate any of that capability?
69
I love this idea. I'm just a lurker here mostly, but I'm a huge fan of this sub. It ends up with me on wiki a lot.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Why do so much creatures from Greek mythology appear in Dante's Comedy and many Christian texts and stories from the time?
null
75
You might want to ask in /r/literature/ or /r/AskLiteraryStudies Dante was well read in Classic mythology. When writing his Divine Comedy he combined Christian teachings with his love for Classic stories. I can think of two reasons for this: 1) The Bible tells very little of what hell is actually like. If you [wrote down all the verses talking about Hell](http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/hell-bible-verses/), you could read them in five minutes. So there was lots of room for a storyteller to imagine / interpret / embellish. Storytellers have always borrowed stories, characters, themes, and structures from previous writers and cultures. The Ancient Romans borrowed and repurposed large swaths of Greek mythology. So it should be no surprise that it would happen in the Middle ages. So why was it possible for Dante to do this? Because: 2) Although Dante lived in a Christian culture, the map of Europe was no longer united in looking towards a single place for art and culture, like Rome had been for so long. Now Europe was a fractured mess of nation and city-states. I’m not too solid on the religious side of things, but Dante lived in between the two “Great Schisms” of the Christian church: the [East-West Schism of 1054](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism) and the Western Schism, fifty-some years after his death. Let’s just say there were a lot of religious debates and changes happening. The religious climate that Dante lived in was the middle of [Scholasticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism), when Aristotle and other Classic philosophers were rediscovered by the likes of Thomas Aquinas, etc. It was the merging / reconciliation of Church dogma with classical philosophy. Dante wasn’t trying to rewrite dogma, he was writing a story. So this time period is exactly when you should expect somebody like Dante to fold Classical stories into Christian mythology. --- On a related note, although I haven’t studied it in any detail, I’ve always thought it was interesting how [Lucifer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer) became the name for the devil before his fall. Also, for anyone who hasn’t seen them, I’d strongly recommend looking at the illustrations by [Gustave Doré]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Dor%C3%A9) of Dante, Milton, and the Bible.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
CIA Capabilities in the 1950-60s
Hey Guys, I'm thinking of doing a comparative study of CIA operations in Tibet and Laos for my dissertation. I was going to use this to reflect on CIA capabilities in the world as part of it and was wondering if you have any recommended reading to look at for its capabilities as I've mainly looked at literature focusing on the actual operations. Please feel free to leave any ideas, discussions or interesting spins on the topic! :)
53
Are you willing to travel to Washington DC?
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
What was an average day like for hitler?
I am most interested in the time of WW2 on, but even before that, who did he meet with? What reasons did he have to travel? How much did he personally make decisions on?
56
Albert Speer had this to say about Hitler's typical work day in his Memoir "Inside The Third Reich" : "I myself threw all my strength into my work and was baffled at first by the way Hitler squandered his working time. I could understand that he might wish his day to trail off in boredom and pastimes; but to my notion this phase of the day, averaging some six hours, proved rather long, whereas the actual working session was by comparison relatively short. When, I would often ask myself, did he really work? Little was left of the day; he rose late in the morning and conducted one or two official conferences; but from the subsequent dinner on he more or less wasted time until the early hours of the evening. His rare appointments in the late afternoon were imperiled by his passion for looking at building plans. The adjutants often asked me: "Please don't show any plans today." Then the drawings I had brought with me would be left by the telephone switchboard at the entrance, and I would reply evasively to Hitler's inquiries. Sometimes he saw through this game and would himself go to look in the anteroom or the cloakroom for my roll of plans. In the eyes of the people Hitler was the Leader who watched over the nation day and night. This was hardly so. But Hitler's lax scheduling could be regarded as a life style characteristic of the artistic temperament. According to my observations, he often allowed a problem to mature during the weeks when he seemed entirely taken up with trivial matters. Then, after the "sudden insight" came, he would spend a few days of intensive work giving final shape to his solution. No doubt he also used his dinner and supper guests as sounding boards, trying out new ideas, approaching these ideas in a succession of different ways, tinkering with them before an uncritical audience, and thus pedecting them. Once he had come to a decision, he relapsed again into his idleness." Speer's book contains many descriptions of Hitler's day to day activities and travels that are to numerous to list here. For more info on Hitlers day to day life please consult these books by members of his staff: * Junge, Traudl - Hitler's Last Secretary A Firsthand Account of Life with Hitler * Linge, Heinz - With Hitler to the End - The Memoirs of Adolf Hitler's Valet * Misch, Rochus - Hitler's Last Witness * Schroeder, Christa - Hitler Was My My Chief
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Travelling with the lucky few Canadian Vets we have left to the Battlefields of the Netherlands - any reading material about the Canadian involvement in the Second World War, specifically the Liberation across the Netherlands?
Yes, my title is correct. I work on a team of experts who work along the Battlefields of Europe, Great Britain, &amp; South East Asia. My team is sending me as the primary guide to lead our Canadian Vets (at least, what's left of them) overseas for the 70th Anniversary since the Liberation of Holland. In my prep leading up to tour, I want to dive deep into some historical fiction (and some good non-fiction too!) that touches upon this historical event, - or - mainly, the Canadian involvement in the Second World War. I want to get a really clear idea of what these boys went through to end this great conflict in our history. I would love suggestions, and will trade suggestions for feedback from our boys while on tour.
73
The official history of the Canadian campaign in Northwest Europe is available online as a pdf, it'd probably be handy to have on your phone for reference: http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/oh-ho/detail-eng.asp?BfBookLang=1&amp;BfId=29 The Netherlands parts start in Chapter 13. It's very detailed, lots of maps and diagrams and descriptions (often hour-by-hour) of the fighting. If a vet tells you his unit was at such-and-such a place, you should be able to find lots of context about why it was there.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Why did the Romanians switch from the Cyrillic alphabet to the Latin alphabet?
null
65
**Short version:** it was done to emphasize the fact that romanians are of latin heritage, and not slavic. As scholars started to investigate the history and language, they realized the three countries - Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania - have a roman legacy and this had to reflect in the alphabet as well. **Detailed version:** Dimitrie Cantemir (a Moldavian ruler from the 18th century) wrote in his encyclopedic work "Descriptio Moldaviae" (latin for "A description of Modavia") that until 1439 the latin alphabet was used in Moldavia. The oldest written text in romanian with a cyrillic alphabet dates to 1521 (The letter of Neacsu from Campulung to Hans Benker). Out of the 190 words used in it, 175 have a latin origin, even though they are written in cyrillic. The main supporter of the cyrillic alphabet was the Orthodox church. It wanted to differentiate itself from the Roman-Chatolic church who used the latin alphabet and who was also trying to convert the 3 countries. The transition will start with the Moldavian chroniclers Grigore Ureche, Ion Neculce, Miron Costin (lived in the XVI and XVII and XVIII centuries). They all asserted the Romance character of the language. Throughout the XVII, XVIII and XIX century, the number of cyrillic characters in the alphabet was reduced from 43 (in 1688) to 33 (in 1787 by Ienachita Vacarescu ) and then to 28 (in 1828 by Ion Heliade Radulesc). The publishers in Cluj, Brasov or Sibiu used latin characters in their printed works since the XVIII century - mainly for titles or sub-titles. The first published work in romanian and with a latin alphabet is Samuil's Mincu "Carte de rogacioni" (english: "Prayer Book") from 1779. Between 1830s - 1840s a transitional alphabet appears, containing both cyrllic and latin letters. This is more prevalent in the newspapers published at that time (Gazeta de Transilvania, Dacia literara, Gazeta Teatrului national, etc). Starting with 1835, the Blaj typography in Transylvania only uses latin characters. After the union between Moldavia and Wallachia in 1859, a law was passed (February 8th, 1860 by Ion Ghica) making the latin alphabet the default one for all government communications. This can be considered the moment when romanians switched completely to the latin alphabet.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
When morse code was in use, was English used as a common language as it is at sea these days? Or would countries broadcast in their own language?
I'm sure that government/military vessels would use their own language but I'm not so sure about merchant/passenger ships? What with mayday being the accepted spelling of m'aidez etc.
62
Japan used [the Wabun code](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabun_code), a variant of morse where each combination of dots and dashes equals not a letter, but a *kana*. This was used by both military and domestic vessels... of course for military use a sent message may have been in code... the infamous "Climb Mount Niitaka", signalling the go-ahead for the Pearl Harbor attack, would be an example. The US military understood the Wabun code, but it was the underlying security codes used that were hard to crack. It was JN-25 that was broken early in the war that allowed the US Navy to "read Japanese mail," and led to the ambush at Midway. But it was still based on the Wabun code.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
We all know how the Versailles treaty was viewed by the German people, how was it viewed outside of Germany?
Was there any criticism from the allied side regarding how harsh the treaty was?
55
Will provide sources when I get back home. In China, the Treaty was viewed negatively and sparked the May Fourth movement, which some sees as the birth of Chinese Nationalism. The focus was however more on issues specific to China. The major one being the Shandong problem. Pre-WWI, Germany owned concessions in the Shandong peninsula. After joining the Allies, China wanted it to be returned. However, as per the Treaty, it was given to Japan instead. EDIT: Question for mods, are foreign sources okay for this board?
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
When and why did the English ruling class start using the ethnonym "English" to describe themselves?
Considering they were mostly Normans?
131
That's when the transition in self-identity *began*, but the Anglicisation of the ruling classes of England was a gradual process, which started in earnest a couple hundred years later, in 1453: It *necessarily* began as you mentioned, with King John '*Lackand*' becoming the first '*Angevin*' (which means '*from Anjou*' South West of Paris) king *of* England to become a 'resident king' *in* England. This occurred after John was forcefully stripped of his titles in France by the king, Philip II '*Augustus*', who among others confiscated the Château de Chinon, which had traditionally been held by the counts of Anjou (who, as we just indicated, also ruled England). In any case, now basically stuck in his kingdom of England, John also made the mistake of completely ignoring the provisions of a charter that he had recently signed with his Barons there: the '*Magna Carta*'! Incidentally, English commoners ('*villeins*' etc.) were hardly if at all mentioned by that document. It's almost absurd to think they would. Just a few decades before this, during the reign of king Henry I of England, French noblemen in England were by law permitted to kill English natives with impunity ('[The death of] *an Englishman is not regarded or paid for as murder, but only [that of] a Frenchman ...*', [Laws of Henry I](http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/12Chenry1-murderfine.asp)). However, English commoners would indeed be taken into account shortly afterwards, in 1265, when Simon de Monfort laid the foundations for the current somewhat democratic English Parliament. But back to the Magna Carta, the nobility in England called on France's king Philip Augustus to depose John from the kingdom. Philip Augustus refused, mostly because of the Vatican (John had made England into a tax paying vassal state of the Papacy). But Philip 's son, prince Louis '*The Lion*' (and future king Louis VIII) had no such such qualms. He soon invaded and installed himself in London (and was therefore promptly excommunicated by the Pope). But he also had John on the run, who, speaking of runs, died of dysentery (John also then became the first Angevin King of England to actually be buried there, whereas king Richard I, '*the lionhearted*', for example, was buried back home in France, his body divided between Anjou, Normandy and Poitou). In death, John left a son however, '*Henry*'! William Marshal whom you mentioned, who was greatly admired by all, indeed '*the greatest knight that ever lived*', was made his regent. When that happened, Philip Augustus gloated: '*The land [England] is lost for Louis and in a short time he and his supporters will be chased out of it, as the Marshal has taken the matter in hand.*' Indeed, slowly, or rather rapidly actually, all the barons of England who had called on the French prince to rid them of John, turned against him and supported the boy Henry. Louis started losing his battles and eventually had to leave England. Later British histories would get ridiculously nationalistic about this and other similar feudal events but, in fairness, they did indeed further the separation between the two realms, increasing differing senses of identity. But that still didn't do it. It's only with their defeat at Castillon in 1453 and the end the Hundred Years War that the English ruling classes lost any hope of either joining the two kingdoms together or, especially after a '*Hundred Years*' worth of bad blood, of continuing to be part of the kingdom of France. And always keep in mind that *nationalism* is a rather modern feeling, not a feudal one. You felt loyalty to a Lord or King. You didn't think of him as '*English*' or '*French*' in a nationalist sense as much as one of biography. It's like saying someone is a '*New Yorker*' as opposed to a '*Bostonian*' for example to use a perhaps more easily accessible American analogy. Oh, and while we're using American analogies, as a final somewhat relevant note: Even if later English colonials to the New World began to think of themselves as '*Americans*' as opposed to '*Englishmen*', that still didn't mean that they thought of themselves as being the same thing as the American natives. Cheers! edit: typos, so many typos!
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
What was the importance of Cheese in ww2?
http://www.davidrumsey.com/rumsey/Size4/D5005/8563000.jpg If you look at this map from 1942 it shows one of the primary resources of New zealand was actually Cheese, Im curious, how important was Cheese to the war compared to other food like corn, beef and bread? What were its uses? is there something inherently special in cheese that make it a strong wartime good like storageability?
51
the map just details the natural and industrial resources produced in NZ during WWII. It also shows e.g. sheep and timber. There is nothing about cheese being important. NZ was, and is still is, a big producer of dairy goods. I'm not even sure if this is a serious question, but cheese and dairy products are generally not very well suited for transport or storage. Cheese is not particularly important during war, although I believe it was rationed in Europe during WWII as most food commodities were.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Where did the term "Abyssinia" come from? Is it older than the name "Ethiopia" or did it appear after? What did the Medieval Arab and European worlds call those lands?
I was reading the Wikipedia page of the [Ethiopian Empire](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Empire), and I noticed that the term "Abyssinia" appears only once, and I'd like to know where that term came from.
75
I am by no means an expert and so this answer may be frowned upon, but based on my, admittedly light, reading on the subject over the last hour or so, Abyssinia is generally accepted as an evolution of the Arabic (though from what I've read, it may also have developed from one of the South Arabian languages) Habashah (حبشة). My dictionary (Hans Vehr, 4th Ed.) only has definitions for that as Ethiopia/Abyssinia or the Ethiopian people or language but most of the things I've read state that Habash is used to describe the people now while Ethiopia (Ityioppia) is the name of the state. I am having trouble finding Arabic-language sources that discuss the etymology of the word Abyssinia but I did find a reference to Stephanus of Byzantium referring to the people as 'Abasēnoi' (Αβασηγοί) which would mark the evolution from Habashah to Abyssinia (the H is dropped and Greek ending -noi added yielding Abyssinia as it spreads to other languages). According to The Etymological Compendium by William Pulleyn (p. 270), the meaning of Habashah is something akin to "mixture" which I have read in other places as well. This falls in line with it referring to the peoples rather than a state. Pulleyn also calls Ethiopia an "epithet" given by Greeks to "all countries inhabited by Blacks." And if you dig into the etymology for Ethiopia you will generally find it to refer to skin of dark complexion where 'aitho' is 'to burn' and 'ops' is 'face'. I have seen pg. 948 of the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: D-Ha referenced several times in relation to the etymology and history of Habash/Habashah but unfortunately I do not own this book and the preview for it on Google Books does not include that page or the page that follows. If you or someone else owns this book, that could help shed some additional light. I would really love for someone with a greater background of study in this area or access to more/better resources than I to fill in some of the blanks but as near as I can tell, Abyssinia has older roots than Ethiopia however, the people are sometimes still called 'Abyssinian' in Ge'ez and Arabic while referring to the state as 'Ethiopia' (though I can attest that some Arabic sources still use the older Habash when referring even to the state).
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Why were Africa and the Americas able to be colonized so easily? Why did they never form the sort of outward focused empires that Europe and Asia did?
null
52
So, the Aztecs did not "capitulate without a fight." The [Fall of Tenochtitlan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Tenochtitlan), which was a bloody battle by all accounts, was *after* the smallpox epidemic. Also, you seem to be claiming that the smallpox spread faster than the Europeans or Africans (which is true). However, you also claim that it struck Incan "remnants". How exactly were the Inca Empire of 1524 a "remnant"? Under Huayna Capac, it was *still expanding* at the time and the empire was enormous. You also claim that native political entities collapsed entirely; how do you explain the Itza kingdom of [Nojpeten](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nojpet%C3%A9n) that survived until the very end of the seventeenth century?
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Do we know what the Vikings called the island of Britain?
null
66
Are you looking for the name used before the invasions or after, or just the "viking" word. In ancient Icelandic it was called Bretland but disclaimer: I'm not certain if that is the proper word the Vikings themselves used so wait for an expert to post on that. After the Vikings established colonies the part of England they controlled was known as the Danelaw. Is this what you are looking for?
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
What happened to the Romani people that were liberated from concentration camps? Did they have anywhere to go?
Did what happened to the Romani during the Holocaust/Porajmos contribute in any way to their current, marginal status?
93
Because this is old, [way back in the day](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ao282/wednesday_ama_holocaust_panel/c8z7py6) I asked about the Porajmos in an AMA and the answers stuck with me. Hopefully it can help.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Was the Peach Hostage Crisis a Koopa response to Mushroom aggression?
King Bowser's kidnapping of Princess Toadstool is usually treated as a flagrant breach of international law, yet evidence points to the Koopa minority in the Mushroom Kingdom being regularly discriminated against and subject to mistreatment at the hand of the plumber population. Was Koopa intervention justified in such circumstances?
60
There's colossal amounts of evidence; examination of item blocks in the Mushroom Kingdom revealed hollowed out Koopa shells which were used variously as ornaments, skateboards and weaponry. What's more, footage captured by Lakitu clearly shows non-violent Koopas being bludgeoned to death for their shells whilst they attempted to flee! Of course, this is before you take into account Mushroom persecution of the Goomba and Bob-omb peoples.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Did Yeltsin actually offer to sell Siberia?
I recently found some articles [this one](http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-19/opinion/op-4526_1_mount-rushmore) that bring up the idea of the U.S purchasing Siberia. Was this an actual offer? And if so, how serious was this offer?
52
This very article has come up on r/history before and /u/International_KB had an [excellent dissection of this example of post-Cold War triumphalism](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/2uepx0/did_the_us_really_had_the_chance_to_buy_siberia/co8o5xk)
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
AMA - African Diaspora in the Caribbean with a Focus on Haitian &amp; Vodou History
Hi Y'all! I'm ABD in my PhD in cultural anthropology where I'm working with Haitian Vodou practitioners in Haiti and the diaspora. As part of my comprehensive exams and dissertation research I've read up quite a lot on the African diaspora in the Caribbean obviously with a focus on Haiti and religious practices. I'm happy to chat about the revolution, how Vodou has changed/adapted within Haiti, general Haitian history, and larger discussions of African diasporas in Caribbean. I also spent some time in the Maya Deren archives so if anyone wants to know about her journal entries while in Haiti and her discussions with Joseph Campbell regarding her research I'm happy to share! My MA thesis was on Vodou in New Orleans so I'm also happy to chat about Marie Laveau, the connections between Haiti &amp; NOLA, and African traditions in Louisiana. *Please note that while I'm happy to talk at length about Vodou I am not here to give religious or spiritual advice.* **EDIT: Thanks everyone! I have to go pick up the little one from daycare. But I will try to get to some of the remaining questions tonight and tomorrow. This was fun and I hope to continue the conversation!**
104
Vodou is, at least as far as I know, generally said to be a syncretic tradition of Christian and West African spirituality. But given how brutally controlled the lives of slaves in Haiti were, how did these practices survive during the plantation period? The stereotype at least is that the practice of Vodou is done by ritual specialists, but presumably that would not have been possible.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
My Grandpa was one of the first on Iwo Jima laying communication lines for marines, can someone further tell me what his experience would have been like?
He never talked about the war. He passed away 8 years ago and yesterday my grandma gave me his Marine Pin and is going to give me a vile of sand/ash he collected while there. All I know he was one of the first to get on the island because he had to lay communication lines. What would his experience be like? Would he really have been one of the first on the island? What entails laying down the lines? Thanks!
80
Iwo Jima was a island in the pacific that was important because it was large enough to have an airfield. Airfields allowed the United States to create bases, and push closer to Japan. As both Japan and the US knew this, the island was well defended, and became a long and bloody endeavor. Communication lines are double strands of wires (almost exactly like modern speaker/sound system cables), connected to a telephone. Multiple telephones could be in each network, but the system isn't complex enough to have phone numbers; if one person talks, every else listens. Even with radios, ground wire communications are redundant, simple, and worked. Wires could have been placed in squad, platoon, company positions, at observation positions, or going to a position in the rear. If a wire or telephone broke, your grandfather would patrol out to fix it. Cable is not light, and hundreds of meters of cable is absolutely not light. It comes in a spool, which spins and unwinds when you walk ahead. After the cable is in place, it needs to be connected and tested, all with the added complexity of being in combat. [Marine infantry battalions were organized with three rifle companies and a headquarters company.](http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/UnitedStates/Marine/MarineInfantry/united_states_marine_battalion%20mid%201944%20to%201945.htm) Inside of headquarters company is a communications platoon of a few dozen people. However, it's incorrect to assume that your grandfather would have stayed with the communications platoon, and that the communications platoon was a cohesive entity. They would have trained together, and then split to the various other parts of the battalion as augments to provide a rifle company the ability to create its own communications network. If your grandfather's company was one of the first ashore, he would've gone with them. Perhaps not as the first guy to jump off the boat, but right afterwards. He'd have been equipped with a rifle, like everyone else, but probably a few less grenades, and a few more specialized tools like wire cutter and wire strippers. [Field Telephones](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_telephone) are what he would've been dealing with a lot. [Here's an account](http://www.trailblazersww2.org/units_276_accounts_howell.htm) of an Army communication specialist in Europe. This soldier seems to be part of a larger unit, connecting headquarters elements directly. If your grandfather was one of the first Marines ashore in Iwo Jima, working in a company would be much faster paced, with less resources, and obviously much closer to, or at, the 'front'.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Where was Haile Selassie of Ethiopia during WWII?
I understand he was exiled during the invasion of Italy into Ethiopia. I also had heard he had traveled to the Caribbean, and quite possibly Jamaica during this time. A Jamaican acquaintance had very firmly stated that Haile Selassie's first visit to Jamaica was in 1966, years after WWII had ended. I've tried researching this but can not find any clear answers. Can any history buffs here provide the answer I;m looking for? Thanks!
65
Here's a BBC biography of him which confirms the basic outline from wiki. http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zqqx6sg Incidentally I knew he stayed in Bath because he had some involvement with my Grandma's family there (i'm not sure of the exact nature, something about attending Church services with them IIRC) and she remembered him as one of the first black people she'd spoken to. So I knew he was Mr. Selassie who came to Bath long before I knew he was a significant historical figure. I wish I had some evidence of this beyond anecdote and more details. I believe it because my family on that side has no direct connection to Jamaica or Africa and my gran would have had no motivation to make it up.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How did Alexander the Great's phalangites fare against missiles compared to hoplites of the same period?
In terms of armour, equipment and tactics, how did a phalangite protect themselves from missiles and how does a hoplite compare? As far as I know they had a small shield strapped to them and their sarrissas in the air provided a screen to block arrows. How does this hold up against say, slingers or javelin armed men? How does a hoplite from say, Athens, compare in being able to block incoming missiles? How different is the protection offered to men in the back ranks compared to those in the front?
58
One of the Macedonian military innovations was making the successful trade-off between the *personal* safety of the individual Hoplite and the *tactical* safety of the entire phalanx - at least in the face of missile troops. Macedonian Hoplites were more lightly armoured than their Greek counterparts -making them more vulnerable to missile fire - but this was offset by the presence of numerous cavalry units and aggressive cavalry tactics. At Granicus, Macedon fielded over 5,000 cavalry, including the elite Companions, Thessalians, Allied Greeks and Paeonians. The presence of so many cavalrymen limited the use of enemy missile troops, who were particularly vulnerable to cavalry charges and tended to rout when pressed. This reduced the amount of time that the Macedonian phalanxes were subject to missile fire. Moreover, the Macedonians favoured shock tactics and used cavalry to both smash the enemy centre (as at Granicus and Issus) or to flank enemy lines and draw troops from the centre (as at Gaugamela). Alexander the Great practiced an aggressive form of hoplite warfare, where infantry would advance rapidly and engage the enemy, while cavalry would draw off units to the flanks (thus weakening the enemy line) or charge the centre, forcing a rout. The infantry would act as a holding force, keeping the enemy formations in place while the cavalry saw off their opposite numbers and organized a devastating charge. In either case, Macedonian infantry units would spend less time under missile fire than traditional Hoplites. It's essentially a difference in tactics and army composition. A Greek Hoplite fought at an infantryman's' pace, with the attendant risk of sustained missile fire - hence the heavier armour and larger shield. The phalanx was expected to carry the day and cavalry was mainly used for harassment or running down fleeing enemies. A Macedonian fought as a component of a mixed force, fusing rapid cavalry action with the slower advance of the phalanx. Instead of relying on armour or shields as protection, the Macedonians fought a different kind of Hoplite warfare - one where speed and aggressiveness reduced their vulnerability to missile troops.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How do we know we are pronouncing Ancient Egyptian names and places correctly?
The only reason we can even read Egyptian Hieroglyphs is due to the Rosetta Stone with translated it into Ancient Greek. But what about more personal words like names and places. How do we know the glyph of a sun shining on a winged beetle equates to Khufu and thats its even pronounced like that?
59
Strangely, a similar question came in the other day; I rounded up a bunch of posts that could be helpful. If you have follow-up questions, include the relevant user's username in the comment - most of us have notifications turned on * [Exactly how are we capable of reading Ancient Egyptian?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/32vwsx/exactly_how_are_we_capable_of_reading_ancient/)
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How did infantry on the Eastern Front evolve over the course of WWII?
null
69
I can't talk much abut red army or wermacht infantry but I know a bit abut Romanian Infantry, Romanian armed forces being the the largest force on the front after USSR and Germany. Romanian infantry tactics and equipment are probably the ones that changed the most and quickest on the eastern front. At the beginning of the war Romanian infantry units where armed with Rifles, LMGs(Light machineguns) and mortars but no SMG's (submachine guns). Even from the crossing of the Prut river Romanian units captured PPD's and PPSh's and troops used them on their own initiative. And after the disaster that was the Siege of Odessa the need for SMG's was recognised and the development of a romanian made [SMG](http://www.forgottenweapons.com/romanian-orita-smg/) begun, as well as the purchase of foreign SMG's like the Beretta and the MP 40 as well as captured SMG's being put into service. By 1944 some romanian squads where mostly equipped with [SMG's](http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/328512-1/cav2). Besides normal SMG's some StG-44 where also used by romanian troops. Besides SMG's another quick addition to the arsenal was captured Russian AT rifles like the PTRS and the PTRD up to 40,000 of them. And by 1944 these begun to be Replaced with Panzerfausts and Panzershrecks and Raketen Panerbüchse 43 A strange addition during the war was the use of caputed Mosin Nagants as the standard sniper weapon. Probably do to them already having scopes and scope mounts. Besides adding new types of small arms only thing the Romanian Armed Forces tried to upgrade during the war where machineguns. With the addition of MG 34's and MG 42's which where quite liked do to being lighter than the ZB-53 by heavy machine gun squads and the high capacity and fire rate by light machine gun squads. A strange thing about Romanian armed forces is that they didn't bother with self loading rifles not even using captured Russian ones. So as we can see from their small arms they have evolved from the interwar rifle units with MG back up to a mix of SMG's Rifles and LMG's. Mostly do to the need of CQC weapons and tactics do to city combat. While the lack of self loading rifles is probably do to the lack of need. As normal rifles are just as accurate and for fire rate MG's can be used, also do to logistics required to use SVT-40's on a large scale. Though romanian armed forces get a bad reputation Romanian infantry had their own exploits and successes. One good example is how the Romanian Paratrooper Division managed to repel the Brandenburger assault on Bucharest, leading to the biggest defeat of the German special forces in WW2. Quite the achievement for a unit who hasn't seen combat before. Hope this helped a bit. Edit: some corrections and expanding on some ideas. Edit 2: corrected the part about the Panzershreck.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How shiny was the knight's armour?
First, I know knights were not the only people to wear armour, but how clean was armour kept when on campaign? Did soldiers try to keep it shiny? Could you see your face in it or have the sun reflect off it to blind opponents? I recall reading of a charge of knights blinding foes with the sun glinting on visors, but I have no idea how literal that was, or simply was emphasising the perceived splendour of them charging the enemy.
78
was that on the inside for comfort or was that on the outside for looking fabulous?
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Was Sumerian hyperurbanism "real" or just a result of research interests?
I understand that during the Early Dynastic period there was the phenomenon of "hyperurbanism" in which, due to the usual cocktail of reasons, rural settlements were abandoned in favor of the rapidly swelling urban areas. I heard one time a jaw dropping 50% urbanization rate, which flies in the face of much of my experience with ancient demographics. But is this population shift "real" or does it only seem to be because of the central place that urban tel sites have in archaeological research?
79
It is 'real' in the sense that there is extensive data from archaeological surveys that study the settlement development over a longer time - in terms of settlement distribution, but also in terms of settlement size. Adams 'Heartland of Cities' has the data and the visualisations and is a very interesting read! The development seems more pronounced around the city of Uruk than with other urban centres, particularly in the North, but it seems to be a general trend.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Theres an old Turkish wives tale of a Turkish officer carrying a wounded Anzac back to his trench during the Battle of Gallipoli, is there any credibility to this story?
Theres an old wives tail of a Turkish officer carrying a wounded Australian. The story goes that after hearing the wounded Australian scream for many hours (who was laying in no mans land), the officer had enough, raised a white flag picked up the man and carried him back to his trench. They even built a statue of it (https://curiouscatontherun.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/cimg9176-680x1024.jpg). The statue gives a name and his story, but I'm trying to find more credible sources.
183
What's the name given on the plaque?
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How did Spartas Dual Monarchy Work?
I'm intrigued as to what the relationship was between the two kings of Sparta throughout history, did they work together or were they in conflict? How did such a system arise and how was it maintained?
74
It's not 100% clear. The city of Sparta predates recorded history. According to Herodotus, a lawgiver named Lycurgus just sort of declared the way things should work. My best understanding is that most modern historians don't think Lycurgus was a literally real person, or if he did exist, that he did everything attributed to him. There were several villages in the territory that later became Sparta. Two of the villages were older, and closest to what ultimately became the Spartan Acropolis. A plausible explanation for the dual Kings is that it resulted from the merger of the two villages, with the leader of each village retaining his power in the merged city. Unfortunately, as far as I know, nobody has ever found clear proof of this explanation. We don't have anything like a signed contract between the two village leaders that lays out what the merger process was and specifying an exact date for the start of the dual monarchy. Nor do we really expect to find something like that, since Lyrcurgus forbid written laws or historical records. This has some excepts from Plutarch's Life of Lycurgus that explain a bit of the "no written laws or records" thing. Perhaps the most important except is: "Concerning Lycurgus the lawgiver, in general, nothing can be said which is not disputed." http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/5967/why-was-record-keeping-forbidden-in-ancient-sparta
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
What where taxicabs like in the Soviet Union?
And how did someone become a driver? Were these people also informants who had to 'keep an eye' on customers or report suspicious activities? As a cabbie myself I'm just curious to learn more about my Soviet counterparts...
154
Adam Curtis' documentary Pandora's Box has an interview with a Soviet cab driver. It seems that the number of miles a taxi drove in a month was set by the central planning apparatus. The driver interviewed goes on to say that people would tamper with the meters as a way of getting around the five year plan.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
What do we know about the people who lived in Europe before the Indo-Europeans?
Also, is it possible that the Basque people and those who spoke the Tyresnian languages lived in europe before the Indo-Europeans?
73
I'm not an expert by any means, but I'm *fascinated* by "Old Europe." Just by the way you worded you're question, I'm assuming you're familiar with the "Kurgan hypothesis." Anyway, we don't know much, and everything we know comes from archeological evidence, and more controversially, oral-folk traditions. There are a multitude of pre-Indo-European cultures, but I really only know anything about Trypillian culture. It was located in modern-day Ukraine, and they give us one of the most fascinating and enduring archaeological puzzles. Every 60-80 years they would burn down their homes and villages, and then rebuild in the same area. There is no consensus, but the evidence indicates that is was not accidental. Here is a fairly dated article, but it's very accessible and it has pictures: http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/anthro/faculty/bankoff/burning_color.pdf
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Is there any clue as to native americans making significant use of riding on an animals back before the arrival of the europeans and their horses?
null
53
Llamas and alpacas are the only domesticated draft-type (and I'm using that loosely) animals native to the Americas (wild horses having been hunted to extinction some 12,000 years ago), and so far as I'm aware, there is no evidence of their having ever been introduced to North America. These are both fairly small animals, little heavier than a large sheep, and not suited for riding.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Modern American pundits and politicians love to talk about the economic/industrial rise of China (and Japan before it). Did British political discourse do the same vis a vis America and Germany?
And how did it affect British political life once Germany and America actually did eclipse it? Related question: when exactly *did* America's economy definitively eclipse Britain's?
87
That isn't true at all. The US GDP actually surpassed Britain's during the 1890s, a fact which caused many some concern during that period. Many British were so dismissive of the 'Colonials' however that this wasn't taken seriously. Germany's economic power had been viewed as a threat for a while, and when the country was finally formed Britain was afraid of the threat it may pose to continental Europe and the balance of power. From a military standpoint, the British knew that the German Navy would never be able to contend with theirs, and in the event of a land war they'd ideally try to avoid it, but if necessary were dependant on Belgium to serve as a docking site. The entire country was made to be 'perpetually neutral', in theory, but the reality was that the British supported its creation to serve as an immediate means to land large numbers of troops in the event that France ever became massively belligerent again. This was sensible since it was only the 1830s, not even fifteen years had passed since the end of the Napoleonic Wars, and France had just cast off the Bourbon monarchy once more in the July Revolution in favor of the liberal Orleanistes, which terrified the Congress of Europe. As far as America goes, American dominance of finance and trade became truly clear in the aftermath of World War One, though it had, in reality, surpassed Britain about twenty-five years earlier in terms of industrial strength.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How did speakers of Cockney Rhyming Slang propagate an agreed set of word substitutions?
null
74
I think you're thinking about this all wrong. it's not like the Cockney poor would meet in a semi-regular basis and agree on this stuff. it would advance like any other word. someone starts using it, and someone else likes that word, and starts using it too, and so on and so forth until it's fairly ubiquitous. tl/dr ask /r/etymology
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Are there any "joke" paintings from before the late modern period? Or art that was meant to be a parody or satire of the style it's in?
I know today, you can find a lot of joke versions of famous paintings, or medieval-style parodies or satires of the art style or the era itself. Do we have any surviving art of that kind from earlier eras? I got this idea from browsing /r/trippinthroughtime. A lot of the faces and situations in these old works of art look ridiculous to us now, but were any of such old works also *meant* to look ridiculous to contemporary viewers?
60
Hi! I'm only an art history student but when I read your question, the first thing I thought of was this http://imgur.com/LxMfB67 drawing by daumier, called "this year, venuses again...always venuses!" From 1864. It's criticizing a popular trend in art salons at the time, where many of the submissions to the shows were paintings of nude women (typically called 'Venus' because that made the nudity of the subject acceptable). Is something like this what you're thinking of?
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How much of Aztec history was lost in the Spanish conquest?
Was the language and traditional ways of learning suppressed? Did the catholic church take an active role in suppressing native beliefs and ways of life? I know that many of our sources on the Aztecs are spanish codices, that would seem to indicate that there are few native accounts to draw on. What's the story here? I assume that stuff was lost, but how much?
89
To get you quickly started, the overwhelming majority of Aztec codices did not survive the Spanish (or rival Aztec Emperors out to do some history re-writing) and were burned as a way of erasing their culture. So the answer to your "how much?" is "as far as we know, nearly all of it" until we make a chance discovery somewhere in the Central American jungle. This is also why almost everything we know about the Aztecs comes from Spanish sources. I can't speak knowledgeably about Aztec oral tradition. http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/mexcodex/aztec.htm
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
What was the primary use of olive oil in classical Greece and Rome?
Other than cooking I've heard that they used it to bathe, but what other uses did it have? What was the main use of it back then?
50
* Athletics (a similar use as at the baths) * Perfume (usually mixed with exotic spices and put in one's hair) * Cosmetics * Religious ceremonies and funerary rites * Various medicinal uses When consumed, it wasn't so much used for 'cooking' as it was added raw to other dishes The following poem (Mart. *Ep.* 3.12) jokes about the different uses of olive oil: *Unguentum, fateor, bonum dedisti conuiuis here, sed nihil scidisti. Res salsa est bene olere et esurire. qui non cenat et unguitur, Fabulle, hic uere mihi mortuus uidetur.* I admit you served good unguent to your guests yesterday, But you carved nothing. It’s a great joke to smell lovely and to go hungry. He who does not dine and is anointed, Fabullus, Seems to me to truly be dead. Fabullus gave his guests great perfume but neglected to feed them. The joke in the last two lines is that corpses were anointed with olive oil. Much like wine (both for Romans and today), olive oil or perfume was the kind of thing you could bring to a dinner party as a gift.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
What language did Alexander the Great use to speak to the Oracle at Siwa?
Alexander the Great spoke to an Oracle at Siwa, who proclaimed him a son of Zeus and thus giving him right to be a Pharaoh. Did the Oracle speak Greek, or did Alexander speak Egyptian?
79
First, I don't think we can say for certain that the priest told Alexander that we was the son of Zeus, or that Alexander himself fully embraced such a claim. But in any event, [Plutarch's account](http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/alexandr.html) states: &gt;But Alexander, in a letter to his mother, tells her there were some secret answers, which at his return he would communicate to her only. Others say that the priest, desirous as a piece of courtesy to address him in Greek, "O Paidion," by a slip in pronunciation ended with the s instead of the n, and said "O Paidios," which mistake Alexander was well enough pleased with, and it went for current that the oracle had called him so. Paidion = my child Paidios = child of Zeus So Plutarch's unnamed sources seemed to think that the priest spoke Greek, albeit without a complete mastery.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How did the United States of America arrive at their valuation of Greenland in 1946? Could the area have been worth the cost of purchase in terms of economic output, or was the value purely strategic?
null
113
Initially, America very much wanted it for strategic reasons. The GIUK Gap was hugely important. Specifically, it was important to the Soviet Union's submarine fleet. If you look at the terms of the [Montreux Convention](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention), it was impossible to "sneak" a submarine through Turkish waters. If you look at a map of the Baltic Sea, or more specifically the [waters around Denmark](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Belte_inter.png), it's similarly unlikely that you could ever sneak a submarine past even a semi-aware detection network. Denmark, of course, was one of the founding dozen of NATO. This means that if the Soviets actually want to conduct any submarine operations with any degree of stealth, they need to be based out of Murmansk in the White Sea or somewhere in East Asia (Vladivostok, Petropavlovsk on Kamchatka, Magadan, or Sovetskaya Gavan. Realistically, if the Soviets wanted to have their submarines remain undetected, they really could only use those five ports. And if you wanted to operate in the Atlantic, you weren't going to put your HQ on the northwestern coast of the Pacific. You were going to put it in Murmansk. This, effectively, meant that any ships the Soviets sent to the Atlantic had to pass through the GIUK Gap. And it would be relatively easy to detect (and subsequently track or shadow) them if you had assets in the area beforehand. And it's kind of hard to be all sneaky and such when the USN is dropping [practice depth charges on you](http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB75/). They couldn't do any meaningful damage, of course, but it's an implicit threat: the USN was basically saying, "we could sink you at any time." As for the overall economic value of Greenland: that's up in the air. We [already see](http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2014/09/24-greenland-energy-mineral-resources-boersma-foley/greenland-hydrocarbon-map-page-size.jpg?la=en) Greenland being exploited for hydrocarbons. The USGS released a review of hydrocarbons in the region [here](http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1750). I believe they described it as "a genuinely stupid amount of dead dead plants buried in the sea floor." (Okay, that wasn't their exact phrasing.) (._.) Theoretically, yes, Greenland would've paid for itself. Eventually. If the estimates actually pan out.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
What was the alcohol business like before prohibition?
Were there laws against public drunkenness or underage drinking? Could you go to the corner store and buy a bottle of Old Crow? Was the sale and consumption regulated? Thanks in advance for any answers. I'm sitting here doing shots while browsing this sub, and this question popped into my head.
87
Pre-prohibition is a long time frame, especially if we're talking about American history. I can only speak to beer in the specific pre-Prohibition days, but... Beer gardens were extremely popular in the late 19th century and would be identified with the upper crust, while saloons would be identified with the "...era's masculinity, poverty, and corruption." Schlitz Park is a good example of the excess of the time. It was located in Milwaukee, on the "ruins of Quintin's Park..." After the land purchase, the project costed $75,000. It was a very ambitious project, that included buildings, restaurants, lavatories, etc. "...hundreds of thousands of visitors..." went to Schlitz Park for dancing, polo matches, operas, orchestras, vaudeville, and skating in the winter. The saloons, on the other hand, are described as "holes-in-the-wall...where the beer cost a nickel and the lunch, cigars, and companionship were free." There were 150,000 saloons in 1880 and almost 300,000 by 1900; in Milwaukee (pop. 120,000) there were 900 saloons. These were places for mostly working class Americans as a place to drink alcohol and to congregate after a long shift. Saloons were heavily influenced by brewers. Saloonkeepers expected visits (with free drinks for patrons), decorations, free kegs at holidays, and frequently played the brewers off one another. The saloons only served one brand of beer and they expected the breweries to compete for their business. Obviously this led to corruption on the part of the breweries and the saloonowners. Source: Ogle, Maureen. Ambitious Brew: The Story of American Beer
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Does modern scholarship consider the Israeli victory in the Six Day War a product of Israeli tactical genius or Egyptian/Syrian/Jordanian incompetence?
null
71
Our own resident expert on the history of the Arab-Israeli conflicts, /u/tayaravakin has written [about this very topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2oov4y/why_were_losses_in_the_conflicts_between_the_arab/cmp9gke). For more detail than you may want, see his [truly massive rundown on the events leading up to the Six-Day War](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/25nqhh/what_events_led_to_the_outbreak_of_the_1967_six/chj0jty), compete with footnotes and further reading. If you PM him, he may have something further to contribute on the subject.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
What was the first nation-state in the modern sense of the word?
null
84
This question is exceptionally problematic--not because of the nature of the question at all, but because of the nature of the word "state"/"nation state"/etc. among various anthropological circles. The first solid study of the development of the state is Elman Service's *Origins of the State and Civilization*. Published in the 60s, Service espoused an evolutionary model of statehood, suggesting that states evolves directly from lesser developed social structures like "Big Man" kin groups. This is problematic because no society develops strictly along evolutionary lines. Throughout his book, he discusses each of 6 (if I remember correctly) pristine, primary states in various locales throughout the globe. The oldest, however, seem to be either in East Asia and/or Mesopotamia (e.g., Sumeria, Babylon, Akkad, etc.). Norman Yoffee's highlights an important thought in his *Myths of the Archaic State* -- noting that "it doesn't much matter what we call things, as long as we explain clearly what we mean, and as long as our categories further research, rather than force data into analytical blocks that are self-fulfilling prophecies." (p. 1). You see, the problem with much scholarship surrounding early state formation (and all the more so surrounding so-called "pristine" or "primary" states like Egypt or Mesopotamia) is that too often, the definition of 'state' has driven the interpretation of the data, rather than the data driving the descriptive conclusions. Yoffee, however, seems to suggest that the earliest state type social groups were in ancient Mesopotamia. Of course, he also spends a decent amount of time discussing origins of the state and civilization in East Asia (namely, China)
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Did members of the Varangian Guard convert to Christianity or did they retain Norse paganism while in service?
Basically, I am curious about the relationship between religions in 10th century Byzantium specifically as it pertains to the Scandinavian members of the guard. Bonus question: are there any members of the guard that went on to become close friends of the emperor? I would be curious for any stories of specific guardsmen.
83
Hi, I believe that ostensibly the Norse members of the Guard did convert, as most of Scandinavia was being forcibly converted by the likes of Olaf Trygvason and Olaf the Saint around this time quite a few may have already adopted Christianity as their main religion. Having said that, I think (and this is only from my research) that the Byzantines were relatively accommodating in turning a blind eye to some aspects of the Scandinavian's behaviours. The Varangian Guard were formed c.988 AD by Basil II and were initially formed of men from Kievan Rus who had recently converted to Christianity in agreement between Vladimir I of Kiev and Basil. It is likely that most Guardsmen joining were baptised but, as with a lot of Scandinavians, they may have continued to worship older Gods from the Norse pantheon. Examples of crucifix amulets that also resemble Thor's hammer have been found and highlight the ambiguity in many ex-Pagans religion around this time. As for close friends to the Emperor, look no further than Harald Hardrada. He was the Domestikos of the Varangian Guard after giving several years of service to Byzantium whilst in exile from Norway. It's a very interesting story and he was not always in the Emperor's favour! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Hardrada In fact, his story is very interesting from birth right through to his death in 1066 when he made his play for the English throne.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How old is the concept of prison uniforms? What was the primary intention behind them? Deterrent for escape? Public shaming? Is there evidence this worked?
null
139
We ask that answers in this subreddit be in-depth and comprehensive, and highly suggest that comments include citations for the information. In the future, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with [the rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_write_an_in-depth_answer), and take these key points into account before crafting an answer: * Do I have the expertise needed to answer this question? * Have I done research on this question? * Can I cite my sources? * Can I answer follow-up questions? Thank you!
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
What were the primary differences between Soviet combat aircraft designs and US combat aircraft designs during the cold war? what "Doctrines" did those designs build towards?
null
90
/u/restricteddata ably covered a goodly portion of this question in his answers to [Why did the United States develop so many different fighter aircraft during the early Cold War?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21b5yn/why_did_the_united_states_develop_so_many/) and [How did post-WWII Soviet fighter aircraft designs differ from those of the US? How much of the difference is attributable to military doctrine? To economic necessity/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/32pxyg/how_did_postwwii_soviet_fighter_aircraft_designs/). One thing both of these answers do particularly well is that they highlight that quality/quantity is not as a clear-cut dichotomy as some popular commentators on military subjects maintain.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
Why did Greece decide to rebel from the Ottoman Empire after being a part of it for almost 400 years?
What changed about the Greek-Turkish relationship that inspired Greece to rebel after being a part of the empire for so long?
59
The Greeks had rebelled prior to this, it just happened to be the first successful uprising. They were usually in sync with Italian (well, venetian) wars waged against the ottomans, with the exception of the orlov revolt during the russo-turkish wars of the late 18th century. The fundamental differences were the scales of the revolts, as they tended to be rather regionalized prior, and lack of foreign support. The orlov revolt itself was supposed to have been aided by the Russians, but they never actually delivered their promised troops. Contrast this with the Greek revolution, where the Greeks received support from 3 great powers ( UK, Russia, France). Another contributing factor would have been the growth of nationalism since the French Revolution, the received support from catherine the great of russia for greek nationalism, and the relative success of the Second Serbian Uprising in 1815, which was the first christian ottoman subject to receive concessions from the ottomans. There is another matter which is important to note, and that is that the number of educated Greeks, and well to do Greeks, in the ottoman empire grew significantly in the 17th and 18th centuries (this is actually in contrast to how it was with the Serbian populace, as the majority of their elite came from austria-hungary, not really relevant, but I feel an interesting side note). This educated elite, as was the case in France and the 13 colonies) were crucial for garnering widespread support for the revolt. Will provide sources when I'm home (there's about 10 here) sorry for typos and punctuation, on mobile. Edit: just to add, it is obviously important to note that it was seizing the opportunity of the steady ottoman decline since the failed siege of Vienna.
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
How widespread was the modern style of dog ownership/culture historically?
How long ago do we know that people kept dogs like they were a member of the family and gave them affection/walks and taught them trick? Since there are many different dog breeds all across the world did various cultures treat dog ownership differently?
50
Dogs were domesticated at [some point in prehistory](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dog-domestication-much-older-than-previously-known/); you might have better luck asking an archeologist or anthropologists than a historian for the current debate on this. Dogs have been seen as 'a member of the family' for a long time, just in a working sense as opposed to the purely pastoral image of pets we have today. In many cultures today they have to have some usefulness or else are just another mouth to feed. For instance in rural parts of Southeast Asia dogs are still primarily used for the purpose of guarding property; in Vietnam they are also a source of food (Source: own experience). In Western Europe dogs were bred primarily to fulfil a certain function. Poodles were 'water retrievers' who's bushy hair helped them to stay afloat while hunting. The modern poodle began to take shape in the 15th and 16th centuries (as we can see in paintings by Durer) but it wasn't until they were imported to England in the 18th century that we get the 'miniature' and 'toy' versions which were less functional and more pet-like. The fashion for keeping dogs as pets grew in size among the upper classes during the 19th century, leading to the foundation of the [Kennel Club](http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/our-resources/about-the-kennel-club/history-of-the-kennel-club/) in the UK in 1873, which defined the desired characteristics of individual breeds, and was followed by other Kennel Clubs in the US and elsewhere. Throughout the 20th century pet ownership was less confined to the affluent as people began to be able to afford pets as well as a shifting cultural view of animals, helped in part by the establishment of organisations such as the RSPCA or Humane Societies in the US. Harold Herzog claims that the media had a large role in this, citing the massive rise in Dalmation ownership after the release of *101 Dalmation* in 1985. This led to the [increase](http://www.pfma.org.uk/historical-pet-ownership-statistics/) in dog ownership we have seen throughout the last century. I hope this has gone at least some way to answering your question. Source: [Harold Herzog, *Biology, Culture, and the Origins of Pet-Keeping*](https://www.google.co.id/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=http://abc.sciknow.org/archive_files/201403/20140306_Herzog_FINAL.pdf&amp;ved=0CCgQFjAFahUKEwi_gv-rx7vHAhWCkY4KHZumDj8&amp;usg=AFQjCNGlCgYa7Qe53gqw2SuQ3bCD9WMKnA&amp;sig2=cwKP4DPFmoRjIYYAMPktEw)
10
null
null
null
null
null
null
null
End of preview.

From the r/AskHistorians subreddit

Generated and filtered by https://github.com/nguyentd01/subreddit-data-downloader

Downloads last month
64