Datasets:

Pavithree

/

askHistorians

like 0

{ "a_id": [ "cccdgf7" ], "score": [ 39 ], "text": [ "They probably rarely wore togae in the first place. Togae were notoriously uncomfortable to wear, let alone in the stifling heat of the Eastern Roman Empire. Martial refers to work done during the day wearing the toga as 'toga work' (_opera togata_) and 'never ending' being such a pain. They would have official places, but according to Juvenal outside of Rome, everyone made do with more comfortable tunics or so forth instead - although the following is likely hyperbole, it reflects known attitudes towards the toga and its uncomfortableness. \n\n > \"There are many parts of Italy, to tell the truth, in which no man puts on a toga until he is dead. Even on days of festival, when a brave show is made in a theatre of turf, and when the well-known farce steps once more upon the boards; when the rustic babe on its mother's breast shrinks back affrighted at the gaping of the pallid masks, you will see stalls and populace all dressed alike, and the worshipful aediles content with white tunics as vesture for their high office. In Rome, everyone dresses above his means, and sometimes something more than what is enough is taken out of another man's pocket. This failing is universal here: we all live in a state of pretentious poverty.\n\n(Juvenal, Satire 3).\n\nSee also; [Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture, edited by Jonathan Edmondson and Alison Keith](_URL_0_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QYo8kA3pJNAC&pg=PT212&lpg=PT212&dq=toga+uncomfortable+juvenal&source=bl&ots=hjNfkrY_Xr&sig=Mp_nFe1ZPnQkANvNBkcQKyHqxpg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J9w8UoSFNqPM0QXYloGQBg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=toga%20uncomfortable%20juvenal&f=false" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cejc354" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "It was generally not common. Certainly there were some monarchs who did have some scholarly abilities. Queen Elizabeth I translated Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy.\n\nBut the amount of training in languages and literature necessary to be a truly accomplished scholar was tough for a monarch to achieve. They tended to be more patrons of scholarship (like Charlemagne or Alfred the Great or Catherine the Great) than scholars themselves." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chcgu3w" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "It was about the national identity, not religious reasons. More religious segments of Judaism were historically (and often still are) skeptical of Zionism in general, of which the Hebrew revival was a part.\n\nFirst, some linguistic background. Hebrew went extinct by the 2nd century. But it remained in use in Jewish communities as the language of the liturgy, Jewish texts, and religious literature. Synagogues still generally used Hebrew biblical texts, religious learners still learned Jewish texts, Rabbis still wrote Hebrew commentaries. Jews were generally literate in Hebrew script, and used it for writing non-Hebrew languages in many cases.\n\nThe revival of Hebrew is an interesting linguistic topic. The father of Hebrew is Eliezer Ben-Yehudah. But the process began a bit before. During the 19th century, the Jewish literary revival involved making Jewish works of \"high\" literature, in both Hebrew and Yiddish. One product of this was a body of literature in Eastern Yiddish (Tevye the Milkman was a product of this, which of course became Fiddler on the Roof). Another was new literary writing in Hebrew, by authors like Chayim Nachman Bialik.\n\nIt's with this backdrop that we get a critically important, but sadly forgotten, Zionist named Ahad Ha'am (that was his penname--his actual name was Asher Grinsberg. Ahad Ha'am means \"one of the nation\"). There were several strands of Zionism in the late 19th century. His was sometimes called \"cultural Zionism\". He saw the establishment of a Jewish state as the ultimate expression of this Jewish cultural revival. Just as writing literature would revitalize Jewish writing, a Jewish state would revitalize all aspects of Jewish life. He saw Zionists like Herzl as being sort of half-assed. They wanted to help Jews, yes, but they didn't want to really make Jews a more vibrant nation. In essence, he saw Herzl et al as trying to create a \"state of Jews\", while he wanted a Jewish state. He didn't think it was practical to just get Jews to migrate to Palestine--you'd need a cultural revival to get people interested in such a national enterprise\n\nAnd he wrote these objections in Hebrew. One of his bigger essays, זה לא דרך (Hebrew for \"this is not the way\"), where he outlined his objections. Trying to build a state out of nothing is pointless--first, Jews have to be inspired by a revitalization of Jewish culture.\n\nAround this time Eliezer Ben-Yehudah started working to revive Hebrew. He did a few things to this end. He wrote a Hebrew-language newspaper based in Jerusalem. He raised his son as a native monolingual Hebrew speaker. He wrote a Hebrew dictionary, including a number of coined words for new concepts.\n\nTo address your initial question, there were religious objections to this. Hebrew was, in Jewish parlance, *lashon kodesh/loshn koshesh*, the Holy Tongue. It had a religious significance. And many objected to its use in daily affairs. It was a particular point of controversy for Eliezer Ben-Yehudah in Jerusalem, which had a large religious population.\n\nWith this intellectual and ideological backing, combined with someone doing the legwork, Hebrew slowly started to gain ground. In the early 1900s Zionists incorporated Revisionist Zionist lingo into the language arguement. They saw Yiddish as an exilic language, which was to be eschewed for the *real* Jewish language, Hebrew. This active objection to other languages, combined with the ideological advantage of a Jewish revival it provided, gave it strength.\n\nPerhaps the solidifying moment was in the establishment of the Technion. It's a scientific univerisity in Haifa. There were intense debates about what its language should be. On one hand, German was the language of scientific discourse at the time. On the other, it was a institution in the Jewish statehood enterprise, and it should use the Jewish language. Eventually, Hebrew won out.\n\nSo propelled by a couple pieces of Zionist ideology, Hebrew managed to become the language of what would become Israel.\n\nEdited to remove typo" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ca992j6", "ca9ahj5", "ca9j98u" ], "score": [ 6, 8, 2 ], "text": [ "I don't have much analysis that can add to their own words. From the Journals of the Continental Congress, Saturday, June 10, 1775:\n > Resolved: That it be, and is hereby earnestly recommended to the several Colonies of New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut and the interior towns of Massachusetts bay, that they immediately furnish the American army before Boston with as much powder out of their town, and other publick stocks as they can possibly spare; keeping an exact account of the quantities supplied, that it may be again replaced, or paid for by the Continent; this to be effected with the utmost secrecy and dispatch.\n\n > That it be recommended to the committees of the several towns and districts in the colonies of the Massachusetts bay, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, and the eastern division of New Jersey, to collect all the salt petre and brimstone in their several towns and districts, and transmit the same, with all possible despatch, to the provincial Convention at New York.\n\n > That it be recommended to the provincial Congress ∥convention∥ of the colony of New York, to have the powder Mills, in that colony, put into such a condition as immediately to manufacture, into gun powder, for the use of the Continent, whatever materials may be procured in the manner above directed.\n\n > That it be recommended to the committees of the western division of New Jersey, the colonies of Pensylvania, lower counties on Delaware and Maryland, that they, without delay, collect the salt petre and sulphur in their respective Colonies, and transmit the same to the committee for the city and liberties of Philadelphia; to the end, that those articles may be immediately manufactured into gun powder, for the use of the continent. ", "The American colonists had very limited supplies of gunpowder and very limited capacity for manufacturing more of it (precise figures are in the link.) Had there not been a foreign source of gunpowder it is very doubtful that they could have been successful in their revolution. Who was this crucial benefactor? [Why the liberty loving King of France Louis XVI.](_URL_1_)\n\nIt's easy to forget that North America remained a side theater to European conflicts. Without France's self interested support there couldn't have been American independence.\n\n[Here's another link with more detailed figures]( _URL_0_)", "This doesn't really answer your question other than saying the gunpowder wasn't made domestically.\n\nHowever, the first gunpowder mill in the US was the Eleutherian Mills near Wilmington, DE. It was run by the DuPonts shortly after the revolutionary war. It was also the start of their industrial empire.\n\nI can't link to anything currently, but there is a wiki page about the mill. You might also look into the Hagley Museum, which is located near the mill and contains loads of information about it." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/AHR/30/2/Supply_of_Gunpowder_in_1776.html", "http://www.universityarchives.com/Find-an-Item/Results-List/Item-Detail.aspx?ItemID=54674" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cldwhmu", "cldwjve", "cldxtvn", "cle01n3", "cle67xb", "cle9kek", "cle9kzk" ], "score": [ 130, 93, 19, 81, 2, 2, 12 ], "text": [ "Heya guys, just popping in here to issue a quick reminder as to the [standards we uphold in this subreddit.](_URL_0_) Not a single one of the answers so far has measured up to those standards, including posts along the lines of:\n\n* \"I don't know a great deal about this but as there are no other replies I'll have a go\"\n* \"This one (Wiki link)\"\n* \"Link to Youtube 'popumentary'\" (We've had 6 or 7 different posts linking to the Ulfbehrt video, which is about as far from academic as you can get.) \n\nAlso, please remember the three things to ask yourself before posting:\n\n1. Do I, personally, actually know a lot about the subject at hand?\n2. Am I essentially certain that what I know about it is true?\n3. Am I prepared to go into real detail about this?\n\nIf any one of these is answered with a \"no,\" then please think twice about posting.\n\nThanks so much for your consideration! :)", "I know for sure there were coronation swords - for example Szczerbiec of Piast dynasty, the only surviving part of crown jewels of Piasts, currently displayed in Kraków. The name translates to \"Jagged Sword\" or \"Notched Sword\" and the legend has it the sword was chipped by Bolesław Chrobry against Golden Gate of Kiev during his capture of the city - purely a myth, as the capture took place in 1018, and the gate was constructed in 1037. The sword is a symbol of Poland, used throughout 20th century and to this day even by nationalists.", "Here's a prior thread that addressed this topic: _URL_0_\n\nHope you find something you wanted to know, I thought it was a good thread.", "Sorry OP: do you mean a real, existing weapons that hold high reputation, or simply a legendary or semi-legendary weapons (which existence is doubted)?\n\nIf it is the latter, I guess I'm going to mention a rather not-well known Asian weapon. The Javanese people in Indonesia has a huge fascination with *keris*, a dagger-like weapon. Back in the pre-modern times every Javanese man who is considered as adult, no matter whether he's rich or poor, always have at least one keris in his home. This tradition is well-documented in Tome Pires' *Suma Oriental*. Today we can still see the Javanese wield decorative keris in very formal events, such as weddings or, in case of Jogjakarta (a province in Indonesia which retains the autonomy for operating as sultanate), in sultanate-related events.\n\nOne famous legend is of the Keris Mpu Gandring.\n\nIt was wielded by Ken Arok, a bandit-turned-king. Once upon a time during his life he encountered Ken Dedes, a beautiful wife of Tunggul Ametung, a provincial of Tumapel. He told his mentor of this encounter, and the mentor told Arok that whoever man who took Dedes as his wife would be a king of prosperous kingdom. Arok, already infatuated with Dedes, then desired to murder Ametung, marry Dedes, and become a famous king. \n\nIn traditional Javanese belief, a man with high position such as Ametung is believed to hold a supernatural power. So Arok needed a special weapon to be able to kill Ametung. He asked Mpu Gandring, a famous keris-smith, to make such weapon. Gandring fulfilled Arok's request and asked him to wait several months. However after several months and a number of visits, Arok grew tired of waiting. So he took the keris (it's already exceptional at that time, just need some more imbuing with supernatural power), and murdered Gandring. With his last breath, Gandring cursed the keris, and told Arok that he and his seven generation of descendants will be killed by the same keris.\n\nLong story short, Arok murdered Ametung, married Ken Dedes, and built the Kingdom of Singhasari. However his rule was short, as Ametung's son, Anusapati, murdered him during his reign. Later on, Anusapati got murdered himself by Arok's son, Panji Tohjaya. Then Tohjaya's rule ended when Anusapati's son, Wisnuwardhana, rebelled. Tohjaya was wounded severely and died while seeking refugee.\n\nWhether they were all wounded and murdered by the same keris remains a question, but it is what the Javanese believed until today. The story of Arok's ascension, along with the murder of Ametung and the tragedy that followed are real though.\n\nThere are many other keris, like Keris Setan Kober, Keris Condong Campur, Keris Kyai Omyang, etc, but Keris Mpu Gandring is the most famous. Many are believed to have supernatural power. Keris Kyai Omyang, which was wielded by one of anti-colonial heroes in 19th century, Prince Diponegoro, now resides in Sasana Wiratama Museum, Jogjakarta.\n\nThe only source written in English I can recall dealing with this subject, albeit only briefly, is Benedict Anderson's *The Idea of Power in Javanese Culture*. Others I know unfortunately are in Indonesian.", "Related question if anyone knows: Is Kusanagi (the Japanese national treasure) thought to still exist, or is it more likely to have been lost?", "Does the Sword of Goujian count? It probably dates to 500-300BC, was owned by a king (since engravings on the sword itself says so), and is remarkable for being a copper/bronze-age sword that remains untarnished. Maybe this one doesn't count as legendary because it's an archaeological artifact and not mentioned in legends.\n\nOn Tiger Hill in Suzhou, China, there is a boulder called \"Sword Testing Stone\" and legend says that the boulder was split in half by one of the emperors who lived there using his legendary sword.\n\nSecondly, Guan Yu was a legendary General who wielded a legendary pole-arm. I'm not sure if this is only legend or historical. I was taught that it was real, but Wikipedia says that there's no historical evidence either way.\n\nI'm not a Chinese historian, but mention these as they either haven't been mentioned below or in similar threads. Hopefully a Chinese historian will be able to fill in the details and mention any other legendary Chinese weapons.", "I really like this question - sure there have been a lot of named swords, but getting down to the reason why they're named is deeply fascinating when there's a story to be found.\n\nSo to answer directly - yes! There absolutely were swords that had reputations to go along with their names. The vast majority of them would qualify as being 'well made' or at least perceived so even if they failed and broke in some way. The truly legendary swords though, were believed to have something special about them though - whether some magic, an other-worldly quality or a personality all their own.\n\nOne such sword was Skofnung - the sword of the Danish King Hrolf Kraki. The sword in Kraki's time was revered for it's hardness, sharpness and was said to have been imbued with the spirits of twelve of his Berserks. It was also said to give a loud cry whenever it saw wounds. It had quite a reputation, and when Hrolf Kraki died, the sword was entombed with him in his burial howe.\n\nNow, in Scandinavian tradition it wasn't uncommon for valued possessions to be put to rest with it's owner rather than handed down. This led to a habit of retrieving weapons and armour from graves that is documented in a number of Norse sagas. These tales are often embellished with battles against the previous owner for the item, but they are at least rooted in factual history.\n\nSkofnung shows up in tales well after the time of Hrolf Kraki - notably in the hands of Skeggi of Midfjord who is said to have recovered the sword. It's at this time that we hear more about what makes Skofnung so special, and the particular way in which it has to be handled.\n\nSkofnung has with it a 'Life-stone' and it's said that a wound inflicted with the sword can only be healed if the life-stone is rubbed on the would first. Life-stones are mentioned in conjunction with a handful of other historical swords so while it isn't a unique feature, it does mark it as a special blade believed to have an otherworldly power about it.\n\nThen there are the rules to handling the sword. Skofnung came with a small bag on the pommel and it was said to never allow the sun to shine on the pommel directly. Also it was never to be drawn unless the wielder was ready for a fight. Then there was the little snake - when drawn the wielder should blow gently on the blade just below the guard and a little snake with creep out. When that happens the blade is to be inclined to allow the little snake to creep back in again. \n\nAs a side-note, the bit about the blade-snake isn't as crazy as it might sound. Skofnung was pattern welded from a number of metal rods, and made in several sections (typically three - a longer central section that was tempered to be softer and springier, and two hardened outer edges that were welded on). The metal rods were twisted and folded in the forging process which imbued a pattern in the blade. It is this pattern that, on Skofnung in particular, made a little 'snake' when the warm breath of a person in the cooler climate of Scandinavia, contacted the blade. \nNote: Googling 'pattern welded blade' will give you an idea of how the effect looks on a blade.\n\nThis is all very well explained because these are the things that weren't done when the famous sword was lent to a man named Kormac to fight a duel with a man named Bersi (who also had a sword, Hviting, which had a life-stone as well). Kormac ends up losing the duel and it's his failure to follow the sword's rituals that are blamed (which are believed to have imparted bad luck as he lost the fight when he cut the point off Hviting and it flew onto his hand, cut him and caused him to bleed first). \nFailing to observe the rules of the sword (and doing pretty much everything wrong) Kormac is forced to wrench Skofnung out of the scabbard and the sword was said to have come unwillingly and howling. It's also said that the luck of the sword was changed, which didn't work out so well for Kormac.\nIt's worth noting however that the sword served both Skeggi and his son for many years after this, with no mention of it's luck being damaged or changed in any way.\n\nSo, a long, somewhat rambling answer, but I think it covers off most of the points and shares a bit of an interesting story as well. I'd highly recommend checking out the sources I've listed below here - in particular Oakeshott's book is excellent.\n\n\nSources & Further Reading:\nThe Archaelology of Weapons, R. Ewart Oakeshott\n\nSkofnung on Wikipedia: _URL_0_\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1jsabs/what_it_means_to_post_a_good_answer_in/" ], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15atks/are_there_any_examples_of_named_swords_in_history/" ], [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skofnung" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dq15vbc" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Sorry, we don't allow [\"example seeking\" questions](_URL_1_). It's not that your question was bad; it's that these kinds of questions tend to produce threads that are collections of disjointed, partial, inadequate responses. If you have a question about a specific historical event, period, or person, feel free to rewrite your question and submit it again. If you don't want to rewrite it, you might try submitting it to /r/history, /r/askhistory, or /r/tellmeafact. \n\nFor further explanation of the rule, feel free to consult [this META thread](_URL_0_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3nub87/rules_change_throughout_history_rule_is_replaced/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_.22example_seeking.22_questions" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d7ujkni" ], "score": [ 32 ], "text": [ "[Yes.](_URL_0_)\n\nAs the source describes, Milton was a republican in the historical sense. It was during his lifetime that Oliver Cromwell, still a divisive figure in English history, rose to power after overthrowing Charles I. Milton supported this. Charles I was deposed, but after returning and making war throughout the 1640s, the English ultimately executed him in 1649. Following this, Cromwell is given the title of Lord Protector of the realm, although after his death, the monarchy is restored bloodlessly. Although Richard Cromwell was selected to succeed, he did not command the requisite respect and was booted out of office within a year, leading to the restoration of Charles II to the throne.\n\nFast forwarding to 1667, after Milton (unpopular for his Republican views, at this point blind, which was considered by some to be divine punishment for his support of regicide, or the killing of the king.)\n\n > England in 1667 was reeling from the events of the previous year, when plague and fire had swept the capital, causing a devastation many people thought was divinely inspired; a biblical epic from a blind, grim old controversialist was by no means certain of being sympathetically received, as the poet's wish that his poem might 'fit audience find, though few' (VII.31) perhaps recognises. In spite of this unwelcoming climate, when Paradise Lost appeared, it was hailed as a work of genius, even by Milton's political opponents. \n\nOne of the first adaptations of the poem is John Dryden's play, which \"outsold the original until the end of the seventeenth century.\"\n\n > Satan, who disdains servitude and tries to overturn his monarch, becomes in Dryden's rewriting an unmistakeable portrait of Oliver Cromwell, the king-killer. He also believed that the fallen angel, and not Adam, was the hero (in the sense of his structural position as the protagonist of the epic), and weighted his adaptation accordingly... Contemporary readers who thought there was a whiff of sulphur about the unrepentant republican poet were not surprised to find these sentiments in the mouth of the arch-fiend; and there were those who believed that Milton was in fact disowning his previous stance by associating it with Satan. Neither reading does justice to the complexity of Paradise Lost, but this does identify what was to become a recurrent theme in later responses to the poem: the contested interpretation of Satan, its eloquent anti-hero.\n\nThe most prominent later commenter on Milton who views Satan as the protagonist, William Blake, remarks that, \"The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels and God, and at liberty when of Devils and Hell, is because he was a true Poet and of the Devil's party without knowing it.\"\n\nEssentially, opinions are divided: as the linked source would indicate, many at the time may have viewed Milton's poem as autobiographical in a sense, or as they say, that Milton was \"disowning his previous stance by associating it with Satan.\" Those who favored Cromwell were likely to favor it; even those who didn't agree with Milton like his political opponents \"hailed [it] as a work of genius.\" The role of Satan, then as now, was open to interpretation and disputation.\n\n\nSource:\n\nPeter Gaunt, *Oliver Cromwell*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://darknessvisible.christs.cam.ac.uk/critics.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cydtgrl" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "In the intelligence community Nathan Hale is often called \"America's first spy\". He was captured by the British in 1776 and executed, famously stating \"I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.\" \n\nHale's mission was to go behind the British lines and report on their movements. \n\nThis was the same for almost all human intelligence (HUMINT) gathering in those days. When battles were fought in formations the most valuable piece of information was at what point the formation would be weakest so that it can be penetrated/flanked/or used to flank. When the force was too large to fight, it allowed units to avoid engagement or retreat and re-engage under more favorable conditions. \n\nMore famous \"spies\" during the Civil War weren't actually conducting espionage as much as sabotage. The Great Locomotive Chase as an example, for which the first Medal of Honor was awarded. These men were executed as spies regardless. \n\nInformation of simple troop movements back in those days sounds useless with all the things the US intelligence community can do nowadays, but don't discredit its value. \n\nGeneral Beauregard of the Confederacy credits a spy from Virginia for the victory at First Manassas (First Bull Run). This spy was Bettie Duvall, and she rode from Washington to Fairfax to pass on those troop movements. Individual spies, same as scouts, could move much faster than entire units. However, scouts were uniformed and watched carefully. Spies were not uniformed and integrated themselves into local life. This was the advantage of a spy. \n\nMostly, the spies were just eyes. They went into an environment, kept an eye on things, and reported anything deemed valuable enough. None of this was centralized. \n\nAllen Pinkerton made the first attempt at centralizing intelligence. He built a counterintelligence (CI) network in Washington to counter Confederate HUMINT. He built up his own HUMINT operation in Richmond to keep eyes and ears open. However, its effectiveness is questionable. Pinkerton's intel was often bad and cost a few battles by convincing the commanders not to attack a force they thought was stronger, but wasn't. \n\n**TL;DR + Conclusion** - It was mostly a de-centralized network of eyes and ears in public. The targeted information was primarily troop movements, though other information like important infrastructure, routes, goals, and unit readiness were also valuable. " ] }

[]

[ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3xweqm/what_was_us_espionage_like_from_the_revolutionary/" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dgl5nch" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "A couple ways.\n\n1. They give it to themselves. *Every* Joseon Korean King styled himself \"the Great\"\n\n2. Others give it to them. Kings in Europe took their epithets personally and knew what they were in many cases. They all wanted a name like \"the Bold\", \"the Good\", \"the Brave\", or \"the Great\", or in rare cases \"the Lionheart\". Richard probably got a little woody when he heard the last one for the first time. It became standard practice for courtiers to assign such names and for even ordinary people to come up with ways to describe their King. Lots of them were neutral, like \"Barbarossa\" (Red Beard). Others, like \"the Thunderbolt\", referring to Bayezid of the Ottomans, were very accurate and referred to specific events, like Bayezid's racing his army between Europe and Asia.\n\n3. The state officially assigned names to monarchs and minted them on coins. Islamic countries did this a lot, with every Ottoman Sultan styling himself \"Gazi\" or some positive epithet. \n\n4. Historians and literati ascribe epithets after the reign of the monarch. No doubt very few would dare call Ethelred \"the Unready\" during his reign. That was an epithet made popular by later historians of England writing about their own country. The same case was for Timur the Lame, who in his day was called Timur the Great.\n\nUsually it starts with courtiers or literati genuinely praising a King or coming up with a witty, ironic epithet like \"the Confessor\". Then, it either catches on with contemporaries at the time, or with later writers." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c98fknb" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "These words have entered the consciousness of English-speakers (and speakers of other languages) as having a specific connection to a certain object. There are dozens of German leaders, there is only one Fuhrer. This is the same with, say, Czar or Chief.\n\nSimilarly, sometimes words get extra meanings that are lost in translating. A South American Caudillo isn't just a \"war leader\" or \"head\", but a Caudillo. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cc6n71f" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "One of the best known ground public transport options was stage coaches, so-called because they regularly changed horses with each stretch between changes being called a \"stage\". In Australia the best known and remembered of these is \"Cobb & Co\" although there were many other companies running coaches.\n\n_URL_0_ " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/cobb-and-co" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmgkey1" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Can you give some examples, please? That would help." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "di5qv6n" ], "score": [ 30 ], "text": [ "In a word, Longstreet was a realist. He accepted that the South has lost, and was looking for the best way for her to bounce back. But while he wasn't alone in the former officer corps in his caution \"to accept the terms that are now offered by the conquerors\" following the implementation of Reconstruction in 1867, he was fairly unique in his advocacy for actual cooperation, which resulted in considerable vilification by Southern veterans and writers over the next few decades. Maybe if he had kept is views to himself it wouldn't have been so bad, but he put them in a letter that was published in a New Orleans newspaper. [I don't know if the entire text is available, but \"Lee's Tarnish Lieutenant\" has a fairly extensive quotation](_URL_0_). In short though, He was arguing that cooperation with Republicans was essential in order to best be able to mitigate the adverse effects of Reconstruction - \"if whites won't do it, the thing will be done by the blacks\" - and additionally that ensuring a Southern presence within the Republican party was essential to limiting the ability of the newly enfranchised African-Americans to have any real power with their vote.\n\nAs you can see, his views are still fairly offensive as far as our ideas of racial equality goes, but for a Southern audience, still smarting from defeat, and still *pretty* damn racist, he might as well have just waved a white flag. Most of them weren't willing to give even an inch, and of course, as the next few decades would bear out, the South was fairly effective in ensuring the failure of Reconstruction, and the continued subjugation of the African-American population under Jim Crow. It didn't matter to them that Longstreet firmly believed he was advocating in Southern interests, and for the continued marginalization of the Black population at that. The Republican Party was *the enemy*. It was everything that stood in opposition to white, Southern civilization. One of the most core aspects of the Southern views on their defeat was to ensure that their honor remained intact - defeated on the battlefield but not in spirit. Longstreet's path went against that, however much his long term view of the continuance of a white dominated South may still have aligned.\n\nLongstreet perhaps could have defended himself, but he simply never really tried, at least in the early days. A few private letters exist which speak to his commitment to white supremacy, but he never made strong, public statements to that effect in order to clarify his position. It didn't help that within a few months, he was granted his Federal pardon, which would allow him to again run for office, and of course led to accusations of abandoning the Confederate cause out of sheer self-interest. \n\nHe then just keep digging that hole deeper, endorsing Grant for the presidency, and then accepting a Federal job in the Port of New Orleans. This just only continued to feed Southern attacks on his generalship and character, and soon enough, Longstreet was essentially the sole cause of Southern defeat, having been made the lynchpin of defeat at Gettysburg, and in turn Gettysburg the lynchpin of defeat in the war itself. It was essentially a vicious cycle, with each side acting and reacting to further entrench the other's position. When, in 1896, he published his memoir and dared speak an ill-word of General Lee in defense of himself, well, he might as well have taken a dump on Jesus Christ himself as far as Southern audiences were concerned. While he wasn't exactly at Sherman's level, Longstreet had very much come to be a villain of the 'Lost Cause' narrative as it was formed in the late 19th century. \n\nJames Longstreet and the Lost Cause by Jeffry D. Wert, in The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History, edited by Gary W. Gallagher & Alan T. Nolan\n\nLee's Tarnished Lieutenant by William G. Piston" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://books.google.com/books?id=n24-UIO3TuUC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=%22My+politics+is+to+save+the+little+that+is+left+of+us,+and+to+go+to+work+to+improve+that+little+as+best+we+may%22&source=bl&ots=x_BhIJ2P4c&sig=glxeWPlkkGUE1MTyJT_c7NXYvfg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq95X0qZPUAhXD4CYKHQ6NAlsQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=%22My%20politics%20is%20to%20save%20the%20little%20that%20is%20left%20of%20us%2C%20and%20to%20go%20to%20work%20to%20improve%20that%20little%20as%20best%20we%20may%22&f=false" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cu95kff" ], "score": [ 14 ], "text": [ "The Iazyges were a nomadic Sarmatian tribe located in around where Romania, Ukraine, and Hungary meet today. They were a constant thorn in the side of the Roman Empire from the 1st Century BCE. They constantly resisted assimiliation and were among the last of the Dacian peoples to be quelled. In the late 1st Century CE, they crossed the Danube into Roman Pannonia and defeated Legio XXI Rapax (who were disbanded afterwards). It was only when Trajan took control of the Empire (and the war in Dacia) where the Iazyges were conquered. In fact, future emperor Hadrian was the one that forced them to submit. They were reduced to a client state of the Roman Empire after this (107 CE).\n\nEDIT: Professor pronounced them (ee-uh-zee-gees)\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cprwxbu", "cprxw5p", "cps0jke", "cpsgjt9" ], "score": [ 99, 4, 23, 8 ], "text": [ "More of a legal history perspective, but contracts historically were based on trust. Basically you could cash a check because you said you were the person on the account. You would only need to prove your identity if there was something wrong with the transaction (someone else claimed it, the check was returned, etc.). \n\nIf in court you needed to prove your identity, you would have to do so by a preponderance of the evidence, which is to say that you would prove that it is more likely than not that you are who you say you are. You would use whatever you had at this point, family bible, a deed, a birth certificate if you had one, etc. ", "While there is always more that can be added, so I don't wish to discourage anyone from answering, you'll find that there are older threads which might interest you as a starting place at least. [Check 'em out here!](_URL_0_)", "You might be interested in *The Return of Martin Guerre* by Natalie Davis. It's a historical analysis/reconstruction of a court case in 16th century France that deals explicitly with the subject of identity. A basic synopsis of the case is that after a man named Martin Guerre left his family, an imposter came and took his identity. After people started to figure him out there was a trial to determine his identity, and as if the whole situation wasn't dramatic enough, the true Martin Guerre returned in the middle of the trial. Davis' analysis reconstructs both the life of Martin Guerre and the trial itself using archival evidence and the papers of the judge who presided over the case and led the investigation. It's been awhile since I've read it so I'm murky on the specifics, nevertheless it should give an interesting perspective on your question. ", "Missing from the comments below are notes, and the letter of credit. If you are a traveler, going from London to Madrid, you would go to a business or bank or even a friend in London who had a contact, branch or associate in Madrid. They could take your money, and provide you a letter for their associate saying, in essence \"this is George, give him 40 reals\". You would have some other documents, even letters of introduction, passes from the Spanish embassy, with you, showing your name was George. There would usually be a discount- i.e., they would give you a little less than your 40 reals, to make a profit. This is how you'd avoid hauling bags of gold with you.\n\nBut for more local transactions, especially with a scarcity of small money, there would be \"notes\". You build a doghouse for George Washington, he pays you with a note saying reimburse the bearer 2 shillings. You can then pay somebody else with that note, when you owe them. Eventually somebody will show up at Washington's house wanting the real cash, and he'd pay them...or tell them to come back Monday.\n\n\nThe important thing is, notes often did not require ID, anymore than money does today. BUT if somebody gave you a note, or letter of credit, and you doubted it was good, you could decline to accept it, or you could discount it heavily- give them much less than the face value. So, your note from Washington would be less discounted than a note from somebody totally unknown. If the note was for a specific person, you; you could sign it over to someone else, and they could then sign it over to someone else; and anyone could also refuse the note, or discount it.\n\nA check was essentially also a note, but instead of eventually presenting it to Washington, someone had to present it to the bank. And the bank itself could simply issue notes- which is where you get paper money being called bank notes. \nFrom here you can see how notes would be used as credit, loans, be traded, used as collateral...and it gets complicated.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/dailylife#wiki_proof_of_identity" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbc4owx", "cbc4rg5", "cbc881r" ], "score": [ 2, 8, 2 ], "text": [ "Hmm, if you're specifically interested in American art the catalog for the exhibition Under the Big Black Sun should have some material on the topic.", "Indeed, there are!\n\nMy favorite, for its breath and scope, is Spencer Weart's _Nuclear Fear: A History of Images_ (1988). There is a revised/updated edition out recently as well, though I prefer the original. It covers public attitudes (in a number of countries) about radioactivity and nuclear energy from the 19th century through the 1980s. It is very well written and one of my favorite academic books.\n\nThe other big book on this, though its time period and geographical focus is much narrower, is Paul Boyer, _By the Bomb's Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age_ (1985/1994). \n\nThere are other books on this subject as well, though I think most historians would list these at the very top.", "Henricksen, Dr. Strangelove's America: Society and culture in the Atomic Age\n\nOakes, The Imaginary War: Civil Defense and American Cold War Culture" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ct8i5jf" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "The short answer is there are a variety of reasons. This actually goes into law a little bit so I will be in uncharted territory.\n\nSo Davis was indicted for treason. But when he went before the judge his team argued that due to the 14th Amendment he was already punished for insurrection against the US, as under the 14th Amendment anyone who takes an oath of public office and commits an insurrection can no longer hold public office.\n\nHowever the chief justice gave him an interesting argument. As Davis was president of another nation, he wasn't technically a citizen and couldn't be tried for treason for that reason.\n\nIn the end, Andrew Johnson pardoned him and all ex-confederates anyways, so any outcome would have been moot due to this." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eyrrqrr" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "/u/restricteddata previously answered [Why was Emperor Hirohito allowed to keep the throne after Japan's unconditional surrender in WWII?](_URL_1_)\n\n/u/vinco_et_praevaleo previously answered [How did Emperor Hirohito escape trial and death following the Second World War?](_URL_0_)\n\nEDIT: fixed typo" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5omexl/how_did_emperor_hirohito_escape_trial_and_death/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4wozby/why_was_emperor_hirohito_allowed_to_keep_the/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dhd85tl" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "During the late 50’s the threat perceived to radiate from the soviets was changing.\nIt is argued that the Canadian Government was operating in an information vacuum with regards to this threat.\n\nAs a reaction to the detonation of the Soviet Hydrogen Bomb in 1953 NORAD was under development, a system that should provide early warning for the US when Russian Bomber approached the Continent, and would coordinate the responsive measures. In order to push the warning line forward units would have to be stationed on Canadian soil. \n\nThis came into play around the same time a new government came into power in Canada, that of Diefenbaker. A discussion broke out whether or not the Norad agreement would mean that Canada was giving up it’s sovereignty, as Canadian units would fall under American control. In the end the Canadians perceived the Russians to be a greater thread and agreed to NORAD. \n\nCoincidental with the development of NORAD was the development of the Avro CF-105 Interceptor. Many people around Diefenbaker noted that he was not open to take advice on defence. Thus the government at first ignored some important views by not taking advice from a group of military advisors that upheld the view that the perceived Bomber Threat was quickly turning into an IBCM threat. \n\nThe main thought with regards to air power at the time was an offensive one: Namely that it was important to strike first. From WWII the notion survived that of a large bomber force only a small number of bombers would be shot down. In the case of these bombers carrying an nuclear load even a handful of survivers could have a devastating effect. To quote prof J.I. Jackson:\n\n“the real air defence is the thermonuclear retaliatory or counter force, supported by the radar warning system that will allow it to take off before it can be destroyed on the ground. The defensive interceptor and electronic weapons are no longer the teeth of the air defence system, but rather comprise a subsidiary arm of the warning net, and have the same purpose in this as civil defence and defence against missile bearing submarines in helping to dissipate the casualties of the attack.” (1)\n\nTo repudiate the claim that Canada was bullied into stopping the program. Recent declassification of documents (around 2011) shows that in fact the US was interested in absorbing the biggest part of the costs of procuring the CF-105 for both the RCAF and the RAF air defence squadrons. The tragedy is that this information never reached the Canadian decision makers. The US was not interested in the CF-105 for use in the USAF, mainly as a result of the F-108 that they had on the drawing board.\n\n“. While the confused decision-making structure, dislike of committees, and seeming mistrust of senior military leadership were inescapable features of Diefenbaker’s personality, there is evidence that he was failed by those entrusted with ensuring needed information was pushed forward. In this case, information that told of a potential US commitment to assist in the acquisition of larger numbers of CF-105s to meet NORAD requirements and answer an enduring threat to the continent did not reach Diefenbaker.” (2)\n\n\nThe CF-105 was cancelled on the prevailing thought that now existed with the Canadian decision makers: Namely that the bomber threat was waning, and that IBCM’s now were the main threat. This proved to be erroneous as the bombers of the USSR still were a threat, at least until the late 1960’s In addition the critical information on the US’s willingness to purchase a number of CF-105’s for the RCAF never reached Diefenbaker. Thus the decision was made based on economics: Do we buy aircraft to defend against a threat we think is waning, or do we participate in NORAD and stationing of the BOMARC missille system, which is cheaper than the number of CF-105’s we need? They decided for the latter. If Diefenbaker had the relevant information available to him it is quite likely that the decision would have been different. \n\n\n**Sources**\n\n(1) Brad W. Gladman, Continental Air Defence: Threat Perception and Response, (2012) p 14.\n_URL_1_\n\nIbid, p 37.\n\nNorad at 40, historical overview\n_URL_0_\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/norad-overview.htm", "http://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc120/p536662_A1b.pdf" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eftyfl9" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ " > The cultural standards by which a woman's weight and shape have determined her sexiness have changed dramatically over time in Western/European societies. For example large, curvy \"rubenesque\" women were deemed sexy for much of the 17th and 18th centuries whereas today, thinness is praised > curves.\n\nYour premise is really a pretty bold claim and mostly seems like a simplistic misinterpretation of art, it has been addressed here many times, for example here _URL_0_ by u/chocolatepot , who also, if briefly, addresses male beauty. \n\nIn any case, one should really differentiate between various \"considerations\" of \"sexy/attractive\": \n\nIs a depiction meant to be idealistic or maybe just realistic, is it about some general expectations from the opposite sex, or rather *self*-image, or artistic ideas, or tastes of particular artists (what's their sex? sexual orientation? status?), or just detached symbolism, or idea(l)s of particular groups... All of those are related yet ultimately very different questions requiring their own kinds of sources. \n\nJust consider how you'd evaluate what modern bodybuilding vs regular fashion magazines vs pornography vs various movie genres vs what men/women expect vs what they fantasize about vs what they tend to end up with (don't) say about beauty ideals... " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4e8c52/did_heavier_men_and_women_used_to_be_considered/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c78rxr6", "c78upnb", "c78v9vz", "c78whdp", "c796dlt" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "General question (as in every sources thread): What about non-English language sources? Yay/Nay? Only for country specific topics? ...?", "^^I ^^did ^^not ^^find ^^Edward ^^Gibbon ^^dull ^^at ^^all...", "the way the posts are going I am seriously worried about hitting the character limit in a few days and, worse, making the list unwieldy. Any suggestions?", "We often get questions of \"whats a good book on\" I feel like the list is perhaps not visible enough. Maybe we could add the links to our perma threads right after the FAQ on the sideboard. Or perhaps link to them IN the FAQ. ", "Any room for more on the nature of colonialism in general (accross various empires, rather than focusing on a specific country)?\n\nAlso, I loved Peter Hopkirks books (Setting the East Ablaze: Lenin's Dream of an Empire in Asia, 1984 / \nThe Great Game: the Struggle for Empire in Central Asia, 1990 / \nOn Secret Service East of Constantinople: The Great Game and the Great War, 1994). \n\nDoes anyone know of any books similar to Peter Hopkirks subject matter? " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cgez8sj" ], "score": [ 13 ], "text": [ "Stalin chose to let secretary of State Molotov announce the German invasion to the citizens of the USSR. According to Molotov's own words: \"[Stalin] didn't want to be the first to speak. He needed a clear picture. He couldn't respond like an automaton to everything. He was a human being after all.\" During the first couple of days Stalin was simply swamped in work, formulating a military answer to the situation at the front which was quite disastrous.\n\nAfter a couple of days though, Stalin seems to have suffered some sort of mental breakdown. After a meeting with, amongst others, NKVD-chief Beria and Molotov in Stalin's dacha he supposedly uttered these words: \"Everything's lost. I give up. Lenin left us a proletarian state and now we've been caught with our pants down and let the whole thing go to shit.\" After that meeting Stalin remained in his dacha and went incommunicado. According to Molotov 'Stalin shut himself away from everybody, was receiving nobody and wasn't answering the phone'. \n\nBecause conducting a war without the leader of the country in office is quite difficult seven members of the Politburo decided to go check on Stalin themselves. They found him 'thinner, haggard, gloomy'. He asked the Politburo-members if he would still be able to lead the country to victory. They responded favourably and Stalin was appointed head of the State Defence Committee. The next day Stalin returned to Moscow and on July 3rd he held his first radio speech since the German invasion. \n\nSo did Stalin really have a breakdown? According to Simon Sebag Montefiore's Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar (the main source for this answer) the breakdown 'was real enough: he was depressed and exhausted'. But Montefiore also points to quotes from Molotov and Politburo-member Anastas Mikoyan who said it was also 'for effect'. Stalin used his breakdown to see if he still had the trust of the Politburo. \n\nEDIT Request for the downvoters: if you don't like my answer, please do give an alternative or point me towards the mistakes in my answer." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ds8hnfb" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "You almost certainly won't find it at all. Formal heraldry, in which each individual possesses a unique, identifying coat of arms based on symbols inherited from the father and mother, did not develop until the 13th century. It's likely that 11th century Normans decorated their shields, but this would have been cosmetic rather than heraldic in nature." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccvz6lk" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "I will assume that you mean Europe, and specifically Western Europe.\n\nA walled city was a very tough nut to crack for any attacking force. A walled city would have the local militia, and quite likely at least a small garrison of professional soldiers under the employ of the liege. \n\nNow, an army needed to have overwhelming force if they were to attack a fortified city. Sun Tzu states that a three to one advantage is needed, but even that wasn't always enough. At the [Siege of Rhodes](_URL_0_), the Knights Hospitaller, numbering only about 3,500 knights and soldiers, held off 20,000 soldiers, including 3,000 janissaries of the Ottoman Empire. \n\nObviously, the quality of the attacking and defending forces means a lot in a situation where one is actually going in in that fashion. Such a means, however, usually wasn't the case. Sending your men at the walls with ladders, rams, and towers was usually only done when the city HAD to be taken, usually because reinforcements were coming to help the defenders, or other such situations.\n\nTypically, it would turn into a siege. Simply put, during a siege, the attackers were trying to wait out the defenders. If possible, entrances to the city would be blocked off, your own forces would entrench (protecting them from the defenders as well as possible reinforcements), and you would starve out the defenders. \n\nThis was not always easy. Sometimes the attacking force could not block all points of supply, such as if the city were on the coast, had several gates, or the attacking force was small. Cities could hold out for months of years in this fashion. Many cities had their own sources of water such as wells within the walls for just such a situation. There were usually supplies inside for at least a short siege. Things could get pretty dire, however, with people eating horses and mules, and sometimes even people.\n\nThis isn't to say the situation was great for the attackers. Dysentery was very common with besiegers, and the risk of disease decimating an attacker was huge. In pre-modern armies, disease killed more soldiers than anything else by a huge margin. \n\nAttackers, as stated, also had to worry about reinforcements coming to aid the defenders. Often, besiegers would build a fortress around the city, made of wood or other materials, to protect themselves from defenders sallying forth or attempts to break the siege.\n\nAnd, of course, the attackers had to worry about supply as well. During the First Crusade, the crusaders ran so low on supplies that they would cut meat from dead soldiers and horses and eat it.\n\nIf the defenders surrendered early, they might expect some mercy (ie not be killed in the streets). If they tried to fight it out, there was typically no mercy. Either way, looting was very common, and soldiers generally expected to supplement whatever pay they were given with this looting of cities." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_(1480)" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chirlo3" ], "score": [ 22 ], "text": [ "It does seem unusually low. Where did you get that statistic? [This site](_URL_0_) claims (my emphasis):\n\n > The Vietnam War saw the *highest proportion* of blacks ever to serve in an American war. During the height of the U.S. involvement, 1965-69, blacks, who formed 11 percent of the American population, made up 12.6 percent of the soldiers in Vietnam... the percentage of black combat fatalities in that period was a staggering 14.9 percent.\n\nSource: *The Oxford Companion to American Military History*. 1999." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/s_z/stevens/africanamer.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9i85xk", "c9i8f4q" ], "score": [ 4, 2 ], "text": [ "You're kind of mixing up two different claims. And it's a little difficult to disentangle them in a short answer. You might start with the popular questions page topics about [Native Americans and European Diseases](_URL_0_).", "I'd be interested to know where you heard this, because I think you may be jamming a few ideas together to come up with a misguided whole.\n\nThere are some generally recognized large geographic regions that serve as rough boundaries for [cultural areas](_URL_0_), but to say that there was a homogenous culture across the continent is just wrong. Even those generally agreed upon areas could shift with time and always held an immense cultural diversity in agricultural practices, lineage, religion, art, technology, architecture, and everything else that falls under the rubric of culture. Calling pre-columbian North America \"homogeneous\" is just so wrong it's hard to even know where to begin.\n\nAs for the Vikings bringing some sort of infection that depopulated the continent? No, there is no evidence of this. There's really very little evidence of any lasting effect of historically brief Viking settlement in Newfoundland. That's why they are a footnote in American history to the invasion Columbus kicked off, which did bring disease that spread out before the Europeans, depopulating as they went.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/nativeamerican#wiki_native_americans_and_.28european.29_diseases" ], [ "http://www.american-indians.net/cultures.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6h4ni4", "c6h8cth", "c6hyc4h" ], "score": [ 3, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "I think, you kinda answered the question yourself: it is a stool- not a throne (nor a chair).", "Slightly unrelated: stools were also given as grave goods in some Bronze Age burial mounds and Iron Age graves in Denmark and Germany, also regarded as symbols of power but still called 'stool' in the literature. Similarly, in the Caribbean chiefs also had special stools.\n\nI am unaware of the semantics behind the distinction between a stool and a throne, and I guess that a throne could be either a chair or a stool, as your dictionary quotations show. Still, you must agree that these portable seats are quite different from, for example, [Charlemagne's throne](_URL_0_).", "Translation is a major locale where meanings get changed in sometimes unconscious ways. The reason it's translated as \"Stool\" and not \"Throne\" in English from the Twi original is the same reason that the Zulu & Xhosa \"iSizwe\" was translated by 19th-century traders and missionaries in English as \"tribe\" and not the far more (but not 100%) correct \"nation\": the choice was made by English-speakers who were concerned with using a word that conformed to their notions, not the sense necessarily intended by the term in its original language. It may help in both cases to know that the term entered popular use in the 19th century, when such societies' \"place\" in the hierarchy of civilizations was presumed to be at the bottom so the choice of a term that conveyed a sense of parity would have seemed utterly incorrect and even nonsensical.\n\nSo you are correct that the invocation of a mere stool was a product of its day. But it *did* serve to objectify and reduce the Sika'dwa as a mere symbolic fetish for the superstitious. This is part of why the British governor made the incredibly myopic demand to \"sit on the stool\" that provoked Yaa Asantewaa's rebellion in 1900; he had no idea what he was misunderstanding, or that he was even misunderstanding it. It was not a deliberate diminution, but the ethos of the era, that suggested \"stool\" was a fitting translation; that wasn't helped by the fact that there is no English term for \"a symbol and seat of governance that is in the form of a low, backless, armless seat\" and the Victorians weren't about to import a Twi term to accommodate it. A lot of words got that treatment because Europeans, Eurafricans, and heavily missionized Africans were in charge of making equivalencies in European languages official. (Languages in which Africans made key contributions to the rendering of English show a bit less of this, for example in the Yorúbà bibles of Rev. Samuel Ajayi Crowther.)\n\nYou'll find a lot of words that still seem to be frozen in some weird colonial-era translation vortex for precisely the reason that, as you point out at the beginning, the translation was set down in the colonial era. Those things tend to move slowly, and in the interim, sometimes the terms get appropriated and \"remade\" themselves. I would argue that the Golden Stool as a proper noun has become one of those; people within the Asanteman and the *Asantehenes* themselves after Prempe I's return have infused a great deal of meaning back into the term. It's been effective enough that the elevation of an *Asantehene* is referred to as \"enstoolment,\" in a back-formation that elevates the Golden Stool to the status of a different but representationally analogous kind of throne.\n\nAs to who actually made the coinage and why they personally did it, I think we'd have to look back a long way--possibly via Dutch *stoel* which isn't just for stools, as they were at Elmina well into the 19th C.--to find the very earliest mentions. After all Europeans were right on the coast from the 1480s on. It's also entirely possible that the importance of household stools wasn't properly recognized either, so the translation started at the bottom and got applied upward. But I honestly have no idea where it first appears in English or Dutch." ] }

[]

[ "dictionary.com", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Stool" ]

[ [], [ "http://m.seehuhn.de/images/aachen6-0600.jpg" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cah9dg5", "cah9lcx", "cahhicu" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Copyright law is quite recent. \n\nYou probably ought to ask u/caffarelli about this matter, as it is her specialism.\n\nI published a brief case note on this issue late 2011, however, translated roughly:\n\n\"It was not until 1837 that Prussia and the German Bund introduced copyright law. Prior to this, authors needed to ensure sufficient compensation with their first publication run because, as soon as the text was available 'in the wild', no legal remedies were available against (in today's parlance) so called 'pirates', i.e. other publishing houses. It was this - from today's perspective - ironic situation that Immanuel Kant drew attention to in 1785 in his essay, 'On the Illegality of Book Republishing' with the following remarks:\n\n'The volume which the publisher allowed to be printed is a work of the author (opus) and belongs to the publisher after it has been printed or acquired in the form of its manuscript entirely, in order to do anything with it, as he desires, and which can be done in his own name; since this is the requirement of having a complete right to an item, i.e. ownership. The use, however, which he makes of it in a way not different from another [...] is a transaction (opera)[...].' (Kant in Berlinische Monatszeitschrift 5 (1785), p. 403 et seq.)\n\nInsofar as this, Kant distinguishes between the item (res) and transaction (opera). Fichte concretizes this idea: 'We could make two differentiations with respect to a book: the bodily aspect thereof, the printed paper, and the intellectual content.' Fichte, however, does not see a violation of ownership in the perpetuation of use of intellectual property without a license but, rather, a transaction without assigned agency [in Common Law: agency of necessity]: 'And how is the book republisher to be treated? He is taking possession - not of the property of the publisher, not of his intellectual content, not of his thoughts - but rather of the usufruct of the property. He is acting in the name of the publisher without having been given agency to this effect, without having reached a consensual transaction with him, and is seizing the benefits which arise from this representative position[...].' (Fichte in Berlinische Monatszeitschrift 5 (1793), p. 443 et seq.)\n\nIt is indeed the case that in ius commune as in today's valid German law the transfer of ownership of an item requires its physical transfer (ius commune: traditio), and for this reason Kant and Fichte consider it to be physically impossible to transfer ownership of the intellectual contents of an item. For this reason they speak exclusively of an usufruct and not - as in today's common and incorrect parlance - of 'theft' or 'piracy', but rather of agency of necessity. Viewed historically the polemicisation of the 'copyright' debate is clearly evident.\"", "During the middle ages, unauthorized copying or stealing of books, which were considered then extremely valuable, was identified as a big problem. This led to a number of interesting solutions to fight such actions in libraries. \n\nFor example they used \"chained books\" or \"chained libraries\", where each book was chained to the bookshelf (see _URL_0_ ). \n\nHenry Petroski's book \"The book on the bookshelf\", gives interesting details on such issues.", "As /u/peripatos said, this is sort of My Bag! So here's an uncomfortably large infodump.\n\nFirst, a disclaimer: I am an American librarian, educated in an American graduate library school, and working in the American academic library system, so what I know and am able to comment on will be about America libraries and American copyright. I am also writing this from a class I took 2 years ago, and a textbook I have long since sold back, so this might be a little hazy.\n\nAlso, as my husband is a proto-lawyer, I will add: none of this constitutes legal advice, and is provided just for your interest and reddit's general edification.\n\nYou should first consider that copyright deposit, that is, the now defunct requirement that you send a copy of your book to the Library of Congress to establish a record of copyright, was the major way the LoC and a few state libraries built their collection for many years. [Here's a short free article on how that worked.](_URL_2_) So that's one way copyright actually helped libraries!\n\nHowever, some publishers and authors have more or less been against public libraries from their \"beginning\" in America, and [some of them are still real buttholes about it.](_URL_0_) The classic argument is that libraries steal revenue from authors. Prior to the establishment of First Sale Doctrine in 1908, libraries were on pretty shaky legal ground. \n\nThe beginning of the American public library system is more or less pegged to the start of the Andrew Carnegie library building grants at the end of the 19th century, prior to that there were mostly subscription libraries with a few public libraries here and there. (There is also very much the effect of Dewey on the growth of libraries and the \"scientification\" of libraries at the same time period, and also the very elitist, conservative, classist aims of early public libraries in America, but I'm going to leave that stuff out as its not strictly speaking relevant to your question.)\n\nFor the past 100 years or so libraries in America have been functioning largely on a combination of two doctrines: First Sale Doctrine mentioned earlier, and Fair Use. Use of both these legal concepts are not always clear, and the public misunderstands them frequently, but they are most of what kept libraries running. First Sale dictates that once you buy a book (or CD, or DVD, or whatever physical thing) you can largely do what you want with it -- you can loan it to people for free, you can rent it for money, you can give it away, you can re-sell it. This means libraries can buy books and loan them as much as they want. However, this does not mean we can re-copy them, that is considered copyright infringement. Some recopying is considered legal under fair use, but its very complicated.\n\nTypically, e-books and other digital media are not technically speaking purchased, they are *licensed,* so First Sale does *not* apply to them. [Stanford Law Review has a good overview of this](_URL_1_). This means publishers can and will put whatever restrictions they want on e-books. Some restrictions I've seen: limits on the number of times an e-book can circulate (be checked-out), expiration dates on the file no matter how many times it has circulated, and charging way more for a library to buy the book than for a standard consumer. (Talking $70 a pop versus your $9.99, on top of these BS restrictions.) This is a lot of the reason your garden variety public librarian is not investing in e-books; other than the very start of the industry with Michael S. Hart, the inventor of the e-book in 1971 and founder of Project Gutenberg, which has always been very good to libraries, e-books have not been a smart use of limited book-buying funds.\n\nSo e-books are a new way to get around First Sale Doctrine. Old problem, new wrapping! Frankly, I think the days of weasel publishers \"licensing\" e-books are numbered, but the number is still pretty high. \n\nHappy to expand on anything or do follow-ups, as per usual. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Libraries_in_the_Medieval_and_Renaissance_Periods_Figure_4.jpg" ], [ "http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130215/16442522003/bestselling-author-childrens-books-accuses-public-libraries-stealing-his-paychecks.shtml", "http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/kirtsaeng-and-first-sale-doctrines-digital-problem", "http://catalog.hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/33140610.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cq1cp8v" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "Illiteracy is a spectrum, not an absolute. More importantly, conquistadors were usually members of the 'middling' class, including artisans, craftsmen, and professionals (like lawyers and scribes). Most conquistadors probably could read some and at least write their names. Even if they couldn't there would have been a scribe on the expedition in their professional capacity or as just another member. Conquest expeditions were business ventures as much as they were military ones. The members of the company had shares in the enterprise and had contributed varying amounts. Bookkeepers and scribes were essential to the basic running of the expedition.\n\nAs to the general question of accommodating an illiterate population, yes, there were professional scribes and official notaries that were paid to write for others. When it came to petitioning the crown, Spanish law recognized the importance of protecting the poor and destitute. Consequently, the legal system had its own bureaucrats tasked with representing the poor and any legal matters they might have or petitions to the bureaucracy/crown (sometimes called the abogado de pobres, procurador de pobres, defensor de pobres). In the Americas, a special position was created just for indigenous petitioners/litigants (procurador de indios). If one qualified for the service, the fees for producing and submitting documents were waived as were the legal/notarial fees. \n\nFor some more on these issues see\n\n*Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest*\n\n*The First Letter From New Spain*\n\n*The Men of Cajamarca*\n\n*Justice by Insurance: The General Indian Court of Colonial Mexico and the Legal Aides of the Half-real*\n\n*Law and the Transformation of Aztec Culture, 1500-1700*\n\n*Empire of Law and Indian Justice in Colonial Mexico*\n\n " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8dslg9", "c8dw8nn" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "The Aztecs had a barter system with a strict court in place to judge disputes between traders. There was no 'currency' but there were widely accepted consistent values attached to specific items--in the capitol city of Tenochtitlan, it was generally stated that 20 feather cloaks was about one year's salary for a member of the common class. A necklace of fine jade stones was worth about 300 feather cloaks, and would only be available for purchase by a very rich merchant or a member of the nobility/ruling class. Cocoa beans were valuable, for what they were, and a single bean could usually be traded for smaller items, essentially functioning as coins. Another extremely common item was the obsidian blade, an extremely sharp prism of volcanic glass, about 1/2\"-1\" wide and a few inches long, used in the household for food preparation, among other things. They were pretty fragile but extremely easy to make, so they were cheap and generally sold in packs of 20 or so, for about 1 cocoa bean.\n\nThe largest Aztec market was in the city of Tlatelolco. About 20,000 people visited every weekday, and about 50,000 people visited on the weekend or 'market day' (the Aztecs had a 5-day week, with every 5th day being the weekend/market day; it kind of amazes me that even the Aztecs went shopping/to the \"mall\" on the weekends). When the conquistadors were shown this market, they were amazed, and shocked by the variance of items that one could purchase. You could even get ice cream--snow was run down from the mountains by special runners, and then mixed with vanilla, honey, cocoa, nectar, fruit, and so on.\n\nAnyway, this market had a very strict set of courts in place, and the courts constantly heard cases between buyers and sellers all day. The dispute was usually over the quality of the goods that had been bartered, but sometimes the hearings were for cases of fraud or \"cutting\" of merchandise. There were tons of ways to make bad merchandise look good, or to undersell one another, but if you were caught doing so, you were basically fucked and could even receive the death sentence, depending on the extent of your crimes (for reference, some other crimes that got the death sentence: getting drunk before age 50, adultery). The harsh punishments for fraud, sharp market officers and inspectors, and strict court system kept people fairly honest in a society without official currency. ", "* [Has any society in the last 1000 years ever successfully operated as a \"cashless\" society?](_URL_1_)\n* [\"The Inca as a nonmarket economy: Supply on command versus supply and demand\" by Darrell La Lone](_URL_0_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.academia.edu/885136/The_Inca_as_a_nonmarket_economy_Supply_on_command_versus_supply_and_demand", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16wstu/has_any_society_in_the_last_1000_years_ever/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f5nuyxc" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "Following the Second Anglo-Boer War, the Transvaal and Orange Free State were barren. Scorched earth tactics from the British had left farmland ruined, and the concentration of the Boer population in camps had lead to a huge depopulation, with around half of the Boer children in these camps dying from disease and malnutrition. The Afrikaner population of the Free State and the Transvaal, the 'Boers' (Dutch for farmer) were a conservative agrarian people. They toiled on the land, and most had little formal education outside of learning to read the Bible. Afrikaners from the Cape Colony were distinct, they tended to have a better education and were more 'cosmopolitan'. Prior to the Witwatersrand Gold Rush which lead to the foundation of Johannesburg, neither the Transvaal or Orange Free State had any sizeable cities outside of their capitals which were also rather small. They were both very rural states, with most of their citizenship economically engaged in agriculture. Ruined farms following the war lead many families to migrate to cities, the so called ''die trek na die stad''. This lead to cities growing in size, and Johannesburg which was effectively run by English speaking business owners, was the main draw to these internal migrants. This wave of migration was later exacerbated by the modernisation of farming forcing more to move on to the cities. When moving to these cities the Afrikaners were left on the fringes, often in the worse areas, sometimes close to the informal settlements of the native bantus who were used as a pool of cheap labour primarily in the mining sector. The language of business, commerce, the civil service and in some cases even education was primarily conducted in English. The Afrikaners were mostly looked down upon as a simple people, and there was much prejudice against Afrikaans which many considered a ''kitchen language'', only suitable for communication with your black workers. With poor command of the English language and little formal education these poor Afrikaners had to resort to manual labour, working for little. So you had the Afrikaners living in an alien place, looked down upon by established English speakers, at a disadvantage socially and in many cases competing with blacks for jobs.\n\nThe animosity the Afrikaners had towards the British was considerable from the memory of the Second Anglo-Boer War, and following South Africa's entry into the First World War, a small minority attempted an uprising on behalf of leaving the Empire and joining the Germans, the 'Maritz Rebellion'. This was crushed, and politically the consensus was still on the whole for reconciliation and Afrikaners and English working together in South Africa as a part of the British Empire. However a group of Afrikaners, recognising the need for their people to expand their political power formed the Afrikanerbond, a secret society which was the main driving force behind the Afrikaner nationalist movement. \n\nThe close proximity of blacks and Afrikaners, and their competition in the labour market led to a series of labour disputes. The most notable of these was the Rand Rebellion in 1922. Upset at the use of black labour being exploited by business owners thereby depressing the wages of white workers and leading to unemployment for whites, along with blacks being promoted to positions of authority, white workers backed by the South African Labour Party and communists held a strike which almost became an uprising. Their slogan was ''Workers of the world unite, and fight for a white South Africa'', which is ironic given the role socialist movements had in the eventual democratisation of South Africa and the downfall of Apartheid and the non-racial aspect of socialism in general. The government put down the rebellion with brutal force. They attempted to meet some of the demands, passing legislating allowing for trade unions and also banning black membership of trade unions. But the memory of the Army and Air Force using deadly force against citizens, bombing them with tanks, planes and artillery was too fresh, and the policy change too weak and too late. The nominally pro-British party, the South African Party, lost to a coalition of the Afrikaner nationalist National Party and Labour party which sought to promote the interests of Afrikaners and white workers respectively. The National Party grew out of dissatisfaction with the direction of the South African Party, and the desire to promote the interest of Afrikaners and ensure that ties with Britain were kept to a minimum with the eventual goal of a republic. This government introduced a number of populist measures which restricted blacks participation in the workforce to menial roles and legally favoured the hiring of white workers. On top of this they ensured that white workers were paid a minimum wage, introduced improved working conditions and expanded social welfare. Dutch and English had both been official languages of the Union, however in practice very few people spoke 'proper' Dutch, with Afrikaans by this point being rather distinct. Also in practice English had a far more prominent role as an official language. In an effort towards equality, they introduced an act ensuring that Afrikaans had equal standing with English and Dutch, and promoted the use of Afrikaans in the civil service. \n\nYears later following the impact of the Great Depression, the National Party and South African Party merged into the United Party. This would steer South Africa through the Great Depression, which further exacerbated the problem of white poverty. There was an uneasy peace between the Afrikaner nationalists and the South African Party faction, both based on a belief in white supremacy although differing in their eventual vision for the country uniting to help mitigate the effects of the depression. Following the start of the Second World War, there was considerable arguments within the party with those wanting South Africa to remain neutral lead by J.B.M Hertzog, and those wanting to join the British being lead by Jan Smuts. Following a vote the parliament decided to declare war on Germany, Hertzog resigned and Jan Smuts took leadership of the United Party and became Prime Minister. Hertzog started a breakaway nationalist party, and in his absence the United Party rather than being a coalition of white interests, increasingly became more liberal and representative of the views of those who supported relations with the Empire. \n\nThe backdrop to the 1948 election was interesting. Smuts was incredibly popular for his role as an elder statesman and his leadership of the country, and arguably even the Allies, during the war. However despite having been a general for the Boers during the Second Anglo-Boer War, and being a considerable military and political leader through both world wars, his efforts toward reconciliation with the British and his support of the British Empire made him despised by a considerable number of his kin. On the issue of race, the United Party was nominally in favour of the limited existing political representation that existed for coloureds, blacks and Indians, while vaguely acknowledging and paying lip service to an eventual racial political integration, even if not acceptable for the foreseeable future. In contrast the nationalists promised to introduce laws permanently separating whites and blacks, and enshrine white supremacy de jure. The 1940s lead to a huge moral panic over black violence and crime against whites, a part of the ''swart gevaar''. Blacks were now starting to organise more, and protest against injustices which further fed the fear of a black uprising. The nationalist used this in order to attract poorer whites voters who were scared of black crime and black political power and racial equality harming their livelihoods. Despite the United Party winning more votes, the United Party lost it's majority with a coalition of Afrikaner Nationalist parties taking power lead by D.F. Malan. By carefully targeting and playing on the concerns of urban Afrikaners and relying on the support of rural Afrikaners they were able to get a majority under first past the post. Malan would introduce harsher laws enshrining segregation against blacks, coloureds and Indians into law which is what we now know as Apartheid. The country was run by the National Party from 1948 until the first universal democratic elections in 1994.\n\nSo in summary, yes Afrikaners were at a disadvantage to English speaking South Africans following the union of South Africa, and discriminated against, even if not legally. A large bloc of poor urban Afrikaners were competing with blacks for jobs and resources, although I must insist on saying that they were still always considerably better off than the black population. This, coupled with tensions between Afrikaners and English speaking South Africans led to the rise of Afrikaner nationalism, which helped improve overall conditions for white workers but at the expense of black workers. Backlash to Jan Smuts and his pro-British stance, coupled with fears of the black population contributed to the nationalists victory in 1948, with the rise of Apartheid. \n\nsources: \n\nSouth Africa: The First Man, the Last Nation - R.W. Johnson\n\nDiamonds, Gold and War: The Making of South Africa - Martin Meredith \n\nChurchill and Smuts: The Friendship - Richard Steyn \n\nA History of South Africa - Leonard Thompson \n\nCry, the beloved country - Alan Paton \n(it's fiction, but I feel it helps a lot in understanding the general feeling of South Africa during the 1940s)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eorf97f" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Believe it or not, they engaged in the same types of leisure as their counterparts back at Rome: they went to the horse races in the circus, they saw animal hunts, they watched gladiators, they went to the theater, and they went to their country villas to get away from the hubbub and relax. At Colchester, for instance, there was a Roman circus and a theater, and an amphitheater (for animal hunts and gladiators) at London. Britain is also littered with Roman-style elite villas (just do a quick search). There are numerous examples of such structures in Spain as well. Check out Merida, or Toledo, or [Italica](_URL_0_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://cdn.getyourguide.com/img/tour_img-687398-148.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e9kckxo" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "We have no particular idea who the first person to call himself a king in what's now England; the word in various forms (*cyning, kyningas, cyningas, cyninges, king*) goes back to Old English. But if you're asking about the first person to be king of \"England\" as a political entity, the answer is fairly straightforward. The first king of \"the English\" as he was styled was Alfred the Great, of the house of Wessex, whose descendants ruled England until the time of Queen Anne; Alfred's grandson Æthelstan (son of Edward the Elder and his first wife Ecgwynn) is generally considered the first king of \"England.\" There were multiple small kingdoms in what's now England in Alfred's day, and as king of Wessex he made it a political priority to unite the other \"English\" kingdoms (roughly, Mercia, East Anglia and Northumbria) into a political entity that could stand against the Danish invasions. \n\nHere are some older threads on the topic: _URL_0_\n\nand \n\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4ci0pf/who_was_the_first_king_of_england_to_call_himself/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e4ms03g" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Not to forestall further (in-depth comprehensive) answers, but you are likely thinking of the 'Sea Peoples', and there's been a bunch of discussion of that topic in this subreddit! There's [a section of our Frequently Asked Questions page about the Sea People](_URL_3_) featuring not only a great explanation of [where the term 'Sea Peoples' comes from, and why it isn't that mysterious by /u/bentresh with regards to the Philistines](_URL_4_) and [with regards to other groups in a separate reply](_URL_2_). Additionally there's not only [a good summary of what we know about the phenomenon by /u/kookingpot](_URL_1_), but even [an AMA with the author of *1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed*](_URL_0_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2zde5t/ama_bronze_age_archaeology_and_history/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2uw1dc/who_were_the_sea_people_that_invaded_egypt_in/coc89qp/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8suna3/what_do_we_know_about_the_socalled_sea_peoples/e12geq9/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/antiquity#wiki_sea_peoples.3A_who_were_they.2C_where_did_they_come_from.3F", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6mfbrq/tell_me_about_the_philistines_vs_others_in_the/dk1e4ey/?context=3" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dsn121x" ], "score": [ 14 ], "text": [ "(1/2)\n\nThe procedures surrounding this varied a lot by country and time and place but typically in the 17th-18th centuries there wasn't much of a rigid legal procedure that was followed. \n\nThe mid-17th century Caribbean was famous for the totally corrupt English and French governors who unscrupulously sold privateering commissions/letters of marque to anyone who could pay, often whether or not there was actually a war going on. Even when buccaneers didn't have ostensibly valid commissions at all, they would commonly just continue using outdated ones or lie and claim they had them when attacking a ship, and they could easily get away with this by paying off the same local governors who sold them their phony or semi-legal commissions in the first place and profited off their plunder. The line between privateer and pirate was often very fuzzy and that's what the term \"buccaneer\" mainly describes. Famous \"pirate havens\" like Tortuga and Port Royal were based on this type of corrupt relationship between buccaneers and local authorities which essentially gave the buccaneers or \"privateers\" free reign in the Caribbean to plunder what they liked even in times of peace as long as they stayed away from ships of their own nation. I made [another post](_URL_0_) that talks more about this. \n\nAs for how plunder was divided up, buccaneers had a system for that but the government was usually cut out of it. They also didn't have any standard pay. Nearly all privateers famously operated according to the expression \"No prey, no pay\" meaning that the only payment they could expect was plunder from what they captured. And they wouldn't return to port to divide up their loot either because they didn't have to. Instead they would almost always either do it at sea or go to some isolated beach or cay or island where they didn't have to be under the watchful eye of any government officials. The former French buccaneer Alexandre Exquemelin in his book *The Buccaneers of America* published in 1678 describes the custom for buccaneering voyages like this:\n\n > When the provisions are on board and the ship is ready to sail, the buccaneers resolve by common vote where they shall cruise. They also draw up an agreement or *chasse partie,* in which is specified what the captain shall have for himself and for the use of his vessel. Usually they agree on the following terms. Providing they capture a prize, first of all these amounts would be deducted from the whole capital. The hunter's pay would generally be 200 pieces of eight. The carpenter, for his work in repairing and fitting out the ship, would be paid 100 or 150 pieces of eight. The surgeon would receive 200 or 250 pieces of eight for his medical supplies, according to the size of the ship. \n\n > Then came the agreed rewards for the wounded, who might have lost a limb or suffered other injuries. They would be compensated as follows: for the loss of a right arm, 600 pieces of eight or six slaves; for a left arm, 500 pieces of eight or five slaves. The loss of a right leg also brought 500 pieces of eight or five slaves in compensation; a left leg, 400 or four slaves; an eye, 100 or one slave, and the same award was made for the loss of a finger. If a man lost the use of an arm, he would get as much as if it had been cut off, and a severe internal injury which meant the victim had to have a pipe inserted in his body would earn 500 pieces of eight or five slaves in recompense. \n\n > **These amounts having first been withdrawn from the capital, the rest of the prize would be divided into as many portions as men on the ship. The captain draws four or five men's portions for the use of his ship, perhaps even more, and two portions for himself. The rest of the men share uniformly, and the boys get half a man's share.**\n\n > **When a ship has been captured, the men decide whether the captain should keep it or not: if the prize is better than their own vessel, they take it and set fire to the other.** When a ship is robbed, nobody must plunder and keep his loot to himself. Everything taken -- money, jewels, precious stones and goods -- must be shared among them all, without any man enjoying a penny more than his fair share. To prevent deceit, before the booty is distributed everyone has to swear an oath on the Bible that he has not kept for himself so much as the value of a sixpence, whether in silk, linen, wool, gold, silver, jewels, clothes or shot, from all the capture. And should any man be found to have made a false oath, he would be banished from the rovers, and never more be allowed in their company. \n\nFrom that last part, you can see how ships themselves were not always the main prize and they wouldn't always be brought back to port (the main prize was usually the money and cargo and slaves that a ship carried). Exquemelin says that buccaneers would either burn the captured ship or switch their ship for that before burning it, but when they were feeling friendlier buccaneers would sometimes simply give the ship back to the captured crew after looting it and send them on their way -- there are many examples of this. Other times, if the buccaneers had an excess of crew or they wanted to keep both ships, they might split into two companies with each taking command of one ship. \n\nWhen buccaneers eventually did return to ports such as Tortuga or Petit-Goâve or Port Royal to spend their plunder, all they would pretty much have to do is *say* they captured it legitimately and no one would bring them to trial, least of all the governor who they were most likely paying off with a cut of their plunder. The Spanish, who were by far the most common targets of both English and French buccaneers, often bitterly complained at being attacked liked this even when there wasn't a war going on, but prior to 1670 their complaints pretty much got laughed off and ignored by local governors and the English and French governments. Even after 1670, Charles II of England tacitly condoned many buccaneers like Henry Morgan, who sacked the Spanish city of Panama in 1671 in clear violation of the 1670 Treaty of Madrid, and actually knighted him in 1674 before making him the new governor of Jamaica where he served until his death in 1688. Charles II also granted a royal pardon to the buccaneer Bartholomew Sharp and others in 1682 after they had spent several years plundering Spanish possessions along the Pacific coasts of America, again despite there being no war. Probably one reason Charles II did this in the latter case was because Bartholomew Sharp along with his compatriots (Basil Ringrose, William Dampier and others) were among the first Englishmen to penetrate and explore the Pacific Ocean since Sir Francis Drake and Thomas Cavendish had a century earlier, and they all published extensive and valuable descriptions of their voyages soon after returning to England. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7d0rnq/did_any_pirates_ever_set_up_a_protection_racket/dq15x6p/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e2zv8em" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "[This answer](_URL_0_) from /u/ETFox explains the limited involvement of the continent." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4xn84b/the_english_civil_wars_of_the_17th_century_didnt/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d8x7n55" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "The Egyptian civilization lasted for thousands of years from the pre-dynastic period (5500 B.C.E) to The Roman Period (30 B.C.E-~300 C.E). (1) There is a wealth of information still to be discovered. There are archaeologists in the deserts now still making discoveries. There are several academic journals on the subject of Egyptian Archaeology and if you have access to JSTOR, I'd recommend you check them out. If you would like to keep up with archaeological discoveries, I'd suggest checking out this site (_URL_0_) With any type of archaeology, there is always more to find even when those findings are simply more pottery sherds. \n(1):Wilkinson, Toby A. H. The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt. New York: Random House, 2010." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.archaeologica.org/NewsPage.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cegbdxp" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "As with most countries, by telegram. Typically they would inform the family that the relative was missing, e.g.: _URL_3_\n\nAs noted, a letter (usually from the CO) would follow.\n\nOf course, some of the missing turned up, I believe the Red Cross would get lists of POWs and inform the armed forces, who would then inform the families. This is a poor picture, but you can just make out the message: _URL_1_\nIf the person was found to have survived and not in enemy hands the good news would be shared: _URL_2_\n\nIn some cases the individual themselves would send a telegram basically saying \"I'm still alive!\".\n\nSadly, all too often a telegram was received, confirming the relative as dead. \n\nOf course for those confirmed dead the telegram was rather final : _URL_0_\n\nIf you search for \"ww2 telegram\" on google images you will find may scans/pictures of similar telegrams from all over the world." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/66211000/jpg/_66211180_telegram.jpg", "http://media.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2006/may/nagorski/telegram200-s6-c30.jpg", "http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/biographies/biopicsprince/summersgill/TELEGRAM3.jpg", "http://213squadronassociation.homestead.com/WidgeWight/Telegram.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d96yq3s", "d975p3v", "d97m2k7" ], "score": [ 124, 78, 2 ], "text": [ "As a follow up question to OP's question, how common was it for Soviet universities to increase the difficulty of the entrance exams for, so-called, \"undesirables\"?\n\n[This article](_URL_0_) highlights the unfairness of entrance exams given to prospective Jewish students at the mathematics department of Moscow State University. Was this the norm?", "The answer is going to be extremely dependent on period. University entrance in the Soviet Union in the 1920s versus the 1980s is going to be considerably different. Far more different than if you made the same comparison in the West. Is there a particular time frame that interests you?", "Follow up did soviet citizens choose their studies or was it chosen for them. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1556.pdf" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "du53fh1" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "It might be best to start on a discussion of Lee just to clear up what we're looking at in terms of a measuring stick. OP's question presupposes that Robert E. Lee was one of, if not THE best general of the American Civil War. By \"best\" I assume this is a combination of factors including (1) scoreboard, or win/loss ratio, and (2) post-war tactical evaluation. For both categories, while we can get into a discussion about them, one has to understand that there are few contemporaries with whom we can compare Lee. From the Battle of the 7 Days onward, Lee wasn't commanding just a division or a corps, but an entire Army. In this way, on the southern side, we can really only compare him to Beauregard, Bragg, Albert Sydney Johnston, Joseph E. Johnston, and maybe Hood. No one else on that side commanded at the same level as Lee, really, so comparisons further down the line are somewhat moot. On the northern side, there are more comparisons, and we will get to those in a moment. \n\nBut for starters: was Lee a good general, nay, the best the Confederacy had? Most modern scholarship is still in agreement that Lee was indeed a very good general, and probably the very best the Confederacy had to offer, yes. While he wasn't perfect, and certainly made his fair share of mistakes, Lee did pretty well for himself through a combination of skill, intuition, attitude, and luck. When he had to run a defensive campaign (think Fredericksburg or the Wilderness Campaign), Lee was outstanding, and when we was on the offensive, he could also be superb (2nd Bull Run & Chancellorsville being wonderful examples). The man did have his faults, however, including a reluctance to commit his resources and energies to the western theater campaign, and his insistence on seeing a battle through despite evolving circumstances (Antietam and Gettysburg, though in the former instance, luck was on his side and it worked out for him). Lee also ran hot and cold when it came to communicating to his subordinates, and while some of them seemed to intuitively understand the vagueness of his orders and their intention (Jackson), others had difficulty (Ewell), and disastrous results followed. Except for Longstreet, though, Lee's win/loss record when comparing similar circumstances of battle is tops among the Confederate generals. \n\nAll that being said, it is hard for one to think of another General in the Confederacy except, perhaps, for Longstreet, who could have done a better job in the role. Lee knew how to get the most out of his army (both in terms of numbers and resources), and how to use them effectively regardless of the situation. He understood the political calculus of the conflict (hence his insistence on invading the north twice despite the tactical disadvantage), and managed his generals well on most occasions. When in battle, he knew how to place his men effectively, and was even better at making adjustments in the heat of battle to address breakthroughs and openings. Again, except for Longstreet, no other Confederate general demonstrated effectiveness on these levels with such consistency. What's more, Lee knew how to carry himself like a general, and understood the drama of leadership, and how one's bearing can move and influence an army. Like McClellan (whose battlefield acumen didn't come anywhere near Lee's), Lee's men truly loved him, and would do anything for him. This isn't something that can be discounted when discussing good generalship in the Civil War. \n\nSo, except perhaps for Longstreet, who seemed to be as good of a general on paper as Lee, and was just as sharp, pragmatic, and disciplined, I think it could be said that Lee was the best general the Confederacy had on their side. Joe Johnston was too timid and cautious, A.S. Johnston lost the one big battle he did fight (and died doing it), Beauregard was unrealistic, and Hood and Bragg were pretty much disasters from the word \"go\" in a commanding army role. As mentioned earlier, it is difficult to compare Lee with any other Confederate generals because the resumes just don't line up. \n\nAs for a comparison of Lee against northern generals, again, it is hard to compare. Lee was fighting a completely different campaign under circumstances lightyears removed from his Union counterparts (transportation and supply networks alone make this an apples v. oranges discussion). Tactically, one could make the argument that Grant, fighting a very cagey, experienced, motivated, and disciplined foe, displayed generalship on the same level as Lee during their head-to-heads of '64 and '65. Grant made several dynamic moves with his army that nearly flanked Lee on two occasions before successfully doing just that on route to Petersburg, where Grant bottled Lee up. Earlier, in 1863, Grant pulled off something just short of a miracle when he abandoned his supply lines, marched south of Vicksburg, crossed the Mississippi River, then fought to a siege that would eventually force the surrender of a massive Confederate garrison (and open the river back up to the Union). This was maybe the most impressive military feat of the entire war. Sherman's march to the sea and eventual dismantling of Hood's forces was nearly as impressive, as was the initiative showed by a young Major named Emory Upton who developed tactics during the Spotsylvania Courthouse campaign that leap-frogged military theory to where it would be in World War I. \n\nTD:LR - In the south, yes, we can reasonably argue that Robert E. Lee was one of, if not THE best general that the Confederacy had. When comparing Lee to generals in the north, it is more difficult, but an argument can be made that Union generals accomplished feats that were on the same level as Lee. \n\n[Sources: Bruce Catton: Army of the Potomac trilogy & 'Grant Moves South'; James McPherson, 'Battle Cry of Freedom'; Doris Kearns Goodwin, 'Team of Rivals'; Ronald C. White, 'American Ulysses']" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "df9wckd" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The convoys carrying troops departed from ports in southern England on the afternoon of June 5, 1944 and proceeded slowly across the channel with heavy air cover. They dropped anchor in their designated transport areas 23,000 yards offshore at roughly 0200 on June 6, at the same time that airborne forces were being landed. Boat teams were assembled, and loading and lowering of landing craft began at 0430, with H-Hour at 0630; so, roughly 2 hours. Elements of the 4th and 24th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadrons proceeded in their landing craft two hours before H-Hour to clear out a small German observation post on the St. Marcouf Islands off Utah Beach.\n\n**Sources:**\n\n* [*Omaha Beachhead (6 June-13 June 1944)*](_URL_1_), by the Historical Division, War Department\n\n* [*U.S. Army in World War II, European Theater of Operations: Cross-Channel Attack*](_URL_0_), by Gordon A. Harrison" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-XChannel/index.html", "http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-A-Omaha/index.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cj9so9s" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "hi! if you don't get responses here (or even if you do), it might be worth x-posting this question to /r/AskSocialScience and/or /r/AskAnthropology for their perspective" ] }

[]

[ "http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/2bvp1r/struggling_to_keep_afghan_girl_safe_after_a/" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ega6pvr" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "Your understanding is pretty much incorrect. \n\n\nFirst off, the entire idea of land being firmly and incontrovertibly owned by a particular sovereignty, with concrete territorial boundaries marked off, is roughly speaking a modern idea associated with what is commonly called \"Westphalian sovereignty\", after the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. \"Westphalian sovereignty\" is when a ruler of a territory argues they have comprehensive, exclusive control over a specific, marked-off territory; many people cite Max Weber's later definition that a national sovereign in this mode of authority has to have a \"monopoly on violence\" within the territory. \n\n\nPrior to this point, most existing states, empires and polities in world history held territories in shifting and flexible ways. Often their claims to territory were informal and negotiable. They might claim some tax revenues, assert some rights of movement and power, but not insist that they had comprehensive authority over the inhabitants. So territories all across the world passed in and out of direct control by rulers. In a premodern context, rulers who identified land they wanted, invaded it, and most crucially kept it, are pretty rare, no matter where we're talking about. An invader might claim territory or rewards, but keeping that new conquest as part of a coherent new polity was a much less common event, and arguably a decent number of invading or conquering leaders didn't expect anything except tribute, etc. \n\n\nEven in a pre-Westphalian context, the mechanisms by which sovereigns (of a great many kinds) could expect to increase their territorial authority on a permanent basis were extremely diverse. Marriage or kinship alliances were a fairly common mechanism all around the world. Treaties or agreements were another (certainly in some cases coercive). Migration--or emigration--that changed the linguistic and cultural balance in a particular territory, and its loyalties to various sovereign powers, could sometimes (usually over centuries) change who was considered to be in possession of it. And there are premodern examples of money changing hands, more or less, and allowing a sovereign in one place to command authority of another. \n\n\nThe OP might also take note that it's not clear that relatively contemporary modes of territorial acquisition are effective or permanent. Only 150 years ago, \"countries stole land to absorb into their empire\" in Africa and Asia; several centuries before that in North and South America. But only a relatively short time ago (the 1940s-1960s) many postcolonial states were created that involved some degree of forcible recombination of territories that didn't necessarily identify with one another--processes that are still very costly for us today in many respects. It does not seem that the idea of \"stealing land\" through invasion is totally absent today. Moreover, I'm actually pretty hard pressed to think of an actual example in recent years of a current nation buying substantial territory from another territory and having the transfer of territory happen in an amicable and accepted way. So in that sense I'm not even sure what the OP is thinking of. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c4t8oqm", "c4t8t2v", "c4tc31n" ], "score": [ 17, 8, 3 ], "text": [ "Your history lecturer (I'm assuming University by lecturer) refused to talk about somthing because it was too horrific? ...how is he/she not the worst history lecturer ever? A fairly large proportion of history is horrific, surely?\n", "Where is our wonderful WWI expert!?\n\nI'll try to answer this question in the mean time: Your search appears to have found it all. Some were indeed convicted in a court martial, a few were executed but most were sent to the overseas colonies. Why your lecturer refused to talk about it is beyond me.", "Lol, sounds like your professor didn't know the answer and was giving an excuse to get rid of you before you made him look bad." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d0eom59" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Sorry, we don't allow [\"trivia seeking\" questions](_URL_0_). These tend to produce threads which are collections of disjointed, partial responses, and not the in-depth discussions about a particular topic we're looking for. If you have a specific question about an historical event, period, or person, please feel free to re-compose your question and submit it again. Alternatively, questions of this type can be directed to more appropriate subreddits, such as /r/history /r/askhistory, or /r/tellmeafact. For further explanation of the rule, feel free to consult [this META thread](_URL_1_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_.22trivia_seeking.22_questions", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3nub87/rules_change_throughout_history_rule_is_replaced/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbc7xhg", "cbc8a4i", "cbc9vp1", "cbc9was", "cbcdc4j", "cbcdhxb", "cbcdmih" ], "score": [ 180, 6, 5, 16, 7, 284, 2 ], "text": [ "It's not exactly answering the question, but I'd like to add a bit of related information.\n\nSwitzerland, being strong in [horology](_URL_0_), has excelled in other industries where extreme precision manufacture is paramount. I work in seismology, and there are an number of historic and current manufacturers of seismic instruments based in Switzerland. One good example is [Kinemetrics](_URL_1_). \n\nSeismometers are exceedingly delicate instruments. A high-gain seismometer can detect the seismic waves you produce simply by walking around several city blocks away. Doing this requires extremely small and extremely precise masses and springs. It just so happens that Switzerland already has manufacturers capable of producing tiny springs and masses--because it is making high-precision watches!\n\nSeismic instruments are just a field that I am familiar with, but I'm certain that there are many other high-precision industries that locate to Switzerland because of its high precision manufacturing prowess. That, in turn, helps to further fund and further develop the high precision manufacturing industry.", "This doesn't actually answer your question but if this is a topic you're interested in, you should consider checking out [The Discoverers.](_URL_0_) Daniel J. Boorstin covers the history of clock making and why it rose to such prominence in some countries and not others, and he places it in a greater context of innovation and technology and man's attempts to understand the world around him. It can be a bit dry at times, but it is thorough and the topics at hand are very interesting.\n\nGranted, I'm no expert, and it's only one, non-primary source. But I'd say it's worth the read.", "I have no clue personally, but the good folks at /r/Watches and /r/WatchHorology might be able to assist you. Might get some information by crossposting there.", "- This comment and the link below may help answer the question, but not completely answer it.\n\nIf there were no demand for Swiss time pieces, then the fascination would be merely hobbyists. Yet, skilled Swiss craftsman over generations have kept the modern mind's interest, and in this regard, remained profitable and passionate.\n\nPerfecting the mechanical clock, which in the past, has been guarded as the key to other sciences (not to mention, navigation) holds great fascination among philosophers, scientists, and thinkers worldwide. Time is such a strange concept. As you are reading this, snap your fingers continuously until the end and conscientiously count each snap. In a way, you have quantified time - ineffectively, of course. \n\nReflecting on ancient sundials and water timers, the engineering and precision involved in a mechanical clock, from a hands on, gear centric mindset, is staggering. Imagine having a wrist watch that never loses any time or is so accurate that it wouldn't be off for a century (over time mechanical clocks lose time). At the moment, time is measured to the atom, whereas most digital wrist watches are measured with pulsating quartz which is extremely precise, but advances to the mechanical clock are fascinating because they show a continuity with our ancestry. World fascination relates to a demand for profitable items from skilled workers.\n\nThese are a few videos I found enthralling:\n\n1- [10 minute video about Swiss watchmakers - how it started and personal perspectives as to why it exists to this day.](_URL_1_)\n\nAmazing Mechanical Watches\n\n1- _URL_2_\n\n2 - _URL_3_\n\n3 - _URL_0_", "Religious persecution. Seriously. French Protestantism was concentrated among the skilled craftsmen, for some reason. In 1685 Louis XIV revoked the edict of toleration [(The Edict of Nantes)](_URL_0_), causing a wholesale emigration of Protestant craftsmen, many of which ended up in French-speaking Switzerland and became the seeds of the Swiss watch industry.", "The history of the Swiss horology industry is a surprisingly cyclical one. As others have pointed out, many of the most notable early master watchmakers were not in fact Swiss (France, Germany, and to a lesser extent, England were leaders in the early development of mechanical timepieces), but by the 18th century as technology progressed to the point where it was practical to miniaturize a timekeeping mechanism to pocket size, enough talent and knowledge had been imported or imparted to Switzerland that by the turn of the 19th century Swiss watches were wildly popular around the world.\n\nAs with many other traditional industries, however, the Industrial Revolution had a large impact on watchmaking. A mechanical timepiece is made up of hundreds of tiny parts, each of which has to be machined to very high tolerances. Prior to the invention of machine tools, the process of creating a watch had to be done by hand, and as a result, as one can imagine, it was a very time- and labor-intensive process. By the middle of the 19th century, American companies had perfected the process, making watches cheaper, more accurate, and more accessible to the masses. While the Waltham Watch Co. in Massachusetts was one of the first and most successful ones, others that started around the same time include Elgin, Bulova, and Hamilton. This was the first crisis for Swiss watches, and while they struggled to catch up, the reputation suffered mightily, to the point where America, Britain, and other nations insisted that the now-sought-after 'Swiss Made' label be affixed to Swiss timepieces to ensure that consumers were not swindled into buying substandard, poor-quality pieces.\n\nDespite this, the Swiss did not stop the fine watchmaking tradition, and while many of their offerings at the time were subpar compared to the precision-machined American products, the 19th century saw the establishment of many more of what are today quite notable brands, including Jaeger-LeCoultre, Tissot, and Audemars Piguet, among others. Interestingly, this coincided with the rising popularity of wristwatches, which until 1910-1920 or so were considered largely female accessories only, while gentlemen strictly carried pocket watches. World War I played a large role in the transition, as soldiers were unable to use a free hand to pull out a pocket watch to check the time.\n\nBy the outset of World War II, high-end Swiss brands had once again regained position as industry leaders. Brands such as Jaeger-LeCoultre provided pilot's watches to both the RAF and Luftwaffe; stories such as [this one](_URL_0_) and [this one](_URL_1_) (the wiki link has a pretty good overview of the stories) suggest that the Swiss brands were seen as markedly better and more desirable than standard-issue watches from other manufacturers at the time. This would continue after the war, as the Swiss would continue to cement their position as the most prominent luxury watches in the world.\n\nAs mentioned in other comments, however, the Swiss watch industry was soon rocked by another crisis, which almost crippled them: the invention of quartz timekeeping. By the 1960s, manufacturers were experimenting with electronic timekeeping methods. One of the most successful early versions was New York-based Bulova's tuning fork-powered Accutron models, which were successful enough to gain a permanent place in the company's logo, and which remain highly sought-after by collectors today. Meanwhile, a competition broke out between the Swiss and the Japanese broke out to create the first quartz movement; the Swiss actually managed to beat the Japanese, but in one of the worst business miscalculations in recent memory, decided not to pursue the technology, believing that mechanical watches were here to stay.\n\nA timepiece, in simplest terms, is powered by a balance device that oscillates at a known interval. The back-and-forth motion of the device drives the shafts connected to the hands, which turn them. Generally, the higher the oscillation frequency, the more accurate a watch becomes. Mechanical watches range from 18000 beats per hour to 36000 bph, or 2.5 Hz to 5 Hz, with outliers on either end; quartz watches, powered by a tiny crystal (quartz, naturally) vibrated by an electric current, oscillate at *32,768 Hz*, making them exponentially more accurate than even the best mechanical watch (for reference, a mechanical movement is considered to be excellent if it gains or loses less than 5 seconds per day; the vast majority of quartz movements routinely gain or lose less than 5 seconds per month, with many remaining within those boundaries in a year). They also contain far fewer moving parts, making them much cheaper to manufacture. Japan's Seiko became the first company to mass-produce quartz watches in 1969, and as you might expect, people around the world thought it much better to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars less for a much more accurate watch. Mechanical watch sales plummeted, and many companies folded. American companies did not escape the carnage either; Waltham, Elgin, Gruen, and many others went under, and while the rights to the company names were bought and are still used today to create cheap, mass-produced timepieces, these companies have zero in common with their historical predecessors.\n\nBy the 80s, the Swiss watch industry was on the ropes - while some companies had bowed to the pressure and adopted quartz movements to stay afloat, many of those that did not had gone under. Amusingly, the Swiss watch industry was saved by Swatch, which in the 80s started producing cheap quartz watches with rather whimsical designs, which caught on in a big way. As Swatch began to become more and more successful, it began to quietly buy up other companies, such as Omega, Tissot, and the American Hamilton; they also acquired ETA SA, the world's largest maker of Swiss mechanical movements. They began to reposition these brands as luxury alternatives to the cheap brands, and played up the history of Swiss watchmaking (the good parts, of course) as a marketing technique. Other companies joined the party, including the Richemont Group, which has come to dominate the high-end luxury watch market, acquiring such names as Vacheron Constantin, Piaget, Jaeger-LeCoultre, and IWC. Since the mid-90s, the mechanical watch has seen a steady rise in popularity, despite the ongoing supremacy of quartz. As mechanical watches remain largely the territory of luxury brands, and many of the big luxury timepiece manufacturers remain Swiss, the country has once again become one of the major players in the horology world... until the next crisis, of course.", "In *Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World* historian of technology David Landes argues that the Swiss became great clockmakers because of their particular take on Christianity.\n\nBy at least the fourteenth century, morality in many Swiss towns was connected to ordered daily routines and productive labor: both of which could be disciplined by the clock. This social force combined with increased literacy and numeracy following the Protestant Reformation to create conditions in which clocks were needed and many people had the basic skills necessary to be trained as clockmakers. \n\nTo make a long story short, more demand led to more industry which led to more innovation (both technological and organizational), creating a self-sustaining technological, social, and economic infrastructure. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horology", "http://www.kinemetrics.com/" ], [ "http://www.amazon.com/The-Discoverers-Daniel-J-Boorstin/dp/0394726251" ], [], [ "http://youtu.be/-uHq5MRSAMU", "http://youtu.be/OuhGD-HSUy4", "http://youtu.be/D81pBoF2k-k", "http://youtu.be/43sM3iUhbA4" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Nantes#Revocation" ], [ "http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/fashion/a-prisoner-a-watch-a-war-story.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolex#Watches_for_POWs_and_help_in_the_Great_Escape" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfz9wvl", "cfzdy2y" ], "score": [ 19, 7 ], "text": [ "It's not exactly inflation, but debasing the quality of coinage has a similar effect, and Romans did understand that. The reason to debase coinage is because you want to pass off the cheaper coin for the value of the more expensive coin. This periodically produced economic crises, such that people like Constantine had to re-establish a trusted coinage such as the solidus. Another option was fiat currency - the government simply declares the value of the coin regardless of its silver (or other precious metal) content, and that was sometimes tried. The most extreme example would be the [edict of Diocletian](_URL_0_), which set prices in terms of denarii regardless of metal content. Some ancient people were able to make this work; I think both the Ptolemies and the Attalids were able to run an economy on fiat currency (but I don't know too much about those). Republican Rome never seemed to make fiat currency work for whatever reason.\n", "In addition to LegalAction's answer, the issue of inflation/deflation would not explicitly have been known (economic theory is a modern discipline), but there was a general understanding that inflation as they understood it was a very bad thing, and even in the ancient period a knowledge that a coin debasement was going to cause it eventually. However, they simply understood it as bad because it made things more expensive to purchase. You mention the 'Barracks' emperors; they knew this too, because inflation meant you had to pay more to keep your soldiers happy. And to boot, by the end of the third century, there were even more of those soldiers to pay.\n\nTo control this, the only known mechanisms were currency reform (expensive and difficult) and price controls (such as the Edict mentioned in LegalAction's answer) which were likely less effective. I don't know of any evidence that suggests they were aware of the negative aspects of deflation (or the positive aspects of inflation) though. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.forumancientcoins.com/NumisWiki/view.asp?key=Edict+of+Diocletian+Edict+on+Prices" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d54fozx" ], "score": [ 17 ], "text": [ "The short answer is that the typical voter in the US in the late 18th century was well aware of both the work of American and non-American enlightenment thinkers. \n \nIn the late 18th century, a \"typical voter\" would be, in most states, a white, land-owning male. [*Charters of Freedom - The New World At Hand*](_URL_0_) (an _URL_1_ online exhibit) has this to say: \n \n > At the time of the first Presidential election in 1789, only 6 percent of the population–white, male property owners–was eligible to vote. The Fifteenth Amendment extended the right to vote to former male slaves in 1870; American Indians gained the vote under a law passed by Congress in 1924; and women gained the vote with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. \n \nAs Harvey Graff writes in *Legacies of Literacy*, \n \n > In the \"new world,\" the level and social distribution of literacy were not static during the eighteenth century. Regional differences, as well as social divisions, had not been erased. New England again led the way. **The male literacy level there rose slowly to 70 percent by 1710, and by 1760 it had leapt to 85 percent.** Even comparatively impressive literacy levels and a cultural impetus toward schooling, the data suggests that many New Englanders in the eighteenth century still were **\"closer than we have imagined to the credulous word-of-mouth world of the peasant, closer to its dependency on tradition and on the informed few\"** \n \nGraff argues (and his arguments are echoed by Lawrence Cremin in *American Education: The National Experience, 1783-1876*, among other sources if you're interested) that the gulf between \"the informed few\" and other moderately literate white men was roughly as great as the gulf between someone who is moderately literate and someone who is completely illiterate. That is, the upper echelon of literate folks were not just literate, but highly literate, i.e. widely read. While this *would* change as the 18th century turned over into the 19th century and more and more folks gained a greater degree of literacy, but remained relatively narrow in terms of their reading choices (think newspapers, the Bible, some spellers/primers, etc.), within the parameters of your question it suggests that there is fairly direct correspondence between \"being a voter\" and \"being widely read.\" \n \nNow, the real question is does \"being widely read\" mean \"being widely read in the philosophies of the Enlightenment?\" And to that I directly to Cremin who, considering Thomas Paine's intellectual heritage, writes this: \n \n > Paine could easily have imbibed Newton and Locke, Collins and Toland, Rousseau and Condorcet, without ever having read a word of them. Like others of his generation, he received Enlightenment affirmations from newspapers and magazines, from informal study groups and itinerant lecturers, from conversations in taverns and disputes in coffeehouses. **And, like others of his generation, he mulled them, argued them, and translated them into his own terms, producing a new and powerful version that was at the same time coarse and clear, simple and persuasive, audacious and reasonable. \n \nWhat this indicates (something that Henry Mays' *Enlightenment in America* points out) is not only that the so-called \"philosophies of the Enlightenment\" circulated throughout America, but that America was an equally important site of Enlightenment-era philosophizing. Though he calls for a clearer demarcation between these American and non-American Englightenment-era thinkers, Mays writes, \n \n > Locke, Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Jefferson can be described and admired together. These men shared certain very generous loyalties....The distinctions among them and their followers must be clearly made if one is to treat successfully the *history* of the Enlightenment: its spread, its victories, its defeats. \n \nSo, to return to your question, there is a problem with the formulation that the founders *based* the structure of the country on the work of other enlightenment philosophers. It is more accurate to say that both the founders, in their writings and their doings, participated in the same, very roughly drawn thought era as did other thinkers such as Locke, Rousseau, Hume, Newton, Condorcet, etc. And the residue, if you will, of this thought era (i.e. all the writings) circulated widely within and was influenced by a class of highly literate folks (mostly white guys), both in the US and abroad. And this class of highly literate folks was, for the most part, the \"typical voter\" in the late 18th century United States. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html", "archives.gov" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dzim718", "dziua4m" ], "score": [ 6, 27 ], "text": [ "Can you please clarify what specific historical time or times and locations you are interested in? I may be able to answer your question, but as posed it isn't a historical one.", "It's been done, so it's clearly possible.\n\nOne example: William MacBean. From his VC citation, \"For distinguished personal bravery in killing eleven of the enemy with his own hand in the main breach of the Begum Bagh at Lucknow, on the 11th March, 1858.\" In the Indian Mutiny, he fought, single-handed, against 9 troopers, 1 *naik* (corporal) and 1 *havildar* (sergeant), and killed them all with his sword.\n\nYou can find similar feats on the battlefield in VC citations from the mid/late 19th century (and equivalents with firearms from then and later). Sometimes the VC winner faces a group in order to rescue a wounded soldier. Sometimes the VC winner doesn't kill them all - maybe only 1 or 2, and the rest flee, or merely holds them all off until help arrives. Sometimes the VC winner is wounded.\n\nPeople also failed trying to do it. For example, the death of Francisco Pizarro. He was trying to defend himself against his assassins, and killed two of them. He then ran a 3rd opponent through with his sword (according to some versions, a 4th opponent pushed the 3rd onto his sword), and he was killed before he could free his sword. (And sometimes, the VC winners discussed above are killed.)\n\nSuch feats are exceptional - that's why they have resulted in the award of VCs, and the creation of legends and stories.\n\nThere are tactics and techniques that the lone swordsman can use against a group, and these tactics and techniques can be effective against relatively unskilled opponents. However, it isn't always possible to apply these on the battlefield, the opponents might not be sufficiently unskilled for such methods to result in victory, and bad luck (e.g., breaking one's sword) can happen. Plenty can go wrong, and one-against-many on the battlefield often results in the death of the one." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "esu4799" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "The answer to your question(s) would be a resounding \"neither\", I'm afraid. I'll try to get a bit more in-depth for the 1648-1806 period of HRE history where I'm best informed in, but hopefully you'll get other answers expounding on the many centuries before that. I can already give you a tl;dr though, if you like, and that's \"It's fiendishly complicated\".\n\nThe political and structural framework of the HRE was the following: There was the German King (who often also wore the Imperial Roman Crown) who stood at the top of the feudal structure of the Empire. Every lower-ranking prince received his (in rare cases also: her) fief from the King's hands, and throughout the HRE's history every time a fief passed hands or a new King/Emperor (I'll simply say \"Emperor\" from now on since throughout the entire early modern era, every German King also styled himself Emperor) there was a corresponding ceremony where the fief-holder would ritually swear fealty to the Emperor. So, a singular and centralised state with a strong monarch on top, no?\n\nWell, of course it was much more complicated than that. In practice, the Emperor being the feudal overlord was more a legal theorem than political reality, and while the aforementioned ceremonies continued to be followed, in most cases from the late 17th century on, the various German lords sent representatives instead of appearing themselves as a subtle sign of defiance towards Imperial claims. Also, the Emperor was basically alone, as he had no governmental bureaucracy to his side...\n\n...instead that this isn't the whole truth, either. Emperor Maximilian I, who ruled at the turn from the Middle Ages to the Early Modern, was very ambitious in his plans to centralise the Empire and create a functioning bureaucracy. For various reasons (the continuing resistance of the various princes being the central one), his plans didn't fully pan out and could only be realised in part. The most important achievements of Maximilian on this front were probably the establishment of an imperial court system, with the Imperial Chamber Court and the Imperial Aulic Council serving as the supreme appellation court in the Empire. But even there, we have to qualify that statement, since over the centuries many German territories tried (and often succeeded) in securing the privilege of their subjects not being able to appeal to the Imperial judiciary. Another enduring legacy of Maximilian's was the introduction of \"Imperial districts\" (*Reichskreise*), which ultimately got tasked with organising and supervising the mint, collecting the imperial taxes (well, tax - there was only one, and it didn't exactly constitute a lot of income), gathering and training Imperial Army troops and enforcing sentences of the Imperial judiciary. There also were a number of other, minor tasks, but it's more important to note that there were vast differences between the various districts; some of them were highly active, whereas others mostly existed on paper.\n\nBut there was an Imperial Judiciary and an Imperial Army so it can't have been too decentralised, right? Well, yes... and no. The two imperial courts had overlapping jurisdictions and sometimes worked openly against each other, the aforementioned *privilegia de non appellando* weakened the Imperial judiciary especially within the strongest individual member states, and the Imperial Chamber Court was notoriously underfunded; many of the cases brought before it took literal centuries to finally be resolved. Some never were, because the HRE's end in 1806 got in the way (although to be fair, those century-long cases also tended to be the politically most charged ones. In less exciting cases, the Court could be astonishingly quick, even!). The army was provided by the individual member states who generally speaking weren't all that inclined to supply the Emperor with a powerful standing military. In addition to that, there was no centralised Imperial Army doctrine or drill and the various units never exercised together, which in turn meant that their efficacy in actual warfare wasn't always a given.\n\nOn the other side of the scarce Imperial bureaucracy, there were the many (many, many) individual territories, who in themselves were highly varied and distinct. They were organised in the Imperial Diet (Reichstag), a mammoth parliament that until the 17th century would only come together sporadically. In 1663, the Reichstag met again in Regensburg, but when its members couldn't reach a consensus in several highly important questions they simply deferred the official end of the session (also because some princes feared that due to those debates the Emperor would refuse to call for another session) until perpetuity, creating the \"Perpetual Diet\" in the process which legally speaking was just one long, never-ending session of the Imperial Diet. This parliament didn't represent all of the Empire, however, since not every ruler in the Empire was allowed a seat (I'll tell more about them later on), and because Bohemia and Imperial Italy weren't represented either for a variety of reasons which all eventually end at \"they were arguably no longer a part of the Empire, anyway\".\n\nThe minor princes that were part of the Diet were divided in various groups. At the top were the prince-electors, a group of seven powerful princes and bishops whose most important job and privilege was to elect the Emperor. Who exactly was part of this elite group changed slightly over the centuries, and towards the end of the Empire the prince-electoral college even expanded to ten members. One of the prince-electors, the Archbishop of Mainz, also had the office of \"Imperial Arch-chancellor of Germany\" - in theory he led the imperial chancellery (in practice this was done by the \"Imperial Vice Chancellor\") and, most importantly, directed the sessions of the Imperial Diet. His prince-elector colleagues, the Archbishops of Cologne and Trier, also were Arch-chancellors of Italy and Burgundy, respectively, but those titles had long since lost virtually all of their practical power. The prince-electors even used to come together for parliamentary sessions of their own where they debated various imperial matters, but those mostly ceased with the Thirty Years' War.\n\nBelow the prince-electors came the Imperial Princes and Prelates. Those included powerful princes who didn't make it into the prince-electoral college, but also most Catholic bishops of the Empire and also all those abbots and abbesses who had the distinction of leading an \"Imperial Abbey\". This group had about 100 seats altogether, but six of those seats were \"curial votes\", i.e. one single vote cast together by a larger number of Diet members who didn't make the cut for a vote of their own. If I didn't miscount there were 166 of those unlucky princes and prelates.\n\nAt the lowest rung of the ladder were the Imperial cities, i.e. city-states (some of them very big and influential, others tiny) who weren't part of any larger territory, answered directly to the Emperor and took part at the Imperial Diet. Towards the end of the Empire there were 51 Imperial cities who had a whopping two votes inbetween them." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "flnndnk" ], "score": [ 13 ], "text": [ "Chiang Kai-shek didn't want to lead a unified KMT. In fact, he totally planned, executed, and then perpetuated the persecution of communists and the CCP from 1926-1937. And to be fair, Sun Yat-sen also had no interest in seeing the party unified with communists either, he was forced to by the USSR who was funding the KMT's Northern Expedition.\n\nThe KMT's creation led it to attract a plethora of plural-minded individuals. The three major groups can be broken down into \"Liberals:\" Those who sought to create a sort of modern capitalist-federation in the likes of the US; \"Communists:\" by 1926, no one had universally agreed to what communism was or meant. They just knew that it had to make China a better, modernized state like it did for Russia in the USSR; and finally \"Nationalists:\" This group is kind of nebulous. Some in recent years have likened them to being fascist minded, while others note that these men adopted their own Chinese concepts of modern military totalitarianism. So Liberals, Communists, and Nationalists, and they're all working \"together\" under a singular party, the KMT. The Chinese didn't really have the whole 'political parties' thing nailed down the way it is in federal state like the US. But they were all unified in one major goal: Unite China, Modernize China, and Make China Great Again by any means possible!\n\n**Solidifying Chiang's Power; the Canton Coup and the Northern Expedition**\n\nWhen Sun died, there was no real successor for the KMT. Chiang and Sun, although friends, had a very tense political relationship due to Chiang's refusal to cooperate with the CCP. Upon Sun's death, Chiang had an edge over other generals; he was the head of the Whampoa Academy, which meant that he not only had a professional corps of loyal officers, but an army at his disposal located right in Canton. But he himself really had no legitimate means of being the leader of the KMT in the eyes of every other KMT general. They were all the same; a group of former cadets trained in the art of military at the Imperial Japan Military Academy that were unified by their youthful bravado to return to a fragmented homeland and not just unify it, but also turn it into a great world power that could stand up to the Westerners. All of them would play a key role in modern Chinese history, and *most* of them wanted the leadership role, along with various politicians.\n\nChiang needed to act fast if he was to keep his position as head of KMT, or even his head. Chiang chose a combination pretty common to most dictators, assassinating/arresting those who could threaten him, and then accelerating war preparation to give other generals something to be busy with other than plotting his demise. One of the first things he did upon the death of Sun was killing Liao Zhongkai and arresting Hu Hanmin, getting rid of two potential rivals. Next, Chiang instigated the \"Canton Coup\" (also known as the Zhongshan Incident), where he used his power as head of the Whampoa Military Academy to attack certain communists, arresting Zhou Enlai and exiling Wang Jingwei, but also in the process forcing Soviet advisers to flee. Despite the close calls and tensions, Stalin decided to continue his backing of Chiang and the CCP stayed as an artery of the KMT, though not for long.\n\nAfter ensuring he had control over the communists, Chiang then had to deal with fellow military generals. They weren't communists and they all weren't unified in who should replace Chiang, but many were convinced that Chiang should be disposed, a feeling that would soon dissipate as Japanese aggression became more and more belligerent. In order to cull the generals, Chiang basically took a gamble; he would launch the Northern Expedition in 1926 rather than later, against the advice of the Soviet advisers the year prior. Today we know the NE was a stunning success in many ways for the KMT, although it ultimately fell short. But at the time there was no guarantee the campaign would succeed. Fortunately for Chiang, as the KMT Army marched further north it became apparent that certain warlords had no real allegiance to their leaders, and Chiang's willingness to use what he called \"Silver Bullets\" (Bribes) meant that most of the warlords fell apart quite quickly; some even proved to be loyal allies in the future (Tang Shengzhi). But by 1928, Chiang was the undisputed leader of the KMT due to a combination of a successful war solidifying his leadership and him assassinating or exiling potential rivals." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "etnm0gd" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The soviet union's potential connection to scripture was based on a relatively pragmatic reading of the passages regarding Gog and Magog. These are the two allied forces that are supposed to invade Israel. Gog and Magog have long been thought to be connected with the scythians(and central asia), who would have existed in area largely occupied by the soviet union. Having both the army and the geographic positioning, they simply fit the prophetic bill most closely. But as the USSR broke up and no longer regarding as nearly as an imposing military power, they simply seem to be less and less likely to fit the bill for being gog/magog." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9npmqd" ], "score": [ 11 ], "text": [ "I doubt you'll get a meaningful answer. 'Man of greed' and 'visionary' are personal judgements. So what causes some to call Rockefeller a man of greed causes others to call him a visionary. \n\nThat said, I'd seriously reconsider those 'sources' you posted. The first seems to be a site about Linux, the second one is an activist group and the third one... well, it's an objectivist shill site, meaning you shouldn't trust a word it says. (I mean, \"Reason, egoism and capitalism.\"? Really?) Try to look for more academic sources and consider each one: who wrote this? Why did they write this? Is it trustworthy? etc" ] }

[]

[ "http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-16-2-b-rockefeller-and-the-standard-oil-monopoly.html", "http://www.linfo.org/standardoil.html", "http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/standard-oil-company.asp" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9jyus7", "c9jz45b" ], "score": [ 13, 9 ], "text": [ "I agree with czela's point, but I'd like to expand a bit. There were really two types of Imperialism: Old Imperialism and New Imperialism. The Old Imperialism consisted of the exploration of the New World and the search of spices. The motives for this exploration was mostly gold (economic), God (the spread of Christianity), and for king (prestige, ability for a nation to claim land). This imperialism led to the discovery and claiming of North America, the Far East, and parts of South America. \n\nThere were 4 main motives for New Imperialism: Jingo/The Great Game(the idea that a nation was measured by how much land they controlled and the race for colonies), national unity(it's a political unifier for a nation), discovery/adventure(the idea of going to an unknown land to discover things and battle with nature), and the White Man's Burden (the idea that Europe and white men were the best and they needed to spread their knowledge/government/culture with the rest of the world). \n\nEdit: In the New Imperialism, many nations actually lost money. An example in Africa was the race between Britain and France to build the first trans-African railroad, which was a huge economic endeavor that failed. ", "There were a wide range of reasons for Germany's colonization of Africa, especially after the Berlin Conference. During the Scramble for Africa, Germany had only recently unified and was still trying to establish itself as a power on the European continent. So while economic factors were certainly at play, I would argue that they were not the most important. Instead, the rising power that was Germany saw Africa as a way to establish itself amongst the other European powers (France, Britain). In colonizing Africa, Germany (as well as other European states) established its own legitimacy. Czela and blackirishboy both argue that prestige was important; it was *especially important* in Germany's case.\n\nAnother reason for colonization that isn't discussed here is balance of power. In fact, this may have been Bismarck's greatest motivation for holding the Berlin Conference, which formally divided the African continent amongst the European powers. Bismarck knew that in order to prevent war from breaking out on the continent, the European powers had to be roughly balanced against each other. As European states grabbed up colonies, the balance of power began to shift. The Berlin Conference was the only way to right that balance in a peaceful manner. As a way of maintaining that balance, Germany took a few colonies but not nearly as much as France or Britain." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8xsdz0" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Carpine came a little bit early for the diversity that would define the [Pax Mongolica.](_URL_0_) However, within the next 100-200 years the mongol empire was extremely diverse. Kublai khan was heavily influenced by the chinese during his reign, and later many leaders were influenced by islam and arabic architecture. From roughly 1250 to 1350 the mongol empire was extraordinarily diverse. Local cultures were left alone, and artisans from southeast asia and other parts of the empire were brought to the west to \"re-construct\" samarkand by Timur. \n\nThe mongols did everything they could to facilitate trade from one end of the empire to the other, naturally the exchange of cultural beliefs would follow suit. Religious tolerance was enforced, and this played to their benefit. When The mongols attacked Khwarezm, the other muslim leaders would not join the fight, believing it wasn't a \"holy war\", as the mongols had always been tolerant of islam. They also promoted the arts and cultural exchanges in other ways; lawyers, teachers, and artists were exempt from taxation and could freely travel the empire on excellent roads. At the very top of the hierarchy, I don't believe there were many foreigners however. If someone had foreign people in places of great power, it probably would have been kublai khan with the chinese." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Mongolica" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjd656l" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The key differences were on issues of nationalism and localism. The best way to compare the two parties is to compare their ideological leaders. Alexander Hamilton was a driving force behind the Federalists while Thomas Jefferson was the founder of the old Republican Party (Democratic-Republican, Jeffersonian Republican).\n\nAlexander Hamilton served as Washington's first Secretary of the Treasury (he is on the $10 and the treasury building is on the back of that bill) and he put forward a number of centralizing plans for economics, including a tariff, a national bank, and bounties for industrial production. He wanted to use the power of the newly minted federal government to develop the economic and industrial power of the United States along the lines of the British. \n\nJefferson (First Secretary of State under Washington), on the other hand, was far more in favor of local economics. He supported the yeoman farmers. He wanted America to be run by the states more than the federal government, no tariff as he and his fellows were exporters of raw materials and Europe had more demand for Tobacco and Cotton (a new industry for the USA thanks to the Cotton Gin), and other cash crops than the USA had. He was also more in line with the French over the British. \n\nFrom about 1796 through about 1815 the two parties were dramatically opposed the key issues of economics (plantations or factories), location of political power (national vs local), banking (yes or no), and trade policy (protect our factories or export our goods). \n\nBy the war of 1812 the Federalist party was in shambles. No presidential victory since 1796, only Marshall on the supreme court to have any power, an aborted attempt to break New England off as its own country failed and the party dissolved. The Republican party was unopposed in the election of 1820. \n\nSome good sources to read on these differences would be found by looking up Hamilton's economic plans, the election of 1800 which was a major battle between the two parties for control of the 15 states and the federal government, and the even the war of 1812 which we see the beginning of the end of the Federalist Party.\n\nText sources archive:\n_URL_0_\n\nHamilton's Manufacturing plan: (federalist economic policy)\n_URL_1_\n\nJefferson and Madison's Kentucky resolution: (a reaction to federalist legal policies)\n_URL_2_\n\nI hope these help answer your question." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/era.cfm?eraID=4&smtID=3", "http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=265", "http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=4127" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9f4tyt", "c9f6onv", "c9f7qnc", "c9fck0j" ], "score": [ 5, 3, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Could you explain your question? Soviet cinema is a broad subject, one that cannot be explained in a single answer. What are you looking for? Major themes? Cold war via cinema? Prominent figures in its development?", "Depends. Some were long and 'heavy' movies about WWII, that show the war as a true horror, other - more heroic. There are also comedies and childrens movies based on folklore. I don't think amerikans and the USA are often depicted. In the 80s some movies appeared that dealed with 'western culture' and how it has become underground in the soviet block-things like The Beatles, long hairs and hippies\n..", "They changed dramatically over time. Early on you had a lot of experimental cinema (granted in a period where all cinema was experimental) which relied on montage and didn't really have characters, like Vertov's *Man with a Movie Camera* and Eisenstein's *Battleship Potempkin*. This style is the result, to an extent, of the lack of an established Soviet film industry (lack of funds, resources to make the sort of movies that were being cranked out in hollywood, many of the early Soviet filmmakers worked extensively in newsreals, which were often used to make propaganda films shown on traveling cinema trains). The great early Soviet filmmakers were highly influential on the early development of filmmaking. \n\nAs things settled down after the Civil War, you started to get a lot of films with socialist themes, big silent epics, and the like. As Stalin came into power, the government began to enact far stricter control over the film industry and movies had to espouse \"socialist realism\", everything became extremely didactic, formulaic, and horribly boring.\n\nAfter Stalin died, filmmakers were given a great deal more latitude and there was a flourishing of quality artistic films, including my favorite Soviet Film, *Cranes are Flying*. There were some quality films made by Soviet filmmakers in the 60s and 70s as well. In my experience these films are rather leisurely paced (think wedding scene, *Deer Hunter*). Also, Easterns (i.e. Soviet Westerns) were a pretty popular genre at the time. And, since my class on the history of Russian cinema only covered until 1980, I have no idea what happened after that. \n\n\n", "There have been several previous questions about this that may give you more in-depth answers.\n\n* [Did the USSR and other countries have a \"Superman,\" or other related type icons](_URL_2_) gives a little detail on the Soviet Superhero \"The Amphibian Man\"\n\n* [What was television like for communist countries such as the Soviet Union or DDR during the Cold War?](_URL_1_) has a couple of interesting answers, the best ones being personal experiences in Russia and Romania.\n\nBut I only found those because I was looking for this one, and I listed them first because this is one of my favorite answers ever given on this sub and thought you should read them first; good before great, kind of thing. \n\n * [During the Cold War, did the Soviets have their own James Bond character in the media? A hero who fought the capitalist pigs of the West for the good of Mother Russia.](_URL_0_) gives not only an account of Soviet spy movies, but gives a good amount of context fpr the rules of Soviet films in general. It's just a stunningly good piece, simultaneously detailed, open to a wide audience, analytical and empirical. This is an excellent exemplar of how people should answer questions that fit squarely within their expertise: knock it out of the park. The other answers will also probably give you a good sense of the Soviet film industry but the first one...mwuah, magnificent. Keep reading, because /u/Bufus in a response to a comment on his original post, describes Soviet comedies and \"massive epics\", for example. The whole thread is excellent and ends up just being a very robust discussion of Soviet cinema. Seriously though, this is one of those \"must reads\" AskHistorians threads, right up there with whenever /u/heyheymse discusses Romans getting it on." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/188xka/during_the_cold_war_did_the_soviets_have_their/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17cf07/what_was_television_like_for_communist_countries/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11155q/did_the_ussr_and_other_countries_have_a_superman/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "famihiw" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "Yes and no. \n\nThe idea of an ambulance where a sick or injured person is transported, treated on route and brought to a place of medical care didn't exist for civilians until 1832 when London's Cholera outbreak lead the city to setup horse drawn carriages to transport the ill that served as the first form of the ambulance. \n\nPrior to that, the only form of medical transportation for civilians was the forced removal of those suffering from mental illness or leprosy. These people would be taken almost always against their will to a quarantined place separated from the public, usually a place run by the local monastery. You have to remember, the vast majority of people couldn't afford medical care and even if they did, didn't live close enough to a hospital (if the country had any) where being transported would be more beneficial than just having someone with medical knowledge come to you. Also remember these are the days before sterile rooms and advanced medical equipment. And it also wasn't uncommon for the doctor to also be the local barber. \n\nHowever, in 1487 the Spanish began using horse drawn carts to serve as mobile hospitals to follow their armies. This is the earliest form of care where a person is taken from the place of injury or illness to a place of care and treated en route. But this was strictly for military use only.\n\nSources: \n\nKatherine T. Barkley (1990). The Ambulance. Exposition Press.\n\nCholera Epidemics in Victorian London.” Cholera Epidemics in Victorian London | The Gazette, Authority, 1 Feb. 2016, _URL_0_.\n\n“History of Ambulances.” EMT Resources - for New and Experienced EMTs, _URL_2_, 2016, _URL_1_." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/100519", "www.emt-resources.com/History-of-Ambulances.html", "Emt-Resources.com" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "co4330w", "co43dnc", "co46cgz", "co493pe" ], "score": [ 8, 8, 2, 7 ], "text": [ "To my consideration, the answer lies within the terms. While the Russian and French revolutions were, basically internal affairs, as they wanted to overthrow the government held by actual Russians and French people respectively, the American revolution was actually an independence, as the government that was sought to be overthrown was English. As the source of the problem leaves the country, problems aren't as prone to reappear.", "Speaking broadly the reason many revolutions have failed is because a victorious and popular General uses his popularity, particularly within the military, to consolidate power before the post-revolution State can be brought fully into existence. One of the reasons Trotsky - a charismatic leader, formidable rhetorician, and leader of the red army - was exiled and feared was because the Bolsheviks feared he'd become another Napoleon. So perhaps the principle reason is that George Washington didn't go mad with power and use his popularity become a military dictator. ", "I think geography plays a role as well. The months it took for new British troops to arrive from England (and the challenges with communicating back and forth) severely limited to Britain's ability to respond to the colonist's efforts. \n\nEssentially similar to the \"internal\" discussion above. ", "I'm going to offer an alternate theory to /u/DaMadApe: The American Revolution faced no external threat, as did the French and Russian revolutions. In 1783, following the Peace of Paris, the United States had no immediate external enemies. It did not face the threat of invasion, and thus the government was able to focus on internal problems first and foremost. Thanks to this \"breathing room,\" for lack of a better term, early Americans were allowed the time to settle internal conflicts caused by the Articles of Confederation and the formation of a new government. With external peace, the new United States was able to draft a constitution outlining a new government without interference.\n\nBoth France and Russia faced invasion immediately after the establishment of the revolutionary government. Once the revolutionary governments overthrew the existing order, they faced external problems. In 1792, following the end of the French constitutional assembly, France faced invasion on several fronts. It also faced problems with internal problems — counterrevoluntaries on one end of the scale and radical revolutionaries on the other end of the scale.\n\nThe United States faced these internal problems as well — think the Whiskey Rebellion for one example — but it was able to focus intellectual and physical resources on these internal problems where the French Revolution was distracted in multiple directions. The invasion of France by the First Coalition dissolved what support remained for the monarchy, and the constitutional monarchy collapsed. This permitted the Reign of Terror and all that came afterward. Had the constitutional monarchy been given time to stabilize, it could have lived on, just as the young American government was given time to draft a stronger document and structure that fixed the problems of the Articles of Confederation.\n\nNow, look at Russia. Its circumstances were even more critical than that of France -- it was already invaded by the German army at the time of the February Revolution, which installed a moderate provisional government. The continued attacks of the German army fatally weakened the provisional government. One of the promises that government had made was that it would not send more troops to the front lines. When it did so, support for it began to decline.\n\nAfter the October Revolution and the cease-fire with Germany, Russia was invaded again — this time by the Allies and Japan. As in the latter part of the French Revolution, drastic and bloody measures were taken by the revolutionary government to secure its rear area in order to successfully fight the war against the external enemy. \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdjke1a" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I would put forward the following - \n\n- Possessions were few and far between in the middle ages; a sword was one of the most valuable things a person could have. As a result, knights wanted to show off their pride for their weapons by naming them.\n\n- The tradition of naming weapons probably arose in the early middle ages, such as in the anglo-saxon and viking cultures. For example, the Viking King Magnus Barelegs had a sword called \"Legbiter\".\n\n- Not only swords were named, but other weapons also, and sometimes armour and shields as well. In such warrior cultures weapons and armor were very prized possessions, and men would form a strong psychological bond with such items. Much like an American Frontiersman who named his rifle, these names represented the life and death relationship warriors had with their arms and armour. \n\n- Later in the middle ages, in the more continental traditions of knighthood in the high and late middle ages, this tradition was not formally practiced, although it is likely that some individual would have given their weapons informal nicknames.\n\nOther examples of named swords I can think of -\n\n- Edward the Confessor had the \"Sword of Mercy\" or \"Curtana\", which forms a part of the French epic you name above and according to legend, once belonged to Ogier the Dane.\n\n- El Cid had a sword named \"Tizona\" which is on display in the Museo de Burgos, in Burgos, Spain.\n\n- Charlemagne's \"Joyeuse\"\"\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccn4kog", "ccn4r8b", "ccn5vaj", "ccn8vhv", "ccn9jma", "ccnaro3", "ccncxtn", "ccnfg2d", "ccnhtdb" ], "score": [ 980, 54, 100, 16, 10, 40, 2, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "You would probably receive a more thorough and knowledgable answer if you asked this question in /r/linguistics.\n\nHowever, I can tell you that the [present perfect](_URL_1_) construction \"I am become\" is not the result of a direct translation of Sanskrit, but an artifact of early modern English that most likely stems from the [Germanic influence upon the language](_URL_0_). The construction may still be found in modern German.\n\nIn addition to \"I am become death,\" you may find similar constructions repeated in the Bible (\"I am come in my father's name,\" John 5:43 KJV), in Christmas carols (\"Joy to the world, the Lord is come\"), and in much of English literature prior to the 20th century.\n\nAdditionally, this type of present perfect construction survives with verbs other than *come/become*, both in one-off archaic phrases (\"He is risen,\") and in standard English (\"The box of Oreos is gone.\")\n\nedit: added some links.\n\nsupra-edit: not surprised to learn from /u/mambeau that /r/linguistics has already [answered this question](_URL_2_).", "This [same question](_URL_0_) was actually asked in /r/linguistics two months ago, and got some good responses.", "Oppenheimer was not \"quoting a relatively poor translation\" of the Gita, as some have claimed. In fact, I'm fairly sure he wasn't \"quoting\" any translation really, as he read Sanskrit himself and I am fairly certain he was giving his own, idiosyncratic translation. Last time this came up, /u/restricteddata recommended James A. Hijiya's piece in *Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Publication* called \"The 'Gita' of J. Robert Oppenheimer\", which I still haven't read yet. I was asking him about if \"I am become death\" was a deliberate archaicism influenced by Tennyson's poem \"Ulysses\" which includes the line, \"I am become a name\". I wish I could find the original thread because /u/restricteddata's answer was much better than my half remembered version of it. Someone can make sure by actually reading that Hijiya article rather than just saving it, but I'm fairly sure this is an artifact of Oppenheimer's translation not of Sanskrit grammar.\n\nedit: I found the original thread, in [Alex's AMA](_URL_0_)", "it's just an artifact of translation\n\nit's verse 32 chapter 11 of the Bhagavad Gita.\n\nthere can be many different translations. here's another, in context:\n\n > BG 11.23: O mighty-armed one, all the planets with their demigods are disturbed at seeing Your great form, with its many faces, eyes, arms, thighs, legs, and bellies and Your many terrible teeth; and as they are disturbed, so am I.\n\n > BG 11.24: O all-pervading Viṣṇu, seeing You with Your many radiant colors touching the sky, Your gaping mouths, and Your great glowing eyes, my mind is perturbed by fear. I can no longer maintain my steadiness or equilibrium of mind.\n\n > BG 11.25: O Lord of lords, O refuge of the worlds, please be gracious to me. I cannot keep my balance seeing thus Your blazing deathlike faces and awful teeth. In all directions I am bewildered.\n\n > BG 11.26-27: All the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, along with their allied kings, and Bhīṣma, Droṇa, Karṇa — and our chief soldiers also — are rushing into Your fearful mouths. And some I see trapped with heads smashed between Your teeth.\n\n > BG 11.28: As the many waves of the rivers flow into the ocean, so do all these great warriors enter blazing into Your mouths.\n\n > BG 11.29: I see all people rushing full speed into Your mouths, as moths dash to destruction in a blazing fire.\n\n > BG 11.30: O Viṣṇu, I see You devouring all people from all sides with Your flaming mouths. Covering all the universe with Your effulgence, You are manifest with terrible, scorching rays.\n\n > BG 11.31: O Lord of lords, so fierce of form, please tell me who You are. I offer my obeisances unto You; please be gracious to me. You are the primal Lord. I want to know about You, for I do not know what Your mission is.\n\n > BG 11.32: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: **Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to destroy all people.** With the exception of you [the Pāṇḍavas], all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain.\n\n > BG 11.33: Therefore get up. Prepare to fight and win glory. Conquer your enemies and enjoy a flourishing kingdom. They are already put to death by My arrangement, and you, O Savyasācī, can be but an instrument in the fight.\n\n > BG 11.34: Droṇa, Bhīṣma, Jayadratha, Karṇa and the other great warriors have already been destroyed by Me. Therefore, kill them and do not be disturbed. Simply fight, and you will vanquish your enemies in battle.\n\n_URL_0_\n", "Quick answer: It's an archaic construction. In English, we used to use the verb 'to be' (instead of 'to have')as the auxiliary for intransitive verbs in the perfect tense.", "It's an artistic flourish in Oppenheimer's translation. The original Sanskrit is:\n\n*kālo'smi lokakṣayakṛt pravṛddho*\n\nWhich translates as:\n\nI am Time, grown old – the cause of the destruction of the world.\n\n\"I am become death\" is a condensing of the Time-grown-old bit. So rather than simply indicating a sense of timelessness, it indicates Time itself, and more precisely turning of the ages. In the context of the Gita, this turning of the ages is in fact a moment of mass death. Oppenheimer's quoting of the Gita signals both the onset of the atomic age and the potential for mass death that ushered it in.", "I think the quote is actually Krishna and not Vishnu.\n\nI don't know about the specifics of the translation from Sanskrit but I know the context within the Bhagavad Gita.\n\nBasically the Bhagavad Gita is part of a bigger book called the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata is a big adventure story that mainly follows Arjuna as the hero. He goes around and does battles and learns lessons about gods and morality.\n\nBasically in the course of his travels, Arjuna gets into this situation where his position obligates him to fight in a war, because he swore he would. However, due to a cruel twist of fate, his old teacher and brothers are standing with the opposing armies. Arjuna doesn't want to fight them. He knows if he does, he'll kill them, so he starts worrying and feeling awful.\n\nKrishna is driving his chariot. Basically at that point Krishna is incarnated as kind of a warrior and advisor to Arjuna. The two ride out to the no mans land between the armies, and have a talk about karma and life and god. Krishna convinces Arjuna to fight. That discussion is the Bhagavad Gita.\n\nBasically Krishna goes through a big philosophy about how you have too ct without attachment to your actions, and explains to Arjuna that he must do his duty and forget the consequences.\n\nArjuna isn't convinced though, so at the climax, Krishna takes on his god form, which is a massive many headed many armed beast with a huge mouth and into the mouth the whole universe is falling, and Arjuna sees Krishna killing everything and everyone, simply due to the fact that Krishna is god and therefore controls time and decay and so on.\n\nSo Krishna then says \"now I am become death, destroyer of worlds,\" to tell Arjuna, basically \" do your duty, aim the only one that kills. You are just my instrument.\"\n\nSo it's a bit ironic actually that Oppenheimer used this quote, because it's actually a quote in favor of warfare and doing ones duty. In quoting Krishna and not Arjuna he kind of put himself into the place of god, when the whole point of the quote is that Krishna is god and people are people. God kills, god destroys, people just do their duty.\n\nIt would be like someone saying \"I am that I am\" or something. Anyway that's a bit tangential but maybe explains something. Don't get me wrong I still think Oppenheimer is a badass for quoting the Bhagavad Gita, but if he had quoted Arjuna instead it would have been even more badass.\n\n", "This is a late, late response, but to me...\n\n\"I am\" implies \"I have always been\". \"I have\" implies \"I have become\". Am I wrong in my logic?", "The answer is to be found in Heraclitus' treatment of becoming. The phrase \"I have\" denotes a time when \"I was not\". But you might think, \"doesn't 'become' also denote a change?\" But when considering how Heraclitus described the world as in a constant state of becoming, then saying \"I am become\" is consistent with an eternal state of being." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_perfect#German", "http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/presentperfect.html", "http://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/1ipyjo/now_i_am_become_death_the_destroyer_of_worlds/" ], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/1ipyjo/now_i_am_become_death_the_destroyer_of_worlds/" ], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1iyjak/ama_i_am_alex_wellerstein_historian_of_science/cb9k2wy?context=1" ], [ "http://vedabase.net/bg/11/en" ], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ewg6sla" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "There were a number of plans for amphibious assaults on German islands in the North Sea and even the Baltic coast of Germany, formulated in 1914-15, but these came to nothing as it was chosen to focus on knocking the Ottoman Empire out of the war instead. In 1916-17, planning focused on moves to outflank German lines in Flanders, but these were cancelled due to German coastal defences and the failure of land-based offensives these assaults were to link up with. Finally, in 1918, the RN raided the German-controlled ports of Ostend and Zeebrugge, with the aim of rendering them useless as U-boat bases. For more information on these, see my answers [here](_URL_2_) and [here](_URL_0_). There were also a number of raids made on targets along the German North Sea coast by RNAS (and later RAF) aircraft operating from seaplane and aircraft carriers, which I've covered [here](_URL_1_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7se8ot/i_was_listening_to_the_podcast_on_the_battle_of/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7qvb5k/why_didnt_the_royal_navy_attack_along_the_german/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/45l3ap/was_landing_soldiers_behind_enemy_trench_lines/czywz8v/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cq8smw5", "cq8w9iy" ], "score": [ 29, 25 ], "text": [ "Kind of a perfect storm.The Texans wanted slave ownership legal and church attendance voluntary; the Mexican government forbid slave ownership and had mandatory Catholic church membership. Not a few Texans had \"absquatulated\" from Mississippi and the South, losing their plantations and fleeing their debts when Jackson took down much of the US banking system, so there was an element that would have felt it had no where else to go. And of course General Santa Anna is generally reviled in Mexico today for his ability to make terrible decisions, and many were made in dealing with the Texans.", "The Texans rebelled under the pretext that Mexico's liberal Constitution of 1824, under which they had immigrated to Mexico, had been repealed in 1835 by Santa Anna's dictatorship. However, the specific issues of the end of slavery (alienating those settlers who saw Texas' cotton potential) and the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church as the state church were the driving force for many rebels.\n\nIt's worth noting that Texas wasn't the only entity to secede from Mexico in this period, as both the Yucatan and the Rio Grande republics made short-lived bids for independence." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cud6f9g" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Don't consider this a full and proper answer, but it seems relevant to point out that the movie in question was largely based on a book about Lincoln's cabinet and political work during the Civil War, also touching on his election and position within the Republican Party. Check out Doris Kearns Goodwin's *Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln* if you're interested in further reading." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmdh4a1" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I would contend that there were elements of both sides of the argument in warfare in pre-modern Europe. On the one hand there was a level of belief extant in that period that is almost unimaginable to a modern person. This served as the basis for the mass appeal for events like the crusades and the wars of religion. Moreover events such as the relative ferocity of the wars of religion are hard to reconcile without recourse to religion as a causative factor.\n\nOn the other hand you have an entirely valid point. Many rulers cynically used religion as one leaver to control both their own populaces and justify their expansion. A good example of this would be the actions of the French kings regarding the Avignon papacy. By `protecting`the Popes in their kingdoms the Kings of France extracted many favors and advantages at a low cost. And their opposition to the eventual return to Rome of the papacy points to a motive other then the purely religious.\n\nHowever at the end of the day we should be aware of our biases. Even the most religious modern historian has a hard time getting into the mindset of the absolute belief that many in the period experienced. This makes it very easy to dismiss the religious aspect of the period. However equally we should not romanticise the past, the Kings and other powerful people of the period were not any stupider then our current leaders. They were able to make decision that were based on self interest even in religious matters. But my readings indicate to me that as a significant factor in these decision was religion." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "czphjli" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The so-called Doloneia has been debated for some time, since antiquity in fact. There isn't really a consensus, though most scholars consider it an interpolation. The tradition that the Doloneia is an interpolation goes back to a Homeric scholiast in antiquity, who attributed the Doloneia to Pisistratus. More likely, if the scholiast is right, the Doloneia was part of an alternate version of the *Iliad* (there were many such versions surviving well into antiquity, even after the relative standardization of the text by the Alexandrian scholars) that was added by Pisistratus, possibly as part of the so-called Pisistratean Recension (if it existed). Certainly the passage is suspect, as it lacks certain distinctive features of the rest of the poem besides not really making sense, but it's been pointed out that the Homeric Poems were the result of a centuries-old oral poetic tradition, and that anomalies shouldn't be unexpected. Many such anomalies were culled from the text by the Alexandrian scholars as interpolations, some of them quite long, and there are lots of passages in Homer that certainly look like interpolations but may well be genuine products of the oral tradition (I dunno, I'm not really a Homeric scholar, they get all tied up in knots about this sort of thing). But the Doloneia is unusually long and if it is an interpolation it probably represents a fairly early one, probably inserted from another part of the epic cycle--the Doloneia appears to be linked to an epic tradition surrounding Rhesus, who is of course murdered in his sleep in the passage, that we know existed\n\n > So my theory is it was written in the 5th to 4th century B.C. The reason behind this is the character Dolan. In my opinion a character like him would have been very popular to add due to the traitor at Thermopylae, Ephialtes of Trachis, in 480 B.C.\n\nI'm not so sure about this. I've never heard any connection supposed between Ephialtes and Dolon, they seem to me to have very little to do with each other. I mean, Dolon exists literally to be killed--the New Pauly suggests that maybe he was an invention of the author of the Doloneia, who created a character to link a tradition about a night expedition by Diomedes and Odysseus with the death of Rhesus. His name is certainly suspect (Δόλων isn't really a name, its a derived form from δόλος, \"craft, cunning\") and his lack of any personality or importance despite taking up so much of the book is more than a bit odd if the character existed in the epic cycle before his inclusion in Homer. Ephialtes is certainly too late to be an influence on the Doloneia, as it appears to have been named very early, attributed to Pisistratus by the scholiasts and possibly known to Herodotus. It lacks features common to the rest of the poem, but its language still appears to be close enough to Homer's that it's probably at least in some way derived from some part of the epic cycle. The New Pauly's explanation of the passage as an interpolation of Rhesus' part of the epic cycle into Homer is as convincing I think as any, but there are *lots* of alternate suggestions out there and there's still not even a consensus on whether it's an interpolation or not" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6emhzm", "c5y9d1z", "c5ya8ux" ], "score": [ 2, 18, 14 ], "text": [ "I teach in a Post-Soviet school currently (English, but I majored in History), and I have spoken with the history teachers about the curriculum. Each state speaks highly of its own contributions to the conflict. Georgia speaks of its industrial contributions and soldier commitments. Even the smallest of the villages have monuments with the names of the dead. \n\nBeyond that, they hit the highlights with the highest emphasis placed on the Eastern Front. Vassily Zaitsev is a very popular story and is often just referred to as \"The Sniper\". \n\nOn a more radical and national-political scene (speaking in the Georgian context) there is a * Museum of Soviet Occupation* and I believe it gives mention to the cost of Georgian lives for the greater conflict, perhaps even referencing that it was a \"Russian\" campaign. If I am ever there again, I will check and update. ", "When I was attending Soviet public school in the 80s, the Pacific theater wasn't mentioned beyond Soviet involvement. The Western Front was looked upon as 'too little too late' and Lend Lease wasn't mentioned all. Keep in mind that this is at the elementary/middle school level, and WW2 was a topic from kindergarten on. \n\nI would assume that the same continues in the Russian Federation. I would be very curious to lean about how the topic is presented in the various former republics, especially the Baltic States that don't have the most favorable opinion of Russia. ", "Not really a former Soviet nation, but I thought Polish perspective on this might be interesting.\n\nWe are being taught in detail about Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (look it up, it's fascinating) and how Hitler and Stalin were allies and how Poland was invaded from both sides - it's always called an \"invasion\", even though Soviet forces crossed the border under the pretext of protecting their own people. \n\nIt's also said that Poland was betrayed by their allies - France and Great Britain and that their reluctance to declare war on Germany and act accordingly was the main cause of our defeat and German occupation. \n\nThere is also a very clear opinion on conferences of the \"Big Three\" (Yalta, Tehran, Potsdam) - that both Roosevelt and Churchill (the second one to a lesser extent) sold Poland to Stalin for his involvement in the war, acting behind the back of our government in exile in London. \n\nThe conlusion is that even though in theory Poland was on the side of victors, we were the ones to lose the war, being turned into satellite country of USSR for the next fifty years, all thanks to Western countries. \n\nSource: Finished Polish high school two years ago while taking extended level history. If you have any further questions, I will gladly answer. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c4pgd6y", "c4pgjwa" ], "score": [ 4, 7 ], "text": [ "Because they were probably more focused on survival day to day then innovation. Only as agricultural skills flourished and led to a more sedentary lifestyle would people have the free time to be creative and figure out how to manipulate metals.", "\"Having fire\" and begin able to smelt metal are not at all the same thing. First off you have to recognize the ores that contain metal. You also have to get the fire pretty hot (hotter than a campfire will get if you want to smelt copper, so you probably need to have a knowledge of pottery so you could make a clay kiln of some sort) and pretty consistent. You also have to be able to do the final step in an air-starved environment because you're trying to strip oxygen out of the mineral to get your metal. That's a lot of stuff to figure out from nothing." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d53nokc" ], "score": [ 23 ], "text": [ "Pretty much everything about Zhuge Liang popularized in *Romance of the Three Kingdoms* is false. Some notable examples:\n\n**Borrowing Arrows with Straw Boats:**\n\nThe *Sanguozhi* does not mention this at all, which means it is probably pure fiction. The SGZ does quote *Weilue* about a similar incident. During the Battle of Ruxu, Sun Quan sent a ship to observe Cao Cao's positions. Wei archers fired on the ship, which caused it to list. Sun Quan ordered the ship to turn around so that the Wei arrows would hit the other side and restore balance. Sun Quan then sailed back to his camp.\n\nFrom the *Weilue*:\n\n > [Sun] Quan boarded a large ship to inspect [Wei] camps, our lord [Cao Cao] ordered archers to fire, the arrows lodged into the ship, and the weight caused the ship to list. Quan ordered the ship to turn around so that the arrows would strike the other side. Once the ship was balanced, he returned to camp.\n\n**Praying for Eastern Wind:**\n\nYeah, this never happened. In fact, the entire Battle of Red Cliff was fought primarily by Wu forces. Liu Bei at the time was simply a beggar prince with very little land, resources, and men. Major credit for the battle belongs to Zhou Yu, not Zhuge Liang.\n\n**Fire Ships:**\n\nThe idea did not come from Zhuge Liang, it came from Wu general Huang Gai. Even then, this tactic was already well known by that time.\n\n**Guan Yu letting Cao Cao escape:**\n\nROTK had Zhuge Liang order Guan Yu and Zhang Fei to lay ambushes in strategic places and Guan Yu allowed Cao Cao to escape at Huarong Trail. This was not recorded in the SGZ and is entirely fictional. Liu Bei did plan on ambushing Cao Cao, but by the time he arrived, Cao Cao was long gone.\n\n**Zhou Yu's death:**\n\nZhuge Liang did not troll Zhou Yu to death with his wisdom and stratagems. The SGZ simply states that Zhou Yu died of illness.\n\n**Capturing Meng Huo Seven Times:**\n\nPei Songzhi's annotation of the SGZ only contains a single line about this, with no details. Therefore, it is likely that this is fiction. The rebellion itself was glossed over in historical texts, as it was not considered that important. \n\n**Inventing Things:**\n\nZhuge Liang did not invent the repeating crossbow or the ox wheelbarrow, but merely improved upon already existing designs. He also did not invent the flamethrower/cannon. That part is fiction.\n\n**Empty Fort Strategy:**\n\nPei Songzhi's annotation of the SGZ points out that Zhuge Liang's use of the Empty Fort Strategy against Sima Yi is entirely fictional, as Sima Yi was probably not even in the area during that time. There are also other inconsistencies with the story, such as why didn't Sima Yi send scouts or why he didn't surround the city when he clearly had the numerical advantage. The Empty Fort Strategy was actually first used by Cao Cao against Lv Bu. Zhao Yun also made notable use of this strategy, as described in Pei Songzhi's annotation of the SGZ:\n\n > In the twenty-fourth year of Jian'an (219 AD), Zhao Yun went with Liu Bei to attack Hanzhong. After the Shu army had killed Xiahou Yuan, Cao Cao gathered a large army to Hanzhong in response. There was an incident whereby the Cao army was transporting a large supply of grain to the bottom of the Northern Mountain. Huang Zhong saw that as an opportunity to intercept the food supply and he led his followers as well as Zhao Yun’s to attack the food supply chain. When Huang Zhong failed to return by the scheduled time, Zhao Yun brought along some light cavalry to assist Huang Zhong. After a short period of journeying, they met up with Cao Cao’s main force. Zhao Yun fought with Cao Cao’s vanguard but the latter’s troops were quickly reinforced in large amounts, forcing Zhao Yun to beat a retreat. The Cao army had Zhao Yun’s troops surrounded and by the time Zhao Yun managed to break out of the enemies’ lines, he realized that his subordinate Zhang Zhu was injured. Zhao Yun charged back into the enemies’ midst to rescue Zhang Zhu before they retreated back to their camp. At that time, the governor of Mianyang county Zhang Yi was helping to defend the camp. When he saw the size of the Cao army coming, he shut the gates and refused to defend. Zhao Yun realized of the immensity of the enemy’s troops and found it impossible to defend the camp. Thus he ordered for the gates to be opened, the flags taken down and the beating of drums ceased. When the Cao army arrived at the camp, they suspected of a possible ambush and retreated hastily. Zhao Yun then ordered for the drums to be beaten and also arrows be shot. The Cao army was taken by surprise by the sudden noise and was put to disarray and stampeding and many were drowned in the River Han nearby. The next day, Liu Bei came to Zhao Yun’s camp to inspect the outcome of the battle and could not help but praise Zhao Yun for his bravery.\n\n**Predicting his own death:**\n\nDidn't happen.\n\nZhuge Liang was a very capable political leader and administrator - Shu lacked the manpower and the resources of Wei and Wu and Zhuge Liang did the best with what he had. As Prime Minister, he employed capable officials and generals and knew how to delegate tasks. As a military leader, however, he was subpar. He was overly cautious and refused to take even the slightest risk, which was why Wei Yan grew disillusioned with him, and it led to the failure of all his Northern Expeditions, as his cautiousness gave time for his opponents to prepare their defenses. Sima Yi only had to stay in his camps and hold a defensive position and wait until Zhuge Liang ran out of supplies.\n\nMany of the stratagems were falsely attributed to Zhuge Liang in ROTK because Luo Guanzhong idolized him and made him into the greatest strategist who ever lived. As *Romance* popularized and spread, so too did tales of Zhuge Liang's exploits, until it became deeply embedded in modern pop culture. You should really read his biography in the SGZ. He is a great individual, skilled in organization and administration, but far too overrated. The best battle commander in the Three Kingdoms should really be Cao Cao." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ci2ob4i" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Speaking of cuts, and of Pacific Islands off the coast of British Columbia, apparently through cleaning, and regularly applying of spruce pitch to the wound, and replacing it regularly. I'm curious about practices in further south though." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d898e0z" ], "score": [ 99 ], "text": [ "The differences between soap and olive oil is actually smaller than you think. \nRancid olive oil contains lots of free fatty acids, which have emulsive properties similiar to soap. \n \nFurthermore, traditional soap is made from olive oil, and/or other triacylglycerides. If a base is added to olive oil it transforms into soap, through a process conveniently called saponification. Usually the base was ash. This process is relatively simple and was known to the Babylonian and Romans. You can buy this type of soap at any natural grocery store today, branded as glycerine or castille soap. However ancient soap was not as luxurious as these. Modern industrial techniques were needed to make it clear and pure. Roman Soap was probably more of a thick gloppy mess. \n\nSince the mid 1800s soap quality has improve immensely, but its still fundamentally the same stuff the Romans, Carolingian, and Founding Fathers used. \n\nNote: I am not a historian. I am a lipid chemist. I hope I didn't break any rules.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c4ntv3d", "c4ntxuu" ], "score": [ 2, 5 ], "text": [ "Sure! Check what Livy has to say on the subject, he'll be able to tell you about the later Seleucids from the Roman perspective. Also Polybius should be an invaluable source to you. Check Plutarc'hs Lives as well.", "You're having a hard time finding any because Seleucid administration is actually not so easy to study.\n\nWe have lots of information about the Seleucid Kings/Emperors, we know they utilised a satrapal system like Persia, and we know the results of some of their actions. But in terms of civil service, administrative practice, that kind of nitty gritty, we actually know more about the Assyrian Empire in that respect than the Seleucids.\n\nWhy? Because the Assyrians wrote everything down on clay tablets, not papyrus. That's just downright unlucky. That's not to say there are no sources on the Seleucid government however. If you want Roman sources, kevink123 has given you some help. If you want to understand the Macedonian origins of part of Seleucid Kingship then I recommend reading Diodoros Siculus as well. \n\nThis is a book I seem to shill at every opportunity, but I absolutely think you need to read *From Samarkhand to Sardis* by Susan-Sherwin White and Amelie Kuhrt. It is the most extensive book written on the Seleucids, is from 1994 so is relatively recent, and should help you answer your question. Furthermore, their bibliography and references will in turn help you find more resources, especially primary sources.\n\n*The House of Seleucus* by Edywn R. Bevan should also help you.\n\nBoth of these books should be available on Google Books.\n\nIf you're familiar with Alexander the Great then good. If not, I recommend on reading up on that at least a little because he's vital to understanding much of the development of Hellenistic Asia in general.\n\nI also cannot insist enough that you should try to learn a little about the Achaemenid Persian state too, because the biggest mistake that Greek historians used to make was to write about the Persian Empire without knowing anything about the current state of scholarship on Persia. This meant that in the 1970s you'd get people writing about Alexander and the Greeks as though the Persians were like something from 300. So, even a little introduction from a book on Achaemenid Persia will help you avoid that, and I'd recommend *From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire* by Pierre Briant. I warn you now though, Briant has an incredibly positive view of the Achaemenid Empire. That may be preferable to seeing them as an cackling evil Empire, but it colours his work a lot and therefore you should take some of his glowing reviews of the Achaemenids with a pinch of salt.\n\nDistrust any source written about the Seleucids in modern scholarship written before the 1980s at least, since I'm sure you will end up reading some by necessity. Especially mistrust the source a little if they decide that the Seleucids were a failure of an Empire. Also mistrust sources written about Alexander the Great before the 1970s at least and preferably before the 1980s, they tend to have no real links to archaeological sources that actually help the study of Alexander quite a lot." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "canu2qb", "canv31q" ], "score": [ 8, 10 ], "text": [ "The etymology is not quite certain, but there's a pretty decent chance it comes from the word *sinus*, which is the word for any kind of fold. In this case it *could perhaps* be because it's the hand that holds up the *sinus* of a toga.\n\nHowever, I don't have access to the most up-to-date etymological dictionary, De Vaan's one, where I am: that *may* have new information", "[It meant left before it meant evil.](_URL_2_) \n\nIt might have originally meant the slower or weaker hand, but it also could be a euphemism meaning the more favorable hand. If the latter was the case, it would mean that the left hand already had a negative connotation (else why have a euphemism?)\n\nThe word took on sense of foreboding from the interpretation of omens from the left hand side, a practice I don't know enough about to comment on. \n\nHowever, I'm hesitant to say that the bad associations of the word inhere entirely in its use in augury. Words for left and right often have negative and positive meanings, respectively, e.g. \"gauche,\" \"adroit,\" and whatever word was too taboo to say so as to require the euphemism \"sinister,\" if thst etymology is correct. Furthermore, the English words [\"right\"](_URL_0_) and [\"left\"](_URL_1_) meant meant proper a d weak, respectively, and \"left\" replaced Old English \"winestra,\" a euphemism for the left because the left was seen as bad. \n\nTl;dr: Right supremacists have been around a long time. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=right&allowed_in_frame=0", "http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=left&allowed_in_frame=0", "http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sinister&allowed_in_frame=0" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "filj343" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "More input is always welcome; for the meantime, you'll be greatly interested in these two answers from previous threads:\n\n* On the matter of Herodotos versus numbers, in this thread u/Iphikrates [breaks down just how Herodotos got his numbers](_URL_0_).\n* As for how modern scholars can be confident in lower numbers than the ancient sources provide, u/FlavivsAetivs here [expounds on the difficulties of fielding large armies](_URL_1_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7lkmwo/did_ancient_people_knew_their_quoted_numbers_of/", "https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/97su5p/why_did_the_size_of_armies_apparently_shrink_so/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e0be02u", "e1dpx15" ], "score": [ 81, 5 ], "text": [ "One of the most difficult things that students of prehistoric and protohistoric cultures in the western portions of North America have to confront is the relationship of political entities to linguistic or other classifications. In most of California, and all of the NW coast south of the Tlingit and Haida areas, there was no political organization above household. Rich men had more influence. There may have been a shaman or doctor that had influence over a larger population but it was not formal. In addition, there may also have been religious leaders, often called dance leaders, that had influence that extended beyond the household. But the concept of tribe itself has virtually no utility. \n\nEarly anthropologists recognized that tribes were a construct invented by anthropologists to compare and contrast cultural traits (see P. E. Goddard *Life and Culture of the Hupa* 1903), but investigations at the scale of extended family just were not feasible. They therefore focused on the larger ethnolinguistic unit - using groups of people with homogeneous or mostly homogenous languages. This was in part because of the linguistic training of early anthropologists, but mostly because it was a seemingly reasonable way to divide populations up.\n\nThe problem is perhaps most clearly exemplified by the far Northwestern California and far Southwestern Oregon groups. This is an area where virtually each river drainage was occupied by a different language group from very different language families yet the cultures were virtually identical. Compare, for example NW California where the Tolowa (Athabascan) are bounded to the south by the Yurok (~~Algonkian~~ Algic), to the east by Karuk (Hokan), to the Southeast by other Athabaskans (Hupa, and its subtribes or tribelets, the Chilula, Whilkut, and Tsnungwe), but these Athabaskans were unintelligible to the Tolowa. Further south are other Athabaskan groups that were not intelligible to any of the others and a variety of other ethnolinguistic groups. All these groups shared many dances, regalia, mythologies and other traits.\n\nThis area has been the site of extensive ethnological research beginning in 1871 and marked by fairly monumental research projects by Kroeber (see his work on the Yurok) and his students. While these \"tribes\" held many unique traits, having to do with aspects of religion, and customs, they were, for all intents and purposes, identical cultures. Complicating matters is the fact that Northern California natives were notorious polyglots. Powers once noted an elderly informant that \"had one eye and six languages in his head\".\n\nSo how relevant were the distinctions to the native groups themselves? In the area I study, I don't think it was very relevant. As an example, almost all natives that lived near boundaries of linguistic groups were bilingual so intercourse of both an economic and social nature was unimpeded between groups. People routinely married outside their linguistic groups. In fact, certain villages held alliances with other villages in different language areas. Alternatively, villages within the same language group were traditional enemies. \n\nMany groups that have been identified as subtribes or tribelets of the Hupa, because they spoke dialects of the Hupa language felt no affiliation with the Hupa proper, in fact they felt the opposite. So my conclusion is that it probably made a little difference in that the natives recognized that there were other people that speak our language, but ethnologically and to the natives it was largely irrelevant.\n\nSee:\n\n[*All Those Things that You’re Liable\nTo Read in the Ethnographic Literature\nThey Ain’t Necessarily So* Thomas Keter, \nPaper Presented to\nThe Society for California Archaeology, 2009](_URL_0_)\n\n*Handbook of California Indians*, A. Kroeber 1970 (originally published 1926)\n\n*California Indian Languages*, Victor Golla, 2011\n\n*Life and Culture of the Hupa*, P.E. Goddard, 1903\n\nCalifornia Athabaskan Groups, Martin Baumhoff 1958.\n\nEdit: economic for economical\nEdit II: Algic for Algonkian\n ", "I'm late to this party, but I wanted to chime in with a few points. Namely that the two examples you give, the Cherokee and the Choctaw, have some significant sociopolitical structures backing up those labels. They're not just names given to them by the colonists. In both cases, there were national councils developed to unify the Tsalagi and Chahta peoples, respectively. Of course, in both cases, there were regional distinctions, such as localized dialects and slight cultural differences, but that's true of all sufficiently large nations. However, the differences between these internal groups were far less than, say, the differences between the Five Nations of the Haudenosaunee.\n\nLinguistically, the Choctaw recognized that they were closely tied to the Chickasaw, long before any Euroamerican linguistic lumped them both into the Muskogean languages. Their ties to the Chickasaw are commemorated in a shared origins narrative, explaining how the two nations split over a disagreement concerning where to settle once they crossed the Mississippi from the west. For the Cherokee in the colonial period, linguistic connections with their neighbors were less important, mainly because there were far fewer neighbors that spoke a similar language. The Haudenosaunee, however, eventually came to see the Cherokee as distant cousins due to linguistic and cultural similarities, and - once they stopped fighting over Ohio - they engaged in some cultural exchange. We have, for example, the account of a Seneca traveler among the Cherokee, who went south to see what the Cherokee where up to." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://solararch.org/uploads/3/4/0/3/34036807/2009_sca_all_those_things--wailaki_tsnugwe_ethnogrpahy.pdf" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "do2raqu", "do2xgq5", "do3huhh" ], "score": [ 1274, 29, 5 ], "text": [ "Well yes, there were always reporters for the [*Novum Eburicum Tempora*.](_URL_0_)\n\nBut seriously, it is worth just looking at the source material for this. The reconstruction of Teutoberg is more complicated than most in part because batlefield archaeology has actually played a role in shaping our understanding of it, so instead I will use Cannae as one of the most famous battles of the ancient world and one that tends to feature in these sorts of battlefield reconstruction. From Polybius' *Histories* 3.113-116:\n\n > Next day it was Terentius' turn to take the command, and just after sunrise he began to move his forces out of both camps. Crossing the river with those from the larger camp he at once put them in order of battle, drawing up those from the other camp next to them in the same line, the whole army facing south. He stationed the Roman cavalry close to the river on the right wing and the foot next to them in the same line, placing the maniples closer together than was formerly the usage and making the depth of each many times exceed its front. The allied horse he drew up on his left wing, and in front of the whole force at some p281 distance he placed his light-armed troops. The whole army, including the allies, numbered about eighty thousand foot and rather more than six thousand horse. Hannibal at the same time sent his slingers and pikemen over the river and stationed them in front, and leading the rest of his forces out of camp he crossed the stream in two places and drew them up opposite the enemy. On his left close to the river he placed his Spanish and Celtic horse facing the Roman cavalry, next these half his heavy-armed Africans, then the Spanish and Celtic infantry, and after them the other half of the Africans, and finally, on his right wing, his Numidian horse. After thus drawing up his whole army in a straight line, he took the central companies of the Spaniards and Celts and advanced with them, keeping rest of them in contact with these companies, but gradually falling off, so as to produce a crescent-shaped formation, the line of the flanking companies growing thinner as it was prolonged, his object being to employ the Africans as a reserve force and to begin the action with the Spaniards and Celts.\n\n > The Africans were armed in the Roman fashion, Hannibal having equipped them with the choicest of the arms captured in the previous battles. The shields of the Spaniards and Celts were very similar, but they swords were entirely different, those of the Spaniards thrusting with as deadly effect as they cut, but the Gaulish sword being only able to slash and requiring a long sweep to do so. As they were drawn up in alternate companies, the Gauls naked and the Spaniards in short tunics bordered with purple, their national dress, they presented a strange and impressive appearance. The Carthaginian cavalry numbered about ten thousand, and their infantry, including the Celts, did not much exceed forty thousand. The Roman right wing was under the command of Aemilius, the left under that of Terentius, and the centre under the Consuls of the previous year, Marcus Atilius and Gnaeus Servilius. Hasdrubal commanded the Carthaginian left, Hanno the right, and Hannibal himself with his brother Mago the centre. Since the Roman army, as I said, faced south and the Carthaginians north, they were neither of them inconvenienced by the rising sun.\n\n > The advanced guards were the first to come into action, and at first when only the light infantry were engaged neither side had the advantage; but when the Spanish and Celtic horse on the left wing came into collision with the Roman cavalry, the struggle that ensued was truly barbaric; for there were none of the normal wheeling evolutions, but having once met they dismounted and fought man to man. The Carthaginians finally got the upper hand, killed most of the enemy in the mellay, all the Romans fighting with desperate bravery, and began to drive the rest along the river, cutting them down mercilessly, and it was now that the heavy infantry on each side took the place of the light-armed troops and met. For a time the Spaniards p285 and Celts kept their ranks and struggled bravely with the Romans, but soon, borne down by the weight of the legions, they gave way and fell back, breaking up the crescent. The Roman maniples, pursuing them furiously, easily penetrated the enemy's front, since the Celts were deployed in a thin line while they themselves had crowded up from the wings to the centre where the fighting was going on. For the centres and wings did not come into action simultaneously, but the centres first, as the Celts were drawn up in a crescent and a long way in advance of their wings, the convex face of the crescent being turned towards the enemy. The Romans, however, following up the Celts and pressing on to the centre and that part of the enemy's line which was giving way, progressed so far that they now had the heavy-armed Africans on both of their flanks. Hereupon the Africans on the right wing facing to the left and then beginning from the right charged upon the enemy's flank, while those on the left faced to the right and dressing by the left, did the same, the situation itself indicating to them how to act. The consequence was that, as Hannibal had designed, the Romans, straying too far in pursuit of the Celts, were caught between the two divisions of the enemy, and they now no longer kept their compact formation but turned singly or in companies to deal with the enemy who was falling on their flanks.\n\n > Aemilius, though he had been on the right wing from the outset and had taken part in the p287 cavalry action, was still safe and sound; but wishing to act up to what he had said in his address to the troops, and to be present himself at the fighting, and seeing that the decision of the battle lay mainly with the legions, he rode along to the centre of the whole line, where he not only threw himself personally into the combat and exchanged blows with the enemy but kept cheering on and exhorting his men. Hannibal, who had been in this part of the field since the commencement of the battle, did likewise. The Numidians meanwhile on the right wing, attacking the cavalry opposite them on the Roman left, neither gained any great advantage nor suffered any serious loss owing to their peculiar mode of fighting, but they kept the enemy's cavalry out of action by drawing them off and attacking them from all sides at once. Hasdrubal, having by this time cut up very nearly all the enemy's cavalry by the river, came up from the left to help the Numidians, and now the Roman allied horse, seeing that they were going to be charged by him, broke and fled. Hasdrubal at this juncture appears to have acted with great skill and prudence; for in view of the fact that the Numidians were very numerous and most efficient and formidable when in pursuit of a flying foe he left them to deal with the Roman cavalry and led his squadrons on to where the infantry were engaged with the object of supporting the Africans. Attacking the Roman legions in the rear and delivering repeated charges at various points all at once, he raised the spirits of the Africans and cowed and dismayed the Romans. It was here that Lucius Aemilius fell in the thick of the fight after receiving several dreadful wounds, and of him we may say that if there ever was a man who did his duty by his country both all through his life and in these last times, it was he. The Romans as long as they could turn and present a front on every side to the enemy, held out, but as the outer ranks continued to fall, and the rest were gradually huddled in and surrounded, they finally all were killed where they stood, among them Marcus and Gnaeus, the Consuls of the preceding year, who had borne themselves in the battle like brave men worthy of Rome. While this murderous combat was going on, the Numidians following up the flying cavalry killed most of them and unseated others. A few escaped to Venusia, among them being the Consul Gaius Terentius, who disgraced himself by his flight and in his tenure of office had been most unprofitable to his country.\n\nFrom this account you can get most of the details you will see in videos like the one you posted: the weak Carthaginian center that fell back to allow the double envelopment of the Roman lines, the cavalry action on the sides, the screening by the skirmishers, etc. What you *don't* see is the conceptualization of the army into neat \"blocks\" that tend to dominate [popular representations of battles.](_URL_1_) The Romans did organize their army in a way that could sort of allow that as the armies were dvided into named legions (~5000), cohorts (~600) centuries (~80) and conturbium (~10),^1 but it is very rare to see that reflected in battle literature unless a subdivision of the army did something remarkable (such as Cato's detachment during the Battle of Thermopylae). That is largely a modern convention, and someone more familiar with the development of modern military theory can probably comment on that better than I can.\n\n^1 These numbers are *very* approximate and vary across time and space, and the *conturbium* may not have been thought of as a tactical unit.", "From the OP’s video, it sounds like the whole legion was destroyed. How long would it take for the Romans to find out what happened?", "Can someone comment on the accuracy of this video? I've visited the (alleged) sites of this battle, and while the account in the museums there is generally similar, it does differ in details quite a bit. For example, I distinctly remember hearing about the roman \"trek\" being very drawn out and being attacked along a long stretch of road or path, alongside which a fence was supposed to have been built. Also, it seemed like there was a lot more doubt about how the events took place then this video communicates. When i was there a few years ago, it seemed like there was even still doubt about where the battle actually took place. And the beheadings and crucifixions seem a bit colorful to be taken at face value when only one side's sources are available in such an emotionally charged event. " ] }

[]

[ "https://youtu.be/kmF3VBA_RcM" ]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/751bk6/on_youtube_i_can_watch_extremely_detailed_videos/do3ehgr/", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Battle_cannae_destruction.png" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cp8au5i" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "Leaving aside the enormous issue of the obvious disparity between Kuwaiti and Coalition forces (both in scale and quality), Iraq's successful invasion of Kuwait benefited greatly from the experience of the Iran-Iraq War. Although the Iraqi military did not cover itself in glory in that conflict, the armed forces gained a modicum of experience and competency in carrying out specific missions. The Republican Guard had been retooled from an elite praetorian formation (and this was still an important component of their duties) into a force capable of both combined arms and night attacks. Although the Guard formations were not as proficient at these operations as Western forces, it was enough to overwhelm Kuwaiti forces. The prior war also underscored the need for accurate intelligence and the Iraqi Air Force's MiG-25s conducted extensive overflights over Kuwait in July 1990 and the regime disseminated the aerial photographs to ground units. Commercially available tourist maps also contributed to the Iraqi success. \n\nThe swift victory in Kuwait masked many of the flaws of the Iraqi armed forces. One of the fundamental problems of Iraqi military effectiveness was the compartmentalization of its armed forces into various satraps. Iraqi naval, army, and air forces often operated in the dark as to what other branches were doing. The Army operated under the assumption that the Iraqi Air Force would provide an air umbrella for its operations. However, the Air Force assumed that its attacks on Kuwaiti airbases would suffice and it kept a number of units on alert over Iraq itself to prevent any repeat of the Israeli 1981 bombing of the Osirak nuclear plant. The Kuwaitis did mount some airstrikes against Iraqi forces much to the consternation of Republican Guard commanders. The swift occupation of Kuwaiti airbases ended this threat, but the inability of the left hand to know what the right was doing was a precursor of the later disasters in 1991. The successful invasion of al-Qulayah Navy base by elements of the Iraqi Navy showed that the Iraqi forces were capable of acting with initiative and daring. The Iraqi commander Colonel Muzahim Mustafa occupied the harbor despite losing one missile boat and suffering equipment malfunctions. Yet Mustafa's bold tactical leadership was atypical of Iraqi forces; crucial mission leaders were often kept in the dark about their operations until the last minute. Air mobile helicopter pilots only had rudimentary training and were assured that the Air Force would eliminate Kuwait's Hawk missiles. The Air Force's failure to do so led to high helicopter losses and the rudimentary training in night formation flying also led to a large number of crashes. The Iraqi approach to operational planning inhibited tactical initiative as frontline troops barely knew the basic plan and had to focus great efforts on carrying it out, so improvisation when the plan went awry was less likely. \n\nUltimately, these defects were not as much of an issue given that the Kuwati response to Iraq was much more passive than it could have been. Civilian refugees prevented the effective deployment of Kuwaiti armed forces. The speed of the Iraqi assault prevented the Kuwaitis from exploiting the Mutla Pass as a defensive line, which was one of the few natural barriers in Kuwait. The result was that the Kuwaiti response was often in penny-packets that the Iraqi's could quarantine. Again, defects within the Iraqi command and communication system meant that Iraqi troops were often unaware sister unit's status, so it was up to the unit being attacked to deal with the Kuwaitis alone. Coalition forces would exploit this disjointed command structure in 1991 as they destroyed the Iraqi forces in a piecemeal fashion. \n\nIn short, the Iraqis were competent enough to take Kuwait, but lacked the ability to hold Kuwait against a military \nfoe like the United States. \n\n*Sources*\n\nAl-Marashi, Ibrahim, and Sammy Salama. *Iraq's Armed Forces An Analytical History*. London: Routledge, 2008.\n\nWoods, Kevin M. *Iraqi Perspectives Project Phase II. Um Al-Ma'arik (The Mother of All Battles): Operational and Strategic Insights from an Iraqi Perspective, Volume 1* (Revised May 2008). Ft. Belvoir: Defense Technical Information Center, 2008. < _URL_0_;. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA484530&gt" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e03862g" ], "score": [ 13 ], "text": [ "Ethan Rafuse made a creditable attempt to defend McClellan in his 2011 biography *McClellan's War,* and while somebody other than I could better assess him as a tactician, strategist, or battlefield commander, I think Rafuse does manage to debunk some of the McClellan myths. The famous incident where Lincoln called on him and was turned away, for example, was much more likely to have been due to an attack of the malaria McClellan picked up during the Peninsula Campaign, not him being an egotistical snob. His supposed failure to pursue Lee after the Battle of Antietam is a great exaggeration: his army was exhausted, and the reconnaissance in force he sent across into Virginia after Lee was decisively repulsed.\n\nThere is a real problem with biography: we like stories of people to run like film scripts. An egotistical, snobbish, well\\-bred and incompetent McClellan makes a great contrast to a modest, progressive Lincoln or a hard\\-working, unassuming Grant, and Rafuse does show this is another case where the characters are not quite that simple. Grant was quieter than McClellan but no less ambitious, and also made mistakes that cost a lot of lives. And we have to also avoid a presentist bias: McClellan's Whig politics are now way out of line with what we would feel to be correct, but his compromising attitude towards the South was shared by a lot of Northerners, and would certainly be seen again after the War when the North abandoned the freedmen and Reconstruction. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "emxwzu2" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "As required, I will provide a lengthy answer.\n\nIn the past assassinations were often an option, though like today most had some sort of security detail. An example of which (though perhaps an extreme one) can be found in the Mongol Empire, where Genghis Khan had a private defensive force called the Kheshig. The force was sizeable, being thought to be around 10,000 plus by the time Genghis died. This is perhaps why no Khan of Khans (leader of the mogul empire) was ever assassinated.\n\nIn less militaristic nations, or in nations with a smaller security detail, leaders often were assassinated. A prominent example being in Julius Caesar, though here it was his friend, Brutus who murdered him, and it was not for a war, but rather for political gain. The religious wars in the Middle Ages also claimed many monarch's lives.\n\nThe Order of Assassins or Hashshashin was an islamic group which terrorised the islamic world for the better part of two centuries until it was eradicated by the Mongols on their way through the Mohammedan Empire. Whilst they were still around, though, their ruling was generally accepted, and though many tried to defeat them, most feared that they would be assassinated should any move be taken against the great Hashshashin.\n\nThus in this respect, perhaps enemy leaders could be simply assassinated, and as history has shown, it can be an effective method if the leader can actually be reached.\n\nHowever, in modern times it is much harder to assassinate any leader of a major nation such as America, due to not only the massive security details and defences, but also because of the intelligence agencies which play a huge role in the protection of leaders. Obviously there are exceptions, such as the Kennedy ordeal, but such exceptions are just that.\n\n(Speculation) In terms of ending wars it is unlikely to do so in the modern age. This is mainly due to the fact that unless the enemy country in question is a dictatorship, monarchy or any kind of totalitarian state the influence of assassinations is probably minimal. This is because new leaders can be quickly appointed. Totalitarian leaders who feel under threat of assassination are probably less likely to continue fighting. In addition, in such totalitarian states the leader is often the one powering the war. Although, in many cases, even in such nations, a new leader with similar ideals and qualities (if not worse) is quickly appointed, as seen in General Gaddafi and Libya." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fiffzqj" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I think I give a thorough answer, here: \n\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f6byq6/why_did_france_succeed_in_centralizing_where_the/?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=ios_app&amp;utm_name=iossmf" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cnnt6zp", "cnnuw8n", "cnnw82l" ], "score": [ 15, 6, 5 ], "text": [ "Historian James Loewen attends to this question in his book for popular consumption: \"Lies My Teacher Told me\". The short answer is: the recent past in too well known, and therefore too controversial. he studies the number of pages in history text books dedicated to to recent past, first in books from the 1980's, then a second sample from the 00's in order to compare how many pages they dedicate to the recent past. \n\n\"On average, the textbooks [from the 1980's] give forty-seven pages to the 1930's, forty-four to the 1940's, and fewer than thirty-five pages to each later decade. Even the turbulent decade of the 1960's -- including the civil rights movement, most of the Vietnam War, and the murders of Martin Luther King Jr., Medgar Evans, Malcolm X, and John Robert Kennedy -- got fewer than thirty-five pages.\"\nLowen p. 260\n\nAs you can see, when the 1960's was fresh in the minds of parents who had lived through it, history books devoted roughly 25% fewer pages covering it. However, when the 1960's faded from the recent past, textbooks began to give it a new emphasis of focus.\n\n\"Textbooks in 2006-2007 show quite a different approach. Now the 1960's are no longer recent history, so textbooks can give them the emphasis they should have received, fifty five pages. (That total is greater than for any other decade of the twentieth century.) But today's texts, published between 2000 and 2007, give short shift to the new recent past, the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Now they devote forty-nine pages to the 1930's and forty seven to the 1940's, but fewer than twenty to the 1980's and 1990's (Even tossing in the first years of the new Millennium).\"\nibid\n\nThe unfortunate conclusion from this trend is to recognize that K-12 recent history will always be sterile and lackluster because of the socio-economic forces that shape the textbook publishing process. Conventional High School history is supposed to be non-political, but current events are always political and remembered as such. Textbook publishers don't want to take a side on current events because they don't want to risk alienating the parents of potential students. \n\n\"Some parents are Democrats, some Republicans, so what authors say about the impeachment and trial of Bill Clinton will likely offend half of the community.\"\nLowen p. 261\n\nThese political concerns, along with many others are ripe in the minds of textbook publishers as they endlessly revise their books in order to parade before skeptical school boards nation wide. This process is so politicized, and so lucrative, that the history that is allowed into K-12 history books could hardly be called history. All notes and evidence is take from James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told me, and I encourage any with an interest in american history, or the history regarding the education of history, I invite you to check it out.\n\nLoewen, James W. Lies My Teach Told Me. New York: Touchstone, 1995, 2007.\n", "The other answer is that we don't know what was actually important in recent history. We need time to pass to understand that.\n\nTake the Clinton administration for example. One of the initiatives that was pushed and passed was NAFTA. Was that good or bad policy? Was the increase of Mexican [emigration](_URL_0_) due to NAFTA? Was/is that emigration good or bad for the US and Mexico? It is just to soon to tell. You can make educated arguments one way or the other but when we haven't decided on how we are going to classify millions of aliens it is very difficult to draw a conclusion as to the success of a policy. And does the policy (or lack of policy) have any real significance in determining the direction of our country. We just don't know yet.", "The other thing is that there's also just an issue of time. Most secondary classes that cover American history 1492-present are trying to get through a lot of material in a school year and if they fall behind at any point earlier in the course then they have to get through the later material faster-especially if they're an AP class and they practically need to finish the coursework by mid or late April to have a few week's review time. So by the end of the year(when recent history is covered) there's a rush just to get through everything. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.npr.org/2013/12/26/257255787/wave-of-illegal-immigrants-gains-speed-after-nafta" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eofjodb" ], "score": [ 156 ], "text": [ "American expansion always included strong elements of boosterism: wanting to believe that your town was bigger and better, or would soon be bigger and better, than other nearby towns. Because I’ve never seen any suggestion that population signs were posted for view by passing railway passengers, I believe the practice really arose in the early days of automobiles and cross-country motoring. In much of the nation, the new highway network was cobbled together from pre-existing county roads, including the section-line roads that run parallel at one-mile intervals. With so many routing possibilities, there was great rivalry among small towns to be on the new marked route that would attract motorists, and I speculate that booster clubs put up signs at junctions and crossroads touting their towns: listing the services such as hotels, repair garages, and tourist campgrounds to be found there, and also showing a population figure that would suggest a greater variety of eateries, services, and attractions. No doubt there was some inflation of those figures, and so state highway departments and their official signs noting entrance into municipalities became the trusted arbiter of such figures.\n\nSome states also show the altitude of towns on city-limit signs, a holdover from railway days when that was a figure of interest to both the drivers of the locomotives and travelers passing through. In the early days of motoring, altitude was also a factor in engine adjustment and performance, and useful for motorists to know.\n\nAlas, I’ve never found much in the way of sources on this topic, so its informed more by broader understanding of the rise of the automobile and civic rivalry in the early 20th century. The rivalry of towns wanting to be included on the pioneering coast-to-coast Lincoln Highway is chronicled in Drake Hokanson’s book *The Lincoln Highway: Main Street Across America.* John A. Jakle and Keith Sculle’s book *Motoring: The Highway Experience in America* gives a pretty good picture of the landscape that faced early cross-country motorists. The various papers in *Roadside America: The Automobile in Design and Culture,* edited by Jan Jennings, give more detailed insight into various aspects of the roadside culture." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ci84pa0" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "\"how much more complex was the civil war than simple fighting about slavery\"\n\nThe short answer here is that it wasn't more complex than that. Slavery was absolutely the central political controversy of 19th century America. The southern states had enjoyed legislative and judicial power over the federal government for decades leading up to the election of Abraham Lincoln. With the loss of the White House to an avowed abolitionist, they realized that their stranglehold on the federal government was at an end so they revolted rather than honor the democratic process.\n\nThe single most poignant fact in the discussion of \"whether or not the Civil War was fought over slavery\" is that the Confederate Constitution banned the abolition of slavery. If the \"State's Rights\" argument is to be believed, then why would the Confederate government take away their own states' right to decide on slavery? After the War ended, southern apologists immediately began writing revisionist history that de-emphasized the role of slavery in their rebellion. Unfortunately their efforts found their way into many a history book and so today there is a sizeable portion of the American public who believe that the Confederate cause was one of self-determination and self-governance.\n\nThis is demonstrably false. The Confederacy formed because while males feared that their ability to own black people as property would be taken away from them, and they decided collectively that they would rather take up arms against their countrymen than let that happen. There are very few conflicts in human history where one side can be considered legally and morally in the wrong - the American Civil War is one of those few." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f1d8rr1", "f1dy1oi" ], "score": [ 14, 42 ], "text": [ "I found this thread from 2 years ago:\n\n_URL_0_\n\ncredit to u/WARitter and u/Dashukta for answers", "I mean the very terms \"medieval\" and \"knight\" are problematic in their own right as the medieval period is not particularly closely defined and knights can be anything from Hungarian riders to great lords of England and France. The latter would obviously spend vastly more money on their equipment than the former. The same is true for the term \"foot soldier\" which can be anything from a hastily raised levy of spearmen to dismounted men-at-arms, both are technically medieval foot soldiers but their cost varies a great deal.\n\nWith that in mind, say you are a Lord in 15th century England and you which to equip a retainer as a mounted man -at-arms. We assume that this man owns his own weapons but little else. He will need armor and a destrier. Let's assume he has his own courser already. Let's also, just for arguments sake settle for a harness of plates that is not custom made for him but rather made for a man roughly his size and modified to fit. Say you pay 6 pounds stirling for the armor and adjustments. You pay another 5 for the destrier (prices of war horses varied a great deal with time, demand and quality, if this figure is unreasonable I hope someone with more knowledge than me, like /u/waritter, will correct me). Either way, we end up at 11 pounds sterling for horse and armor.\n\nThis is the equivalent of one year and three months of labour for a skilled journeyman, half that for the man-at-arms himself. By comparison, a Main Battle Tank costs a whole hell of a lot more. $6M is the equivalent of 100 years of median income in the US, so, by very rough estimates, fielding a single main battle tank in 2018 cost about the equivalent of 80 men-at-arms in the 15th century.\n\nFor this case I assumed that you're fielding a normal retainer as a man at arms, not a titled and landed noble. For the man-at-arms you could expect to pay about 1 shilling per day plus food and lodging. I have no idea what the running expense of an active MBT is but I expect it is significantly higher given that you would also need a crew of 3-5, mechanics, infrastructure, fuel, ammo, spare parts etc etc. The crew alone would mean, if we assume that the tank crew member makes about the same as a skilled journeyman did in the 15th century, that wages alone are twice as expensive for the tank compared to a man-at-arms.\n\nEDIT: Pay updated, thank you /u/Rittermeister." ] }

[]

[ "https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-a-common-battle-tank-cost", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_level_of_military_equipment#List" ]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/56ccx9/how_much_would_a_suit_of_armour_from_1455_1485/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cgp2tm7" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Many businesses enjoyed an extremely close relationship with the Reich government. The most notorious one, [IG Farben](_URL_3_), --a chemical conglomerate formed in 1925 and made up of Bayer, BASF and others-- was so deeply implicated in committing crimes against humanity--being the supplier of Zyklon B, the poison used in the gas chambers--that it was abolished after the war, and many of its [corporate officers were put on trial](_URL_1_). \n\nPost war examination has shown that the Nazi economy --and indeed the entire [Nazi bureaucracy](_URL_0_) was a house of cards, built on the loot and plunder of conquered nations in the former, and a personality cult and backstabbing on the latter. German industrial production peaked in 1944 under the direction of Minster of Armaments Albert Speer. These improvements can be principly attributed to him untangling the mess created by other Nazis, in their effort to win Hitlers favor, carving out little bureaucratic empires for themselves. This is especially evident in the restructuring of the [Reichswerke Hermann Göring](_URL_2_), an enormous state controlled steel conglomerate, formally headed by Hermann Göring. \n\nSources: \n\nInside the Third Reich, Speer, Albert\n\nThe Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Shirer, William" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/the-nazi-state/", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben_Trial", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichswerke_Hermann_Göring", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9uby08", "c9ufiu2", "c9ufpgn", "c9uq3u8" ], "score": [ 12, 9, 8, 3 ], "text": [ "A major issue is defense laywers. People don't understand that there is a difference between due process and guilty v innocent. A defense lawyer, regardless of whether or not the jury finds him guilty has to make sure his client has their rights observed. While this can be explained by say, a public defender (I just take the cases the state gives me) it doesn't work so well for private defense lawyers who (supposedly) know their client is guilty and still defends them. People like this are seen as \"without shame.\" \n\nFurthermore, it seems to me at first glace that a lawyers job is largely the same job of any academic: create a theory, support it with evidence, and then present your work to a panel of peers in hopes that it is approved. The problem is that a lot of people don't see Law like this, they see it as justice, and if you turn out to be a prosecutor who's plaintiff loses, or a defense lawyer who's client is found guilty BOOM you are an evil jerk trying to get away with (or wrongly label someone with) murder. \n\nThe reality is that few lawyers are courtroom lawyers, and few courtroom lawyers regular deal with \"big\" cases like murder, rape, major theft, etc. Most crimes that end up in courtrooms are pretty minor, and the importance of due process, rather than whether he was guilty or not, is what is going to take up people's time. \n\nIts the same with any sort of general case of technical skills and education are required to get a job and keep it. Those without the technical skills and education don't appreciate what you are doing, and perhaps even miss a lot of the skill. Most people don't stop and think that most Congressmen are lawyers, that all judges are lawyers, that people with their JD teach at law schools, at undergraduate schools, people who work in the Town Hall are lawyers, etc, etc. They just assume all lawyers are blood sucking defense lawyers who protect corrupt corporations, because stereotypes are fun and easy. ", "Disrespect and low opinion of lawyers goes back to at least the colonial era for Americans, and I wouldn't be surprised if the origins go back to pre-colonial England.", "To understand it, you have to split the American legal system up.\n\nIf you're a business person that hates lawyers, it may well be because of the worsening problem of patent trolls, and the fact that even in cases that are specifically rigged overwhelming in an employer's favor, legal cases can be hugely expensive. A business that does absolutely nothing wrong may still find itself eating tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars defending against frivolous lawsuits, brought by people who surely can never reimburse you if they lose. It can be because someone sues you over a patent for [1-click shopping](_URL_2_) or [shopping carts](_URL_3_), or an employee decides to accuse you of racial discrimination because you fired them for being an idiot.\n\nIf you're a victim of a crime and hate lawyers, it's probably because some crimes are notoriously hard to prosecute (rape and burglary) and easy to defend. Worse, rape victims get the double whammy of invariably being slandered at trial as a legal defense. If it's a corporation that's wronged you, they probably won't see any jail time, and the courts have become markedly more pro-business in the last 30 years.\n\nThen there are stories where lawyers managed to claim up to [$233 million per lawyer](_URL_1_) from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement between the states and the Tobacco industry. \n\nOn the flip side, corporate lawyers happily defame tort lawyers (such as the [Hot Coffee case](_URL_0_), which was arguably misrepresented) and vice versa.\n\nIn my experience, lawyers as a whole tend to be disrespected, but they are generally respected more on an individual level. But there is a growing feeling in America that the legal system doesn't work, and lawyers seem to bear the brunt of the blame", "I work on the history of 19th century humour and I've encountered plenty of lawyer jokes in this period. Interestingly, American lawyers (and especially those from Chicago) were highlighted as being particularly unscrupulous shysters. This joke was originally published in an American newspaper, before being clipped out and re-printed by a British editor:\n\n > CHICAGO WOMAN: How much do you charge for a divorce?\n\n > CHICAGO LAWYER: One hundred dollars ma'am, or six for five hundred.\n\nThe joke is also made at the expense of women from Chicago, who were stereotyped in the New York press (and in London) as marrying and divorcing men at the drop of a hat. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants", "http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/great-tobacco-robbery-lawyers-grab-billions", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click", "http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/how-newegg-crushed-the-shopping-cart-patent-and-saved-online-retail/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fi5niaz", "fh72p2m", "fh7iqgb", "fh7odh1" ], "score": [ 59, 1368, 56, 343 ], "text": [ "I hope this reply isn't too late for you u/urag_the_librarian. This is a fun question because, as is sensible enough...of course ancient peoples knew about *even more ancient* peoples. But how can we understand their level of knowledge? That is a much more difficult question. We are left with history (literacy and orality) and artifacts. And while this sub is dedicated to the literature side, I think it's equally as important to see the commonality of heirloom objects in the archeological record. \n\nSo as you're thinking, the Romans understood their \"cultural origins\" to be in the Aegean; whether they had come from the Trojans, or simply had adopted Greek “high culture.” Some other peoples around the world have also done this, this conceptualization of history is in its essence a form of \"translatio imperii.\" Literally, “the translation of empires,” the ideological tool that later peoples used to cement their political position through their supposed ancestry with an earlier golden age. The Aztecs believed their cultural origins were in the Toltec empire of a few hundred years prior, and controlled the narrative around the sacred usage of the even earlier site of Teotihuacan. See u/400-Rabbits answer [here](_URL_2_) for more details. \n\nAnd similarly, the Qin of ca. 100 BCE China believed their cultural origins to be in the earlier Shang and Xia dynasties. Sima Qian, *the* historian of this time, says the earliest Xia histories were about 2000 years prior to him and he is right; as these two \"dynasties\" roughly correspond to the Shang and Erlitou periods of the bronze age of the north Chinese plain, ca. 1000-2000 years before his writing. These periods were not necessarily “dynasties” but simply correspond to the “over-kingship” of a particular powerful city’s lineage in northern China central plain, first at the Erlitou site then Erligang, then at the Shang “capitals” Luoyang and eventually Anyang. The details Sima Qian gives about the rulers and chronology for both periods are probably entirely mythological, having been invented in the succeeding Zhou dynasty of the early iron age when this new state needed its own translatio imperii (i.e. the Mandate of Heaven). \n\n > ...Allan (1991) further suggests that the Shang may have had an ordinary myth of the Xia as a previous people who were their inverse, but not as a dynasty. This myth, according to Allan, was later transformed by the Zhou into the story of an historical dynasty which was conquered by the Shang. This new interpretation was made in the beginning of the Western Zhou dynasty [ca. 1000 BCE], in order to justify their conquest of Shang under the mandate of Heaven (Allan 1991: 57-73). These arguments are plausible given that no contemporary writing of the Xia has been found. At present, there is no way to prove the existence of the Xia as a dynasty, although there may have been a Xia people in oral tradition among the Shang and other contemporary peoples in the later second millennium BC.\n- [Li & Hong](_URL_3_)\n\nBut most peoples credit their ancient history to have been the establishment of their lineage/people by a great ancestor after the creation of the world...as you mention, the Maya, their stories are like this; or at least the Popul Vuh of the Quiche. \n\nI think we should give ancient peoples the benefit of the doubt. They were intelligent, and they knew (in some way) how to interpret ancient artifacts they found. I am in love with \"The Pessimistic Dialogue Between Master and Servant,” this bronze age Babylonian text has a master suggesting things, and then his supplicant servant supporting his decision even when he’s flip-flopping. It’s actually wonderful philosophy, but I’ll quote a segment which not only speaks to how they remembered their own history, but also how they remembered their deep unknown history. Translation by Robert Pfeiffer.\n\n > Master: I will do something helpful for my country.\n\n > Servant: Do it, my lord, do it. The man who does something helpful for his country, his helpful deed is placed in the bowl of Marduk. [The tablets listing men’s deeds were stored in Marduk’s bowl]\n\n > Master: No servant, I will not do something helpful for my country.\n\n > Servant: Don’t do it my lord, don’t do it. Climb the mounds of ancient ruins and walk about, look at the skulls of late and early [men]; who [among them] is an evildoer, who is a public benefactor?\n\nI find this a particularly beautiful statement of ancient wisdom, an honest reckoning with the realization that whether one is good or bad for one’s community is utterly obliterated by time. A process which, by their time, had already created “ancient ruins of early men.” We find a similar realization about death in Gilgamesh, when an enraged Inanna threatens to raise the dead (6.2), translation by David Ferry.\n\n > Give me the Bull of Heaven or I will go\n\n > to the Underworld and break its doors and let\n\n > the hungry dead come out to eat the living.\n\n > How many are the dead compared to the living!\n\nBrief references to situations like this give us a glance into how a bronze age person was conceiving their own past, even how they conceived of a deep and unknown past. Yet generally, as with the Mayans, Babylonians conceived of their history as a chain of events by culturally similar mythical kings who lived in the deep past soon after creation. And when Babylonians conducted archeological digs, and found ancient texts written in an archaic yet similar language; the evidence they had uncovered only confirmed this hypothesis. This is detailed in a wonderful paper by Irene J. Winter, [Babylonian Archaeologists of their Mesopotamian Past](_URL_0_). \n\nIn it, she gives an example of an iron age Neo-Babylonian period excavation at a bronze age Old Babylonian period temple. At this dig, the excavators found a fragmentary Old Babylonian tablet which had been placed there as a foundation deposit by a king some 1000-1500 years earlier. The tablet was restored, even going so far as to attempt to (incorrectly) write in Old Babylonian so as to restore the broken text. The foundation deposit was replaced, and the uncovered foundations were re-used for a new temple. In the eyes of the king who “restored” such ancient temples, he had simply replaced many planks in Theseus’ ship. Textual reconstructions of ancient languages were probably overseen by people such as Nabu-zer-lishir, who was in effect the “field director” of excavations under King Nabonidus. Historians today give him the title “scribe,” but specifically he was appointed to this position by the king because he was an expert in ancient languages. While their tradition of archeology and philology did not survive, and was re-invented by Europeans thousands of years later; it is heartwarming to know that we have a record of ancient people who were, as we are in this online forum, obsessed with understanding history. \n\nThis desire to physically recover the past, and using history to advise one’s choices during excavation is actually seen thousands of years earlier, by people at Catalhoyuk. As noted by Ian Hodder [here](_URL_1_).\n\n > ...in Building 1 retrieval pit F.17 was dug [in ancient times] to remove or retrieve a relief sculpture (only traces of which remained on the wall)...Given the large amount of erosion off the top of the mound that occurred in the millennia after the Neolithic occupation, we cannot know how deep these Neolithic 'archaeologists' had to dig, but it was at least 0.7m and probably substantially more. We do know that Building 1 had been filled and that any digging down implies a precise historical memory even if embedded within wider knowledge about where important sculptures were generally placed. Not all houses have major relief sculptures on the west walls of main rooms [where the retrieved sculpture was].", "One of the best and most well-known examples of this is Classical Egypt and their understanding of the Pyramids, which were well over a thousand years old by that point. As such, I will refer you to older AskHistorians posts that address that specific piece of the answer.\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_1_)\n\n[_URL_3_](_URL_2_)\n\nI expect that Chinese history from the same time period would offer additional good examples, but that is not something I'm very familiar with. Fingers crossed that someone with that expertise follows up with this post, because I'm interested in that as well.", "A previous post about Xenophon and the assyrian cities in Anabasis by /u/Iphikrates\n\n_URL_0_", "One of my older answers deals with this topic. Another user already (and very kindly) mentioned it, but I'll paste it up anyway, to allow anyone interested to ask follow-up questions:\n\nThe Greeks and Romans were aware that other civilizations were older than theirs. Egypt was a special source of fascination, as witnessed by evidence ranging from Herodotus' long description of Egyptian history and customs to Roman graffiti in the Valley of the Kings. Yet in the case of Egypt (and, as we shall see, more generally), they had a poor understanding of chronology. They tended to think that the Pyramids, for example, [were about 1500 years younger than they actually were](_URL_0_).\n\nWhen it came to ruins not associated with any living culture (which are, I think, more the focus of your question), it tended to be assumed that almost everything could be fit into a traditional mythological/historical schema that began around 1600 BCE (by our reckoning) and identified the Bronze Age with the age of heroes. When describing the ruins of the Mycenaean citadel at Tiryns, for example, Pausanias (who wrote in the second century CE) observes:\n\n\"The wall, which is the only part of the ruins still remaining, is a work of the Cyclopes made of unwrought stones, each stone being so big that a pair of mules could not move the smallest from its place to the slightest degree.\" (2.25.8)\n\nAnother Mycenaean wall, on the Athenian Acropolis, was associated with nebulous prehistoric Pelasgians (e.g. Hdt. 6.137). Chance discoveries of ancient burials, likewise, tended to be linked with the heroes of history/legend. The bones of a tall man found with bronze weapons on the island of Skyros, for example, were proclaimed to be the remains of Theseus. Later, an ancient burial exposed at Rome was decided to be the body of the legendary king Numa.\n\nThe Greeks and Romans, in other words, tended to assume that they knew what civilization/era ruins belonged to, even if they actually had no idea. Plutarch, for example, recounts what happened when the Spartan king Agesilaus decided to open a tomb traditionally thought to belong to Alcmene, the mother of Hercules:\n\n\"In the tomb itself no remains were found, but only a stone, together with a bronze bracelet of no great size and two pottery urns containing earth which had by then, through the passage of time, become a petrified and solid mass. Before the tomb, however, lay a bronze tablet with a long inscription of such amazing antiquity that nothing could be made of it, although it came out clear when the bronze was washed; but the characters had a peculiar and foreign conformation, greatly resembling that of Egyptian writing...\" (Mor. 577F-78A)\n\nAssuming that Plutarch's source is reputable, Alcmene's tomb probably belonged to a Mycenaean worthy, and the writing on the mysterious table was Linear A or Linear B. Agesilaus & friends, however, didn't know that - and so, since the writing looked more or less Egyptian, a Spartan was sent to Egypt with the tablet. There, a learned priest (who of course knew no more about Linear B than the Greeks) pretended to translate it.\n\nWhen in came to ruins in the classical world, in short, ignorance was no barrier to confident interpretation.\n\n\\[I'm on the road at the moment, but I'll address any follow-up questions later today.\\]" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://blogs.bu.edu/aberlin/files/2011/09/Winter-2000.PDF", "https://www.academia.edu/12454074/History_making_in_prehistory_examples_from_Catalhoyuk_and_the_Middle_East", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/51qcj6/i_heard_that_the_aztecs_thought_teotihuacan_was/d7fal3n/", "https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273293121_Rethinking_Erlitou_Legend_History_and_Chinese_Archaeology" ], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a5ya3o/did\\_the\\_romans\\_know\\_that\\_the\\_great\\_pyramid\\_of/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a5ya3o/did_the_romans_know_that_the_great_pyramid_of/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19hrhe/how_did_the_romans_view_ancient_egypt/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19hrhe/how\\_did\\_the\\_romans\\_view\\_ancient\\_egypt/" ], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5g326k/comment/dap70ii" ], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a5ya3o/did_the_romans_know_that_the_great_pyramid_of/ebqjuwr?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dfadvba" ], "score": [ 76 ], "text": [ "Followup and/or related question: how aware would the average soviet worker have *been* of the standard of living differences? " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c54m1jf", "c54mwt2", "c54obyd", "c54oh0o", "c54rgqp" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Well, for one, they are native to North America so the term fits in that sense. Secondly, the United States government recognizes [565](_URL_0_) different Native American tribes and having to memorize or distinguish based on this, especially when the physical differences between tribe are virtually non-existent (unlike the differences in race) makes it much easier to just use the blanket term, especially as it is still correct. One other reason could also be the lack of clearly defined regions and areas that Native Americans inhabit. While it is easy to define a Japanese person as hailing from Japan, and an Indian as hailing from India, the Native American tribes never had such defined borders and as such, cannot always be defined by where they lived. \n\nThis same usage of broad nomenclature is seen as well with people of Chinese descent but varying ethnicity. Despite differences in ethnicity, they are termed Chinese, most likely for simplicity's sake. ", "Generally speaking there are far too many tribes to refer to them individually unless you are talking about an individual or a single tribe doing something. I think there are 500+ tribes recognized. ", "Isn't the preferred term now American Indian?", "I've taken to using the terms indigenous peoples or indigenous tribes when I'm not referring to a particular tribe or nation. This choice came after the realization that \"Native American\" was just as much a Euro-centric term as \"Indian.\" That being said, sometimes American Indian or Native American are simply the best terms to use because they can be easily recognized by a wider audience. ", "The same reason we say European rather than be bothered naming every European country." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_recognized_tribes" ], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fb7861k" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "I answered a [similar question](_URL_0_) a few months ago which talks about Marxism's application in the Russian Empire.\n\nThe short answer is that the October Revolution was almost entirely orchestrated in the nation's industrial capital, Saint-Petersburg (then called Petrograd) so Marx was right to a certain extent. Despite this, very few early Marxist thinkers (including Lenin himself) predicted that the socialist revolution would occur in Russia because of its largely agrarian society-- as you mention.\n\nLenin combated this diversion from Marxist orthodoxy by implementing certain language like 'rural proletariat,' to bring those outside the actual cities under the purview of his revolutionary aims. When that wasn't totally effective, the Bolsheviks just reverted to type and socialized the countryside by violence and coercion. There's several responses in that question beyond the initial answer that talk about this in pretty excruciating but I'm happy to answer any follow-up questions you might have." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cykrhl/marx_predicted_workers_would_take_control_of_the/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clzfcpj", "clzju8z" ], "score": [ 5, 4 ], "text": [ "I remember a thread about music in the USSR - _URL_0_", "hi! you'll find some responses regarding films in these posts\n\n* [What was the public perception of Cold War films such as Dr Strangelove in the Soviet Union?](_URL_3_) - includes a link to a list of all foreign films screened in the USSR\n\n* [Were the best Soviet film directors such as Tarkovsky able to see films unavailable to the general public of the USSR?](_URL_1_)\n\n* [During the cold war, were American films available in the USSR, and vice-versa?](_URL_2_)\n\n* [What was the attitude towards non-political or left-wing foreign literature or movies in the USSR?](_URL_0_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/26z28q/theres_an_episode_of_doctor_who_set_on_a_russian/" ], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ym45b/what_was_the_attitude_towards_nonpolitical_or/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2bvakt/were_the_best_soviet_film_directors_such_as/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2gec6r/during_the_cold_war_were_american_films_available/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2hf2q4/what_was_the_public_perception_of_cold_war_films/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clk4fqw", "clk4vgw" ], "score": [ 11, 23 ], "text": [ "The Romans where aware of the Han Dynasty and traded Silk, wine and olive oil. What they knew about each other was limited by the sheer distance that separated them. The western Roman Empire probably did little trade with China the parts of Rome closer to Persia probably did most of Rome's trade with China. \n\n[A map of the world by Ptolemy, in the east of the map is \"Sinae\" China.](_URL_0_)\n\n[Chinese description of Rome and there products.](_URL_2_) \n\nAlso check this question out _URL_1_", "Codswallop. Marco Polo's father and uncle had been to China before him; Venetian and other Italian traders had dealt in Chinese goods for centuries. Marco Polo was the just the first to write about it, exposing his travels to a wider audience. However, the popularity of his book also has to do with the fact that he made a lot if things up (admittedly, he also did some fairly remarkable things when he was there).\n\nFurther, as posters have noted below, some, sporadic knowledge of China had existed since Roman times." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/PtolemyWorldMap.jpg", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2306e8/just_read_the_faq_got_intrigued_by_contact/", "http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/hhshu/hou_han_shu.html#sec11" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8i98m9" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Many, many reasons.\n\nUnlike what the Nazis were claiming the \"Jewish\" people of Germany considered themselves to be just as German as non Jewish people considered themselves to be. It was their home. They had a stake in it. I say \"Jewish\" because there were laws which determined if one was Jewish or not and you didn't have to consider yourself as Jewish to be Jewish under the law.\n\nFor those who wanted to leave was the problem of being able to afford to do so, being allowed to do so and finding somewhere to take you. The US was a popular destination but the US had immigration quotas. Other countries in Europe were also in a number of ways antiSemetic (obviously not to the extent of the Nazis) and so limited the numbers of Jewish people they would take, if they would at all." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005468" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dv6nd68" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Specifically for Korea, the major event that has attracted most attention is Hideyoshi's invasion, 1592-1598. The resources resulting from that attention amount to 3 major books, and various journal articles and other books. Two of these books are in the reading list (but in the Imperial China section of the list):\n\n* *The Imjin War: Japan's Sixteenth-Century Invasion of Korea and Attempt to Conquer China* by Samuel Hawley (2005). One of the three main English accounts of the Imjin War, perhaps the only thing that comes close to a \"world war\" in East Asia. This is not the most comprehensive text on the war but it gives an excellent introduction. Hawley uses mostly Korean sources for this book and writes from a Korean perspective, so the book does suffer from a pro-Korean bias.\n\n* *A Dragon's Head and a Serpent's Tail: Ming China and the First Great East Asian War, 1592–1598* by Kenneth M. Swope (2009). The newest of the three books, Swope writes from a Chinese perspective and uses a lot of Chinese primary sources. Though his text has been criticized for providing flawed information, as a military historian, Swope gives an excellent account of the capabilities of the Ming military. It is best to read Hawley, Turnbull, and Swope together.\n\nThe third book, referred to in the comments on Swope above, but not in the list, is\n\n* Stephen Turnbull, *Samurai Invasion: Japan's Korean War 1592-1598*, Cassell, 2002. Turnbull depends on Japanese sources, Swope on Chinese sources, and Hawley on Korean sources. It's good to read all three.\n\nAlso useful is\n\n* Peter H. Lee (ed), *Record of the Black Dragon Year*, Univ of Hawaii Pr, 2000. This is a translation of a contemporary Korean popular history of the war.\n\nTwo books that cover the modernisation of the Korean army as a result of the Japanese invasion in the context of wider changes in East Asian warfare c. 1600 are:\n\n* Peter A. Lorge, *The Asian Military Revolution: From Gunpowder to the Bomb*, Cambridge University Press, 2008.\n\n* Tonio Andrade, *The Gunpowder Age: China, Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West in World History*, Princeton University Press, 2016.\n\nSee also\n\n* Tonio Andrade, Hyeok Hweon Kang, Kirsten Cooper, \"A Korean Military Revolution? Parallel Military Innovations in East Asia and Europe\", *Journal of World History* 25(1), 51-84 (2014)\n\nThere are also some sources on the US war in 1871:\n\n* Gordon H. Chang, \"Whose \"Barbarism\"? Whose \"Treachery\"? Race and Civilization in the Unknown United States-Korea War of 1871,\" *Journal of American History* 89(4) 1331-1365 (2003)\n\n* Carolyn A. Tyson, \"Marine Amphibious Landing in Korea, 1871\", _URL_1_\n\nSome sources on weapons and armour:\n\n* Sang H. Kin (trans), *Muye Dobo Tongji: Comprehensive Illustrated Manual of Martial Arts of Ancient Korea*, Turtle Press, 2000. Translation of a late 18th century Korean military manual.\n\n* Boots, J. L., \"Korean Weapons and Armour\", *Trans. Korean Branch Royal Asiatic Society*, XXIII, Pt. 2, pp. 1-37 (1934). _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.raskb.com/content/full-texts-volume", "http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20100407175236/http%3A//www.history.navy.mil/library/online/marine_amphib_korea.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dqn1j3h" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "[A great answer to a similar question here](_URL_0_) by u/profrhodes" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pzf28/why_did_european_powers_in_particular_start/cd7n7j1/?context=3" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5ecfae", "c5edxki", "c5eeha4", "c5esdba" ], "score": [ 6, 8, 11, 3 ], "text": [ "This is not really a historical question and r/linguistics could probably answer this better. My take on it:\n\nIt would be difficult, but you could probably communicate.\n\nHave a look at Middle English yourself to find out. For example [here](_URL_0_).", "I think it would be fairly difficult but not impossible. The main problem, as you point out, lies in the Great Vowel Shift which began around the fifteenth century, and changed the way all of our long vowels sounded. Then there are also numerous words which have either been added to English, dropped out, or changed the meaning. Grammar is somewhat different, mostly in syntax, but not enough to really stand in the way. So if things were kept simple, I do think you could make yourself understood, especially with a little practice (unless your time-traveler is in a hurry). Go back a few more centuries and the answer would be no.", "Eddie Izzard once tried an experiment similar to this. See _URL_0_", "A bit easier if you both wrote rather than spoke and of course you'd have to stick to topics for which there was Middle English vocabulary. To get an idea of what's involved you can try reading the [Middle English version of the Canterbury Tales](_URL_0_) and [listening to a reading of it](_URL_1_) and see what makes more sense to you." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/chaucer/canterbury/burrell/chapter1.html" ], [], [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeC1yAaWG34&amp;feature=youtube_gdata_player" ], [ "http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/CT-prolog-para.html", "http://youtu.be/QE0MtENfOMU" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dc1swsi" ], "score": [ 26 ], "text": [ "I spent around an hour looking but couldn't find too much. There is an article from 1936 (so methodologies have definitely changed since then) by Edward Jabra Jurji that claims that the name Muhammad has been in use in Arabia since the first-millennium B.C.E. \n\nJurji cites *Kitāb al-Ishtiqāq* written by Ibn Durayd (~10th century C.E) that the name Muhammad had been used prior to the birth of the prophet Muhammad in ~570C.E. However, it wasn't a customary name of the Quraysh tribe themselves. Muhammad's grandfather allegedly named him Muhammad so that he would \"be praised in the heavens and the earth\" (the name Muhammad is derived from the Arabic root ḥ-m-d meaning *to praise* and can literally be seen as the passive participle meaning \"the one that is praised\").\n\nJust to be safe, I checked the Arabic of *Kitāb al-Ishtiqāq* and found the quote attributed to Muhammad's grandfather as well as a list of others who had been named Muhammad before the Prophet himself.\n\nJujri also said that the name Muhammad had been found in Southern Arabian inscriptions and cited the *Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum* (The Collection of Semitic Inscriptions). However, when I tried to find the references inside of it I could not locate them (Volume 2, Tome 1, #353 and Tome 2, #420). This is probably due to my own inexperience with the Corpus though.\n\nSo at least according to Jujri and Ibn Durayd, the name Muhammad had indeed at least *existed* before the prophet was born. However, at least among the Quraysh it does not appear to be very popular. This can be backed up by the fact that in lists of early notable *Ṣaḥāba* (companions of the prophet) there are only [1 or 2](_URL_1_) other Muhammads found. However, after a few generations we can find [137](_URL_0_) with the name Muhammad. As you can see on the second list, a lot of them are \"Muhammad ibn xxx al-Ansari\" meaning that they were the sons of the residents of Medina who converted to Islam when Muhammad made it his home after fleeing Mecca. Thus, much of the popularity of the name can be attributed to the prominence of the Prophet, and not necessarily that it was a popular name before.\n\n\n**Sources:**\n\nJurji, E. J. (1936), PRE-ISLAMIC USE OF THE NAME MUHAMMAD. The Muslim World, 26: 389–391. doi:10.1111/j.1478-1913.1936.tb00898.x\n\nIbn Durayd, Abu Bakr Muhammad, *kitāb al-ashtiqāq*.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://sahabanames.com/sahabi-names-for-boys/page/47/", "https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_Sahabah#/References" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cskijy3", "csktcsh" ], "score": [ 7, 10 ], "text": [ "/u/rkwan (partially) answers your question in [this comment](_URL_0_) to a similar question from 2 years ago.", "A good resource is the non-binding ICJ advisory opinion issued in 1975. _URL_1_\n\nIt essentially holds that there was some contact between certain nomadic Saharawi tribes and Morocco, but not enough to establish sovereignty or have them be considered subjects of the crown. That said, advocates for Morocco either decry the advisory opinion or interpret that limited contact as proof (despite the fact the opinion says otherwise).\n\nAnother landmark document in the conflict is the Madrid Accords, when Spain was in a hurry to give up the territory. _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1de1g8/what_is_the_story_behind_the_green_march_and_the/c9sh8bm" ], [ "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Accords", "http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/61/6197.pdf" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cp2ji72", "cp2m53q", "cp2okci" ], "score": [ 195, 6, 30 ], "text": [ "I take it your question is less about Roman logistics and more about the specific fact that the forces at Cannae were effective crushed as a standing army, and how did Rome recover from something like that?\n\nFirst thing is first, with Cannae specifically there were very real and very profound consequences. Several city-states defected from Rome and turned to Carthage. Most estimates put Rome's total loss at over 70,000 with almost 40,000 of those being straight up casualties.\n\nThe Second Punic War devastated Rome.\n\nSo what was their response?\n\nWell, for lack of a better term, conscription.\n\nThe Carthaginians attempts to parley after Cannae and it was rejected. Instead, Rome conscripted *everyone* they could get their hands on, including peasants with no ties to land, as well as slaves. Furthermore, Rome flexed its legendary resilience by quickly adapting military doctrine and tactics, developing ways to counter Hannibal's classic flanking technique and changing their strategy to *never put that many people under one command again*, instead relying on much smaller, independent forces to face future foes.\n\nIn short, Rome survived because it was never too proud or too stubborn to find a way to make things work. Making the best of what they could gather, and getting mad rather than despairing. They took on totally new tactics and exploited the weakness of Carthage; attacking everywhere Hannibal was not.", "Related question, it seemed that Rome the city itself was vulnerable to sacking after Cannae. When his subordinates suggested marching on Rome, why did Hannibal sat on that decision? Was he waiting on Carthage diplomatic manoeuvres?", "The Roman army at that time was half composed of Latin allies so those losses weren't just being borne by Rome alone. This meant Rome could draw on a much larger base of manpower than other states who could only depend on their own population. \n\nThat said, even Cannae was extremely distressing and Rome was being defended by old men and young boys. They even formed a legion out of freed slaves equipped with captured arms taken from the temples.\n\nLastly they gained a breathing space when Fabius Cunctator was appointed dictator and he did the incredibly un-Roman thing of not fighting. He'd just shadow Hannibal's army and remain on the higher ground (where it'd be disadvantageous for Hannibal to attack). This kept his army intact and gave it time to train and build up cohesion, it hampered Hannibal since he couldn't disperse his army to forage for supplies. This went on for a while allowing Rome to rebuild her armies and let the other armies in Spain and Sicily go on offensive campaigns." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cv8d5y7" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "After the German and Soviet invasions, substantial numbers of Polish military personnel escaped to neutral countries, primarily Romania, Hungary, Lithuania and Latvia, where they were interned. Air force personnel mostly evacuated to Romania, from where significant numbers made it to France either overland via Yugoslavia and Italy (still neutral at the time), or by boat; the internment camps weren't very closely guarded, and the Polish government in exile worked hard to assist with transport.\n\nPolish air force units were then formed in both France and Great Britain (around 7,500 personnel in the former, 2,500 in the latter), though neither were particularly enthusiastic about it, the French mostly assigning obsolescent aircraft, the RAF forming two bomber squadrons flying Fairey Battles. Following the fall of France, Polish units were evacuated to the UK from western French ports in Operation Aerial, allowing the RAF to form a further two bomber squadrons and two fighter squadrons." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]