Datasets:

Pavithree

/

askHistorians

like 0

{ "a_id": [ "cguurrx" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Business as usual in what way? Because Europe really didn't just keep trucking along. The 30 Years War more or less reworked the political landscape of Europe and the way diplomacy was run. You mention the Swedes invading Poland and I think that's a great example of how things changed. At the outset of the war, one of the biggest worries of the Hapsburgs was the army of Denmark (which turned out to be a paper tiger). The Swedish army wasn't even considered. When the Swedes intervened their army was discovered to be potent and capable, but it was \"thin.\" Sweden's army was maintained by conscription in a very thinly populated land. That Sweden was able to invade Poland after the Thirty Years War is related to its relatively untouched landscape and the fact that everyone around Sweden had been knocked down a peg. After the war, who around Sweden was going to be able to stop them, when you consider that they had an experienced army and were probably the most densely populated single polity in their region?\n\nOther things changed around the era, too, which reflects the general upheaval at the end of the Thirty Years War. The Roundheads in the United Kingdom finally put the finishing touches on King Charles' Cavaliers, leading to years of Cromwell's leadership and the execution of Charles I. The Fronde began in France, which crippled the French kingdom for five years and eventually led to Louis XIV refining absolutism to his nobility's detriment. Spain was financially exhausted and had no choice but to let Portugal go when it revolted. The individual German princelings and kings were allowed to conduct their own foreign policy (which would fatally fracture the Holy Roman Empire as a united entity).\n\nIt's tempting to describe the German heartland as a desert, but in some ways that's what it was. The power centers in Europe moved towards France, Vienna, and-- a little late-- London. Europe didn't just keep going: it was dramatically transformed. What you're really seeing is that previously \"second-rate\" powers taking advantage of the situation to try to transform themselves into first-rate powers." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dgebp5o" ], "score": [ 15 ], "text": [ "In essence, indifference.\n\nThe general sentiment was that France had abandoned New-France in favor of the French West Indies, that were much more profitable than the rather onerous North American colony. This is also a sentiment that can be found in the lesser rates of volunteerism in WWI, although at that point, it's a lot more complicated.\n\nConcerning the overture made by the American congress to french Canadian, it was more in the hope of making sure they wouldn't attack, as the French-Indian raids were still very much in the minds of the revolutionaries. To simplify, the Americans were scared of the french colonists descending by the Champlain River to greatly undermine their effort.\n\nThe other reason is basically because the British, seeing shit was about to hit the fan passed the Quebec Act which softened, if not completely reversed, a lot of the anti-catholic/ anti-french policies the British had put in place after the Conquest, making it considerably less interesting to rebel against the authorities that basically almost restored the way of life before the Conquest.\n\nEDIT :\n\nAfter going back a little bit in some reading, the American Congress did send letters to French Canadians as early as 1774, The letter title is : Lettre adressée aux Habitans de la province de Quebec, Ci-devant le Canada\".\nIt's in French, so you can definitely know it was addressed to the french speaking elite. That very same elite that benefited the most from the Quebec Act...\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dunz7ga" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The primary book for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II is in French (Arnaud's *Nabuchodonosor II, roi de Babylone*). DJ Wiseman's *Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon* is useful, as is Ronald Sack's *Images of Nebuchadnezzar: The Emergence of a Legend*. \n\nVanderhooft's *The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets* and Cogan's *The Raging Torrent: Historical Inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia Relating to Ancient Israel* are worth a look if you're interested in the interactions between the Neo-Babylonian empire and Judah. \n\nThe Babylonian chronicles are our main source of knowledge, which have been edited in Grayson's *Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles*. The three volumes of *The Context of Scripture* and *The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation* edited by Mark Chavalas also contain useful translations. There is an [ORACC project](_URL_0_) editing Neo-Babylonian texts, but unfortunately they haven't gotten around to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II yet.\n\n\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/ribo/babylon7/index.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "egtq8hr" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "I have insufficient knowledge of Chinese history and the armies of Antiquity to answer the question from those specific angles, but where it concerns the recruitment and mobilization of the common man in Europe in the Middle Ages, the physical condition was definitely of little concern.\n\nI've written about the [approximate of the levy system in parts of the Low Countries](_URL_0_), the *heervaart*, before (which in a lot of aspects is comparable to the levy in other European domains, exceptions notwithstanding), but suffice it to say in this context that the military power of commoners from rural areas (farmers and/or peasants depending on the social-economic status) was lackluster, especially in comparison to the mobilized citizenry who not only often had a degree of military training as well as organization through the guilds, but also were financially in a better position to obtain armament, if at all necessary, as cities were in the habit of arming their own citizenry in times of external threats. Whether these citizens were also physically in a better state as some of their rural counterparts is difficult to conclude with certainty, but is doubtful. On some of the commoners mobilized by the *heervaart* in the County of Holland:\n\n > *die cuyper van Voorschoten, een out, arm man ende manc aen beide ziden; een jonc knechtkin, hiet Jan ende is licht 14 jaer out ende daertoe arm of Gerrit Cleve, een arm man van Zoeterwoude ende is ghescoert*/*ghestoert* \n > \n > the cooper from Voorschoten, an old and poor man and with a limp on both sides; a young stableboy named Jan, barely fourteen years of age and therefore poor, or Gerrit Cleve, a poor man from Zoeterwoude, badly injured/mentally insane.\n\n^(The last word depends on the quote. The former is used in Jansen & Hoppenbrouwers the latter in De Graaf.)\n\nThe extent to which the population mobilized in the rural parts of these lands were considered undependable at best is evident once we see that the counts and their deputies were often quite content with the commoners refusing mobilization, as that resulted in taxation (if they opted out before mobilization, with permission to do so) or fining (if they refused during mobilization) by the bailiffs, with the proceedings then used to hire proper *soldeniers*, mercenaries if you will.^(2)\n\n1. Jansen & Hoppenbrouwers (1977) p. 14, De Graaf (2004) p. 40,\n2. Jansen & Hoppenbrouwers (1977) p. 14, from receipts of 1362-1363 in the Dutch Court of Audit" ] }

[]

[ "https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/asa2nz/mulans_dad_would_have_never_been_asked_to_fight/" ]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/amebmy/saturday_showcase_february_02_2019/efm0n2y/?context=3" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c77q6mt", "c77tc07" ], "score": [ 5, 3 ], "text": [ "In terms of early examples of written humour (as it's very difficult to find stand-up comedians without written record), one of the earliest examples is the satirical script of the [Instruction of Dua-Khety](_URL_0_), an Ancient Egyptian work written in the 2nd millenium BCE (Between 2000 and 1700 BCE). It describes manual labourers during the time, while also exaggerating their features to grotesque proportions (stone-workers with crocodile claws, etc.). \n\nHope this helps!", "The plays of Aristophanes were very similar to, say, *The Daily Show* in that they often poked fun at current political and social issues, and often very specifically mocked certain people. A friend of mine had a paper published about that, I think, if you're interested I can dig up the citation for you." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/instructions_of_kheti.htm" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ctdaqcr" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Apologies to the moderators, as I'm reasonably certain that I am breaking the 20 year rule here. Depends on how you count it. The *acts* described took place in the mid-90's up until 2003. The trial was in 2006-08, with the appeal continuing to 2010 and post-conviction proceedings well into 2012.\n\n***\n\nCharles Taylor was the President of Liberia from 1997-2003. Before that he ran a rebel group that fought for decades in Liberia. But he's not really the star of the story here. In 1977, while attending college at Bentley University in Boston, he fathered a son, colloquially known as \"Chuckie Taylor.\" Born as Charles McArthur Emmanuel, and changed his name legally to Roy Belfast, Jr. I mention this because he is an American citizen by birth.\n\nIn 2008, he was convicted of the crime of \"torture\" under United States laws (18 USC § 2340A) among other crimes, and sentenced to 97 years in prison. The substance of his conviction was running the Anti-Terrorist Unit or ATU of the Liberian state security apparatus, which ran several prison and forced labor camps, as well as, to put it lightly, death camps in which people were tortured, questioned, and publicly executed.\n\nMy sources come from the publicly available documents and pleadings, which can be found at *United States v. Belfast*, 06-cr-20758 (S.D. Fla. 2006). There is also the publicly available appeals court decision here: [*United States v. Belfast*, 611 F.3d 783 (11th Cir. 2010)](_URL_0_), which begins with the rather memorable recitation of facts: \"The facts of this case are riddled with extraordinary cruelty and evil.\"" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1531578.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8q03wh" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The authorship of the *La Historia Verdadera* is something that has been debated a bit more than the author of this article lets on, although I don't know of any other scholar off the top of my head that has made the assertion that Cortes himself wrote the piece. Historians have pointed to the fact that there is very little record of Bernal Diaz having participated in the Conquest beyond the text - which is unusual give the centrality he often grants himself in events. Large portions of the text have also been clearly borrowed from Gomara's version of Cortes' campaign.\n\nThere are, however, a number of factors which made a dismissal of the work's authenticity difficult. While the work is often fantastical, this was not out of the ordinary for medieval works - particularly pieces like this which were intended to be petitions to the Spanish Crown for financial support. Bernal Diaz, if he was the author, was writing during a period when the Conquest was coming under heavy scrutiny in Spain. Given is advanced age, financial troubles, and this large political context many Historians do not find the incongruities of the work wholly surprising. \n\nI cannot comment on the accuracy of Durverger's work given that I have not read it but I will say that many elements of *La Historia Verdadera* would not serve Cortes' interests very well. The author was often very critical of Cortes' leadership and intents as well as the overall Conquest. Many of Cortes' fabrications are best exposed by contrasting his *Cartas de Relación* with *La Historia Verdadera*. I personally do not believe Cortes to be the author but I would not say that such an idea is an impossibility." ] }

[]

[ "http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/02/12/inenglish/1360672838_941682.html" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfsp9mc" ], "score": [ 11 ], "text": [ "Same reason no one interfered with US invasion of Dominican Republic. It was our sphere of influence. Just like Eastern Europe was USSR's. No one was willing to risk global war. During the Cold War it was the countries more distant (Vietnam, Angola, etc) that were really up for grabs and fought over. The Truman Doctrine basically stated this. We wouldn't try to rollback Communism in Eastern Europe, but we would fight to prevent it in the 3rd World. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cwh27mp" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Medieval authors tended to divide history into six ages, which were mapped to the first six days of Creation in Genesis (and sometimes to the different stages of human life). Although variants existed, the most common schema came out of Augustine who situated the first age as from Adam to the Flood, the second from Noah to Abraham, the third from Abraham to David, the fourth from David to the Babylonian Captivity, the fifth from there to Christ, and the sixth age which began with the Incarnation and would continue until the end of time when Christ's return would inaugurate the seventh and eternal day. Thus, medieval thinkers, were they to speak of living in a historical period, would likely say that they were living in the sixth age of history. \n\nThere were other historical periodizations floating around as well, most famously Joachim of Fiore's division of history into three ages, of the Father from Creation to Christ, of the Son from Christ until 1260, and of the Spirit which was sort of eschatological culmination of history prior to the final judgment. As you might imagine, this view was popular in the years leading up to and immediately after 1260, but fell out of favor after Joachim was condemned alongside heretical groups who followed his teachings, and it became obvious that his prophecies weren't accurate. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ewbgekb" ], "score": [ 169 ], "text": [ " The most obvious answer is the election of 1800, but the election on 1796 had some impact on the 12th Amendment as well . The way the constitution was originally structured, electors from each state had 2 votes each with no distinction for president and vice president. It was also the case that many states decided to allot proportional votes (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina). \n\n The 1796 election between Thomas Jefferson & John Adams was the first contested election as it was the 1st that Washington wasn't running in. The election was pretty nasty even by today's standards with party papers for the Federalists accusing Jefferson of being an anarchist and atheist and Republican papers charging John Adams with having monarchist sentiments and eyeing the creation of a \"throne\" which his son could inherit. In the end Adams won the electoral college vote with 71 votes to Jefferson's 68. Federalist electors didn't coordinate their \"second\" votes and split their votes regionally so that Thomas Pinckney (southerner) received 59 votes and Oliver Ellsworth (northerner) received 11. If the Federalists had voted in a block, they would've sent 2 Federalists to the White House. Instead the mix-up allowed Jefferson to finish second and sent him to D.C. to work in the cabinet of a president he had just accused of wanting to destroy the Constitution (Imaging HRC as Trump's VP, it wouldn't be pretty). In the end, Jefferson was relegated to watching over the Senate in what he described as pretty monotonous task (he did oversee a rather unimpressive Andrew Jackson fill an interim Senate term). Jefferson spent his term under the radar and wasn’t serving any advisory roles in the Adam's cabinet. He also played a role in drafting the KY & VA resolutions which sought to directly undermine the Adams supported Alien & Sedition Acts. \n\n In 1800 the same cast of characters ran for the presidency, but this time 2 things had changed: Electors became more disciplined in voting the party preference for President and Veep, and 2 states (NY & VA) independently decided to no longer give proportional electoral college votes. With Aaron Burr's open campaigning (which many saw as unseemly) the Republicans won New York and won the election. Republican electors were too disciplined though and Jefferson and Burr tied with 73 votes each (The Federalist had actually coordinated their votes and allotted Pinckney one less vote than Adams). Burr, being the scoundrel that he was, didn't concede the presidency to Jefferson and, as per the Constitution, the House had to decide the election. This led to 35 separate votes in which Jefferson and Burr kept tying. Eventually on the 36th vote Jefferson was selected as Pres and Burr and VP. Hamilton convinced some Federalists that Jefferson was the least bad option for president-he would undo Federalist policy, but he was at least a known quantity unlike Burr who just seemed power hungry. The whole Hamilton-Burr conflict escalated pretty quickly after that. \n\n So after 2 contested (I mean in the sense that Washington wasn't the unanimous choice) elections it was pretty obvious that no one foresaw how nasty party politics was going to get in 1787 when the Constitution was drafted. So, the 12th amendment stipulated that electors still had 2 votes, but they needed to be marked for President and then Vice-President. The way the text reads it may seem like the intent was to have a separate election for Veep, but it was really about allowing electors to vote for the party ticket." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cup0iez", "cup7zri" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "That extension to the Northwest is the modern Gansu Corridor and some areas along the Tarim Basin. These areas were strategically important because they controlled key overland trade routes with India, Central Asia, and the Middle East -- the proverbial Silk Road. This area was important for commerce, but also strategically because it helped encircle and contain the Tibetan Empire which at that time controlled nearly the entirely of what is today Qinghai Province.\n\nThe actual amount of functional control that the central government in Chang'an was able to exert over their border territorries varied considerably over time, especially in the later Tang when the area was repeatedly menaced by both Tibetan and Muslim military incursions, and an unstable central government devolved ever-greater powers on their regional military governors. Which is one of the reasons that contemporary historical atlases vary so much on their depiction of Tang-Chinese \"ownership\" of this area.", "The western borders \"jut out\" because the Tang dynasty defeated the Western Turks and the city-states of the Tarim Basin (what is now southern Xinjiang). Under Emperor Taizong, the Tang pursued a divide-and-conquer policy that they called *yi yi zhi yi* (\"using barbarians to control barbarians\"). They destabilized the Western Turkic confederation by recognizing competing claimants such as Isbara yabghu Qaghan in 641 and I-p'i shih-kuei in 642 and encouraging infighting between tribes among the Western Turks. \n\nAs the Western Turkic empire declined, the Tang dynasty was able to expand its control over the oasis kingdoms of the Tarim Basin. The oasis kingdoms were important to the Tang because Silk Road merchants traveled through these oases from Persia, Central Asia, and the Byzantine empire in order to enter China. Karakhoja was annexed by the Tang in 640, Karashahr in 644, and Kucha in 648. Additionally, Kashgar and Khotan submitted to Tang rule in 632 and Yarkand in 635. By 649, Kucha was established as the seat of Anxi-protectorate general. \n\nChinese military garrisons were stationed in Kucha, Khotan, Kashgar, and Karashahr to supervise Tang control of the Tarim Basin. In 657, Chinese forces and their Uyghur allies defeated and captured the last qaghan of the Western Turks, ending the confederation. With the collapse of the Western Turkic confederation, their territory came under Tang suzerainty. The Tang emperor installed puppet rulers (Ashina Mishe and Ashina Buzhen) to exert their control. \n\nIn the 7th century, the oasis kingdoms ping-ponged between Chinese and Tibetan rule. The Tang dynasty became weakened by a revolt led by a former Tang general, An Lushan. The Tibetan Empire annexed the oasis kingdoms of the Tarim Basin as the Tang withdrew from Central Asia.\n\nSources:\n\n*The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 3: Sui and T'ang China, 589-906 AD, Part 1* and Jonathan Karam Skaff's *Sui-Tang China and Its Turko-Mongol Neighbors: Culture, Power, and Connections, 580-800*" ] }

[]

[ "http://images.chinahighlights.com/chinamap/ancient/tang-dynasty-map1.gif", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_dynasty#/media/File:Tang_Dynasty_circa_700_CE.png" ]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fkmsd0n", "fkmv52b", "fknav6k", "fko3f5p", "fkojfb9", "fkojsfo", "fki2ix1", "fki3ygh", "fki5pc5", "fkicb3h", "fkidv3t", "fkip5d8", "fkiukap", "fkspn0b", "fkjbf1i", "fkjjwqa", "fkjnnhb", "fkl6p6h", "fkllig8", "fklqzcf", "fkqiwft", "fkr77k7", "fkrgfww", "fkrig2w" ], "score": [ 4, 5, 3, 2, 5, 5, 32, 174, 57, 23, 20, 18, 6, 2, 7, 5, 18, 2, 9, 12, 2, 4, 2, 5 ], "text": [ "In the generations that followed The Black Death, did any particularly interesting patterns of government or economics pop up?\n\nWith such a massive number of people dying, I can't help but think that the collective trauma might have had some far-reaching effects", "This weekend we saw young Americans in cities all over the country ignore the risk and go out to bars, restaurants, and nightclubs. Young adults were the highest-risk group during the Spanish Flu. Was it difficult to get them to respect quarantine guidelines back then, despite the risk?", "This all got me very interested in how WWII forced adherents of laisez-faire economics to drastically intervene in the domestic sphere.\nWhat are some good books about the war economy?", "What do we know about viruses and vaccines now (or by 2000, I suppose, per the 20-year rule) that we didn’t know during the Spanish Flu outbreak? How much have we learned?", "Has the flu always been a winter annoyance? If not, why does it spread so much nowadays? I know that it's existed for millenia but I can't find many sources on it being a \"yearly\" issue prior to the 1800s.", "How did nation states coordinate their response to the Spanish flu in 1918? Did citizens know about the pandemic through news reporting or government announcements? Were the most afflicted areas poorly prepared or did they not properly understand the threat?", "What were state responses to previous pandemics like? I was specifically thinking of the 1665 outbreak of bubonic plague in England but am curious if any large scale intervention efforts existed in the past, considering people on the whole were less scientifically literate.", "This current pandemic is falling on a presidential election year in the United States. How did the 1918-1920 flu pandemic affect the 1920 presidential election?", "How do historians determine that past epidemics and plagues such as the plague of Athens or the Antonine Plague are diseases known presently to us instead of previously unknown novel diseases (from isolated populations or animal species) that died out?", "Great idea, I would like to know the history of the cold, do we know its origins and when it became the perrenial seasonal infection? Has the greater development of transport heightened its strength? \n\nI also ant to plug a previous AskHistorians podcast episode about the outbreak of Plauge in Marseille and thelocal and national response.\n\n_URL_0_", "Did people hoarding household supplies (e.g. toilet paper), food, or other items on the eve of a big scare (biological or otherwise) have a substantial impact on a country's economy? I'm interested mainly in 20th century examples, but also from any earlier time in the modern era.", "The Spanish Flu is named Spanish Flu because they apparently didn´t censor their media as heavily on it as other nations did. If that is the case, why wasn´t it censored as heavily as in other affected nations?", "I have a history meme that I'd like to get verified if any medieval scholars happen to know: \nI heard a Pope lit holy fires around the Vatican to prevent the spread of the plague. The meme part goes that fleas are attracted to fire (thermal stimuli) and jumped in - thus saving the Vatican.", "There is a lot of talk about ways that the COVID-19 outbreak is likely to change American society forever. What lasting societal changes came about in America as a result of the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic?", "Was a memorial ever dedicated for victims of the 1918 influenza outbreak? Or any other modern pandemic?\n\nI can think of war memorials, memorials for accidents, and memorials of natural disasters, but can't think of any for diseases.", "What are some good books on the overall history of pandemics, comparing how deadly they were, how they were treated, how they were rationalized, the effects of each pandemic on various societies, etc?", "Why do so many diseases throughout history appear to originate in China? Is it a function of their population density? The Silk Road trade? Did some of them actually originate elsewhere but the nearest known place the Europeans could trace it back to was China?", "When the Bubonic Plague was afflicting Europe, were there governmental efforts to suppress people who were selling fake cures?", "How big of a role did the Plague of Athens play in the Peloponnesian War? I don't know much about the Plague of Athens, but I read somewhere that it ended up killing roughly 25% of the city's population. Was the plague enough to give the Spartans a considerable enough advantage?", "I work in a university that (as of Monday) is stopping lectures because of the Coronavirus.\nThe most recent example that I could find of a similar action was when Cambridge closed for the 1665 outbreak of plague (which famously sent Newton out into the countryside where he got bopped on the head by an apple, and also invented calculus because he was bored).\n\nHave there been any other examples since then of universities (especially in Britain) closing because of an outbreak of disease?", "With retail and gatherings shutting down, what can we expect after the pandemic is over? Historically, did people adjust to the new normal (whatever that was) or was there a boom of festivals, gatherings, and new commerce once the pandemic was over?", "Why is it that when it comes to the Spanish Flu, there seems to be a dearth of media representation? I cannot think of a film or book that depicts characters having to live through it, whereas I can number off plenty depicting World War I and the Roaring Twenties in general. Was it just not as collectively well remembered?", "In previous pandemics such as the plague of 1348, without medical attention and the false beliefs of the people, how were the diseases stopped before everyone was dead?", "Like we are making memes about the Covid 19 pandemic, Is there any evidence of jokes/humour being made about a past pandemic (eg. Spanish flu or the plague)?" ] }

[]

[ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules" ]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6njkxj/askhistorians_podcast_090_la_peste_the_great/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmellrw", "cmepl7t", "cmeys4j" ], "score": [ 13, 20, 2 ], "text": [ "Depends on how you define triumph.\n\nOn one level it can be seen as a triumph in that so many troops were successfully evacuated and the little ships can be seen as a great propaganda scoop.\n\nHowever on the other hand it can be seen as a complete disaster. For a start most of the British equipment was dumped ranging from tanks to even small arms leaving Britain venerable for quiet a while. There is also the perceived fact that the British concentrated on British soldiers first meaning that most of their allies were left behind.\n\nThere is also the fact that the evacuation showed up the limits of the royal navy to evacuation people from a major port (admittedly under air attack) to the point that civilian vessels had to be drafted to assist. Taken out of context such an act would be seen today as military incompetence.\n\nSo while at the time it was seen as a triumph it probably was in reality a defeat for Britain.", "The Evacuation of Dunkirk was essentially a defeat (and as close to a rout as it got) for the British Expeditionary Force that had its image turned around due to good PR on the part of the performance of the Royal Navy, Merchant Navy and civilian volunteers who helped shuttle retreating soldiers from Dunkirk, as well as Churchill's famous *We shall fight on the beaches* speech delivered to the House of Commons on June 4, 1940. \n\nNow despite the fact the BEF was completely surrounded and on the verge of annihilation at Dunkirk, German forces stopped short of annihilating them as they awaited evacuation from the beach. Now the common myth goes that Hitler ordered German Commanders to hold their positions around the BEF rather than finishing them off, though most contemporary historians tend to agree that it was more likely German commanders felt constrained by their supply lines as they had rapidly advanced through France and the Low Countries faster than their supply lines could keep up as well as German forces wishing consolidating their forces before making a final push, giving the BEF time to evacuate as many troops as they could from Dunkirk before the German offensive resumed. Had the Wehrmacht possessed adequate supply lines for the majority of their forces as they reached Calais, (and this veers into what-if territory) it's very likely the entirety if not the majority of the BEF would have been annihilated or captured by German forces. What this would have resulted in is hard to say, though I'd like to think Britain would have still been able to keep herself in the war without concern, as the Germans were not anywhere near well equipped enough to carry out a successful cross-channel invasion. Knowing this, it's clear that the BEF was essentially defeated at Dunkirk, but was sparred the final crushing blow. Though it should be noted, a still considerable number of BEF forces were captured or killed before they were able to be evacuated from Dunkirk, so while the evacuation was seen as a miracle and success, it was not without it's share of setbacks. \n\nThe eventual evacuation of Dunkirk of well over 300,000 BEF soliders and personal by the Royal Navy and Merchant Navy as well as civilian volunteers greatly helped turned this defeat into the perfect example of what good PR can do to turn morale or opinion around. Churchill's speech delivered to the House of Commons on the last day of the Evacuation further solidified the idea for the British that the Evacuation of Dunkirk was not so much a defeat as it was a miracle and an example of the British spirit to keep the fight going even when facing overwhelming odds. \n\nSources:\n\n[*Inferno: The World at War: 1939-1945*by Max Hastings](_URL_2_)\n\n[*Why the Allies Won** by Richard Overy](_URL_0_)\n\n[Churchill's *We Shall Fight on the Beaches* speech](_URL_1_)", "I think one of the problems in this question is with assigning simplistic words to complex situations. It was a bit of both really. The BEF never had the manpower to resist Germany alone, it was required to fight alongside the French. Once the French collapse started and the Germans had cut the BEF off from the rest of France it was 400,000 or so British troops vs twice that number of German (and with more readily available) and they were in a defensively poor position. Evacuation was inevitable and not specifically a result of any failure of the British Army.\n\nDunkirk wasnt a traditional X vs Y battle, but an inevitable siege and retreat one, and was of that nature right from the start. Thus, from this point of view it was somewhat of a triumph, as the vast majority of men trapped in the pocket managed to escape. The focus of the Battle of Dunkirk, the victory conditions as it were, wasnt the destruction of the Germans and the reconquest of northern France, but the safe recovery of the valuable troops trapped within. This was largely achieved and that is why this triumph/defeat thing remains an issue. On a broad scale of course it was a defeat, in that it was one of the parts of the Battle of France, which was lost. But in and of itself it was a triumph. A defeat would have to have been the capture or killing of the majority of the men trapped, which didnt occur. Naturally there is no small amount of PR spin around the event, but I still think looking back on it objectively it was a triumphant and successful retreat.\n\nSources:\nThe Second World War - Sir Winston Churchil" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.worldcat.org/title/why-the-allies-won/oclc/33948454&referer=brief_results", "http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-of-winston-churchill/128-we-shall-fight-on-the-beaches", "http://www.worldcat.org/title/inferno-the-world-at-war-1939-1945/oclc/763181172" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ctr016f" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Slavery as in West (west of Indus) never existed in India until Muslim conquests into India(Legally). There were no Historical stories which mention about slavery, other than few anecdotes. \n\n\nDue to high population and economical/social segregation of Varna system, Slavery as seen in west was observed in the west although , Dasee(women who are dedicated to temple or queens) are not uncommon. \n\nTraditionally slavery was never justified by religion in Indian sub continent . " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d46k2u7", "d46p25h", "d46trpg", "d46uzzp" ], "score": [ 411, 10, 5, 42 ], "text": [ "So Alexander the Great's great cause he conquered the Achaemenid Persian Empire. Until he passed over the Indus, all the lands he had conquered had either been Persian satrapies or at least within the Persian orbit. This included everything from Thrace, the Levant, Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, and Persia itself, all highly developed societies with an organized and ancient tradition of rule.\n\nThough every generation saw its share of separatist movements, Persian satrapies were generally quiescent and obedient to Persian rule. Once Alexander showed up as an unstoppable menace however, Persian satraps would often betray the Persian central authority and surrender themselves and their services to the conqueror. The political result of Alexander's conquests being that satraps were either trusted Greek advisors placed to the position by Alexander or they were holdovers from the preceding Persian state. Further, the officials serving within state ministries continued to hail from the local area, as they had under the Achaemenids.\n\nWith Alexander's attention focused on his military conquests, oversight of his empire was slack as long as the necessary materiel and soldiers arrived for his campaigning. Alexander notoriously conscripted men from his conquered provinces (much like the Persians had) and expected to collect the same sort of tax revenue as his predecessors. But with his constant warfare, he wasn't going to conduct a full audit of his empire's finances. \n\nSatraps realized this. Basic quotients of money and goods traveled to Alexander or back to Macedon on Persia's famous road system. But beyond what was needed to slake Alex's immediate demands, the administrators of the Persian bureaucracy could act nigh indiscriminately. The Macedonian army wasn't traveling through to set up a longstanding, permanent civilization; they moved at lightning speed, conquering a continental empire in less than a decade. Thus the local politicking of each court, in Susa, in Sardis, in Babylonia, went completely unchecked. Corruption spread as the only state obligations were to Alexander, a foreign conqueror who moved increasingly further away. Sometimes, they revolted, and Alexander executed several of them for this (Arrian VI.26) on his way back from India. Normally, however, they sent goods where they needed to go as the state apparatus built up by Darius and Artaxerxes could easily handle both completing Alexander's limited fiscal desires and fleecing their own pockets.\n\nIn addition to receiving replenishment from centralized redistribution Alexander's army could expect to collect sustenance and good grace from any ruler through whose lands it passed. There was of course the underlying coercive aspect to parking the greatest empire the world had ever known next to anybody's palace, but most kings, satraps, or rajs (if that's what they were called yet). When local supplies were limited, such as in the Central Asian steppelands, high mountain passes in the winter, or in the Gedrosian Desert, his army had serious problems with attrition. In sum, they were a much more live off the land type army, though they did it in a rather \"civilized,\" rather than Hunnic fashion.\n\nSources: \nPaul Cartledge's *Alexander the Great*\n\nArrian: _URL_0_\nSeriously, check Arrian out. Alexander brought a bunch of historians with him to document his conquests, and what gets passed down to us is nothing short of pulp fiction. It paints Alex as a mega badass who successively beats Achilles, Hercules, and Dionysus in his feats.\n\nDuncan Ryan *The Achaemenid Empire* -super fast breeze through Achaemenid history. Not too much content, but does give a rough trajectory of their empire. I recently read it just to cover my bases as I begin to do more research into Near Eastern history", "Follow up question. I heard a story of Alexander the great pouring out his water in front of his soldiers while crossing the desert, saying something to the effect of \"If my men don't drink, I don't drink.\" Any truth to this story?", "Anybody have any feedback on Donald Engels book \"Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army\"? I thought it addressed this topic in some depth.", "Donald Engels wrote what is kinda the definitive work on this subject, and I highly recommend it, as it's a fascinating subject, because the accomplishment of Alexander the Great cannot be overstated. (1)\n\nThere were large bodies of men not well disposed to this young Greek traipsing through their territories with his army, but more importantly there were vast swathes of often quite hostile landscape across which Alexander had to move his men. Alexander was able to meet these strategic, tactical, and logistical concerns with seeming ease. Much ink has been spilled over the millennia concerning Alexander’s strategic and tactical genius, less so his ability as a logistical commander, and that is a damn shame because he was a genius.\n\nFirst and foremost was the preparation that took place under his father, Philip. Key among these preparations was the organization of the Macedonian Army into the most efficient campaigning force the Mediterranean had ever seen. A key part of this plan was expanding the prestige of the infantry unit, which would prove so essential to his battle plans. Philip accomplished this by making the soldiers of the infantry loyal to him personally, in a shift away from their home region or city. These ‘foot companions’ enjoyed the prestige of being considered directly connected to their king just as the aristocracy already had been for generations. (2)\n\nBy making the men individually and as a unit loyal to their commander and king, Philip was aiming to wage war in a way that Greeks had not done before. Greek discipline operated in a way that might be alien to our modern idea of discipline, which places an emphasis on following orders.\n\nThe main focus of Greek discipline was on the opinion of your fellow soldier-citizens, and in trials for failure to obey orders, the key concern was whether the soldier-citizen had disobeyed orders for reasons of cowardice. Cowardice was the principal concern. Philip’s reforms to the Macedonian military are key to understanding the way he changed the army’s discipline. The existing institution of the Cavalry Companions, consisting of the elite of the Macedonian state, had enjoyed extensive freedom to question their commander and king bluntly. By expanding this and other privileges to include the infantry, Philip was also able to induce a constriction on the freedom of all his soldiers to disobey. The soldiers, having theoretically gained the right to question their king, gave up their traditional freedom to disobey. Effectively, the old nobility were given new obligations, and a new nobility was recruited on the basis of professionalism, meritocracy, and most important of all - loyalty.\n\nIt would not have been difficult to impress upon the men that loyalty meant obedience, by demonstrating that the rewards for loyalty flowed to those most obedient to commands. Therefore, reforms such as Philip’s forbidding of wagons and restricting the number of servants each fighting man was permitted created a situation wherein the armed force was able to field four combatants for every one servant. The men accepted such restrictions, and requirements to carry their own supplies, because to do so meant they would be rewarded. (3)\n\nUnder the hitherto existing Greek system, men would go so far as to bring their commanders up on charges for giving them orders they did not like, even when those orders were to help a wounded comrade to safety. Under Philip’s system, both discipline as obedience and discipline as courage are improved.\n\nSo, reforms are in place, time to invade Persia!\n\nEngels’ breakdown of the logistical framework after the crossing of the Hellespont estimates about 48,000 soldiers, with support personnel bringing the total army’s size to 65,000 individuals. The number of pack animals necessary to carry sufficient rations and other noncomestibles at this point would be, by Engels’ calculations, around 10,000, a sufficient amount to ensure that the army was sufficiently well fed for up to ten days. (Engels, p12) \n\nDuring the initial campaign in Persia, it is most likely that Alexander took a relatively coastal route. Arrian tells us “He sent Parmenio to take over Dascylium; and this was done without trouble, as the guards had abandoned the town.” (Arr. 1.12.9) Dascylium lay directly between Granicus and Sardis. Alexander relied on the fleet for most of his supply solutions until Miletus, and then transport of his siege train through to the battle of Issus, which was preceded by a near-disaster. Darius, acting on the belief that the Macedonian forces remained scattered in Cilicia, and due to his own supply issues in the Amik plain, accidentally flanked Alexander’s army. (Arr. 2.7.2-3)\n\nAlexander, of course, immediately turned around, met Darius, and was victorious.\n\nHaving won a crushing victory at Issus, capturing some three thousand talents on the field itself, with Parmenio capturing more treasure at Damascus, any and all issues in paying for anything his army needed were resolved, as his new wealth proved sufficient to see him to Gaugamela.\n\nThere is a lot more to say about the rest of his campaigns through Hyrcania, Parthyaea, and Bactria. Then there's the total fucking disaster of the Gedrosian campaign, and god damned Nearchus.\n\nGo read Engels's book, for real. It's very good. He leaves a few questions unanswered, like how reinforcements and discharges were sent to and from the Mediterranean to Alexander’s army on campaign in far off places. Certainly they used the same routes and methods that were employed for purposes of communication and supply, and it is clear enough that Antipater’s needs on the home front led Alexander to cease sending all the way to Macedonia for reinforcements after 331, but how discharges from the army and the receipt of reinforcements was handled, there are questions unanswered that may well be unanswerable. That being said, Engels is extremely thorough.\n\n1) Donald Engels, \"Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army.\" University of California Press, 1978\n2) Bosworth, A.B. \"ΑΣΘΕΤΑΙΡΟΙ.\" The Classical Quarterly 23, no. 2 (November 1973): 245-253\n3) John Keegan, \"The Mask of Command.\" Penguin, 1987" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://archive.org/stream/cu31924026460752/cu31924026460752_djvu.txt" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cea8eum" ], "score": [ 11 ], "text": [ "The first question to ask is what message the portrait is intended to convey. Through to the eighteenth century, portraits were primarily commissioned by either the clergy or the nobility and so reflected the social norms and customs of those two groups. In particular, open-mouthed smiling in art was considered somewhat lewd and unattractive. Women especially were encouraged to demonstrate restraint in displaying their emotion; coyness, grace and subtlety were the goal of all portrait commissions of young noble ladies.\n\nBut once you step outside of portraits of the saints, of clergy and of nobility and look at depictions of less \"serious\" folk, of people *expected* to show lewdness or lack of restraint, you can find tons of open-mouthed smiles and toothy grins. For example:\n\n* Court jesters ([1](_URL_19_), [2](_URL_0_)), \n\n* Court dwarfs ([1](_URL_17_), [2](_URL_9_))\n\n* Children ([1](_URL_8_), [2](_URL_7_))\n\n* The drunk ([1](_URL_14_), [2](_URL_10_))\n\n* The insane\n\n* The poor ([1](_URL_16_))\n\n* Musicians ([1](_URL_18_), [2](_URL_13_))\n* And, well, the artists themselves. ([Leyster](_URL_4_), [Liotard](_URL_12_), [Rembrandt](_URL_6_), and the Reddit-famous [Ducreux](_URL_15_))\n\nYou can also find nice wide smiles in the art of non-European cultures. There are several Mesoamerican sculptures of grinning ball-players ([1](_URL_3_), [2](_URL_20_)), for example.\n\nBack to Western art. Informality *starts* to creep in once art opens up to the middle class, who are more willing to buy portraits showing a little more geniality. ([1](_URL_5_), [2](_URL_1_)) The truly toothy grins are reserved for when the subjects themselves are supposed to be the object of ridicule - [political caricatures](_URL_11_) or just [funny cartoons](_URL_21_).\n\nOpen-mouthed grins in photographs of important figures are primarily a twentieth-century development. Aside from the change in acceptable levels of informality, there are two other factors to consider. First off, dentistry. It was not particularly good for most of the periods we've been discussing. Compounding this, the models used by the artists were drawn primarily from the pool of prostitutes and destitutes - neither of which are famed for good oral hygeine even among their contemporaries. Look at the mouths of Ducreux or Liotard above, where they're not making an effort to prettify the subject. Lots of black discolouration and gaps. Very unsightly.\n\nSecondly, early photography required sitters to remain entirely still due to the long exposure time. Holding your mouth open and motionless for that long is a burdensome task if you don't have a specific reason to do so, and the results would look rather fake regardless. The development of film technology (pardon the pun) allowed for more spontaneous and candid shots. Politicians largely still wanted to project an aura of sober authority most of the time, but you can find the odd glimpse of a cheeky grin or a laugh (\"[DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN](_URL_2_)\" springs to mind immediately). In the U.S., it's Kennedy who truly popularised flashing your pearly whites for the camera - it worked towards the image he was trying to put across of youthful vigour (when the truth was actually somewhat different behind the scenes). Since then, bright white smiles and good hair have been fixtures for successful Presidential campaigns.\n\nSo, in summary and in decreasing order of importance - changing attitudes towards informality, the invention of polaroid and digital cameras, prettier smiles." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.google.com/search?q=medieval", "http://www.google.com/search?q=\"Lincoln\"&tbm=isch", "http://www.google.com/search?q=daguerreotype&tbm=isch", "http://www.google.com/search?q=greek", "http://www.google.com/search?q=rennaissance", "http://www.google.com/search?q=\"Obama\"&tbm=isch", "http://www.google.com/search?q=victorian" ]

[ [ "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Buffone.jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/The_Laughing_Audience_%28or_A_Pleased_Audience%29_by_William_Hogarth.jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Deweytruman12.jpg", "http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/ao/web-large/DP230687.jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Judith_Leyster_-_Self-Portrait_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg", "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/William_Hogarth_002.jpg/300px-William_Hogarth_002.jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Rembrandt_laughing.jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Judith_Leyster_A_Boy_and_a_Girl_with_a_Cat_and_an_Eel.jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Bartolom%C3%A9_Esteban_Perez_Murillo_-_Boy_with_a_Dog_-_WGA16362.jpg", "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Vel%C3%A1zquez_-_Francisco_Lezcano,_el_Ni%C3%B1o_de_Vallecas_(Museo_del_Prado,_1643-45\\).jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Judith_Leyster_A_Youth_with_a_Jug.jpg", "http://imgur.com/EsEqrAD", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Jean-Etienne_Liotard_01.jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Judith_Leyster_Merry_Trio.jpg", "http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/images/paintings/yag/large/ny_yag_yorag_809_large.jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Ducreux1.jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/B174_Rembrandt.jpg", "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Diego_Vel%C3%A1zquez_-_The_Dwarf_Don_Juan_Calabazas,_called_Calabacillas_-_WGA24421.jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Judith_Leyster_Serenade.jpg", "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Court_jester_stockholm.jpg", "http://imgur.com/H9YBe0p", "http://imgur.com/GL4kXbB" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d5i4o6f" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "You'll be interested in my response [here](_URL_0_), as well as the discussion elsewhere in the thread. I and the others definitely welcome follow-up questions. It's a claim backed by a few people with monetary investments (read: tourism) in the site, based on results that have not been replicated by any one else. I'm also going to sacrifice my integrity and vouch for the quality of the details in the Wiki article." ] }

[]

[ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_pyramid_claims" ]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/396xjd/how_much_do_we_know_about_civilizations_before/cs10e5x" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chuynw7" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Might just have to have a look at that..." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryNetwork/comments/26vv2d/iama_winston_churchill_ama/" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9fkmp4", "c9foubn" ], "score": [ 31, 12 ], "text": [ "Not at all. Medieval peasants grew livestock and used their produce for their own sustenance - chickens, pigs, goats, and cows were all consumed by members of all classes. If they lived near a river or the sea, they would also probably eat fish as well.\n\nThe difference between classes, as far as culinary was concerned, was the higher classes' ability to get stuff like spices. These sorts of things usually grew outside of Europe and had to be imported by merchants, thus becoming very rare and precious.", "Actually, eating meat was fairly common 900 years ago, however if you go back to the 18th and 19th Century then it actually changes. Industrialisation changed this because many peasants had to buy meat, rather than killing livestock they already owned, this made it become more expensive.\n\nUnder Louis XVI's reign the price of bread itself was between 60-80% of a workers weekly wage, meaning they lived on bread alone, and even so usually lived on an estimated 1,800 kcal/ day lifestyle, which was slowly starving them.\n\nSo meat actually became rarer, as the population moved away from farming, but the rural population ate meat as usual.\n\nSource\n\n Tilly, Louise The Food Riot as a Form of Political Conflict in France (Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol 2, 1971)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjk8ifw", "cjkezty" ], "score": [ 3, 4 ], "text": [ "An episode of the [AskHistorians podcast](_URL_0_) deals with this topic. I've pinged /u/gingerkid1234 in case he has more to add.", "א שיינעם דאנק פור די שאלה!\n\nYiddish is, as the podcast and others have said, closely related to German. It's got loans from Hebrew, Aramaic, Slavic languages, and occasionally romance loans (beyond what exists in German dialects), and it's got pronunciation differences like a German dialect would. It formed by Jews in German-speaking areas migrating east but still speaking Yiddish, forming eastern Yiddish, while those that stayed had their language diverge from German and spoke western Yiddish, which is extinct. \n\nMeasuring mutual intelligibility is difficult. I've seen lots of German-speakers say they can figure out Yiddish, but usually that's standard Yiddish on YouTube or something. Colloquial Yiddish has lots more loans from other languages and can have funkier vowel shifts than standard Yiddish. Yiddish speakers can't always understand each other!\n\nIt's also easy to construct a Yiddish sentence unreadable to Germans because of vocabulary. Like \"der rov leynt a seyfer\" means \"the rabbi reads a book\", but rov, leynt, and seyfer are not German words. Or an actual example from /r/Yiddish, \"kulem hobn nekudes toyves\", meaning \"everybody's got good points\"--all words but \"hobn\" are loans " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/22t0vn/askhistorians_podcast_episode_008_discussion/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dfl14p2", "dfldgos" ], "score": [ 6, 4 ], "text": [ "It was fairly different. Though as the war went on, people took the restrictions less seriously and there was always a thriving black market. \n\nThe main differences were the number of men leaving to join the military was very different, the lack of military age males meant for the first time large numbers of women joined the work force, and they joined in large range of jobs, blue to white collar. \n\nThey rationed food, gas, oil, and tires. \nNo one went hungry, but many goods were hard to get, meat and fresh vegetables were more scarce, and this prompted people planting \"victory gardens\" in the yards or even open lots in their neighborhoods. \n\nThe gas rationing was serious enough, that unless you had a job that required you used a car, you really had to cut back on driving. Tires were rationed, and didn't last as long back then. \n\nThere was a black market on ration books and hard to find goods. Gas ration coupons were a very popular item in these markets. \n\nEveryone knew at least someone who was off fighting, most extended families had all their young men off fighting. In some cases they would not come home for several years, and the only form of communication for most people was letters. mail to and from GIs could take months. \n\nNews was via Radio and newsreels at movies. TV had just begun in the US, but broadcasts were suspended during the war. \n\nSome jobs had waivers, so they could not be drafted, police, firemen, civilian pilots, etc. These people could still join of their own accord, and many did leaving many cities with thinner police and firefighting forces. In some cases retirees came out of retirement to help fill positions. \n\nEdit to add more. \n\nALL automobile manufacturing was suspending, so even though getting gas to drive wasn't impossible, getting a good car got harder as the years wore on. Right after the war the car makers went back to the 1941 models and it wasn't until the late 40s new redesigned models started coming out. \n\nAnyplace there was a lot of factories, or a port, or both, like the DC, the CA, Bay Area, Washington state around seattle, LA and San Diego etc, all had housing shortages. Mix in military bases already there or that were built, and you had lots of people packed into the cities. \n\nMany companies that made consumer goods went to all military production. You were not going to get you hands on a new radio for the house, or a new fridge, or even a toaster or sewing machine. ", "Another aspect I didn't cover was the Khaki Wacky situation, and the DoDs concern over venereal disease causing big problems line they did in WWI. \n\nThey had a lot of combat ineffective men in WWI due to rampant social disease. The Army and DoD really learned a lesson on this, and going into WWII they were prepared. \n\nUS Law enforcement was less prepared for the large numbers of US women, young women became camp followers and they more than paid prostitutes caused the spread of VD of various forms. Penicillin was not readily available until late in the war, so getting VD was a big deal until then. \n\nThe U.S. military had a system, and they set up stations, when men when out on liberty, they were supplied with classes on VD and how to avoid it, and issued condoms. \n\nThe stations were in place to clean the soldier or sailors junk when he came back from the night out on the town, and they were told to go there and use the station if they had any kind of exposure, condom or not. \n\nThe stations was basically and inspection and washing station. Men who came in were not punished in any way for doing so. The ones who did not come in, and then got VD who were in deep water. Rates of social disease were much lower in WWII than WWI for US troops. \n\nAnd it wasn't because there was no sex going on, don't let the movies of the time fool you, you great great grandparents had sex too, and liked it!\n\nAnother aspect was the big Hollywood studios were all backing the government and went to work making patriotic films and propaganda pieces. They even helped the Army training films, like this one. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nThis one is about tanks on the march, and was filmed on a hollywood backlot, with a company of tanks sent for the filming. \n\nThere was not a lot of opposition to the war once it got going, there was some politicking and grandstanding by some political figures about war industry corruption, but it was mild by today's standards. \n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_Ns24Xhv6M" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cnnlbhq" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "If you mean buzzcuts in the modern sense, no; at least not for the US Army. They absolutely, however, had grooming standards; its a basic tenet of military hygiene. Hair had to be short at the sides and back; away from the collars and not covering the ears. [Haircuts happened when they could](_URL_2_) and the frequency of them were never guaranteed. However, especially in the US, battalions could rotate off the line with frequency at the end of a drive or series of attacks; so obviously it isn't a case of 'hair growing back.' One has to remember that 'being at the front' doesn't mean you're constantly dodging bullets; it could mean your Battalion is in division reserve, or that you're in a low-activity area; lulls happened even in the high tempo operations of WWII.\n\nThe idea of 'high tops' in hairstyles isn't out of the ordinary across any armies of WWII; the general rule of ['short sides, above the collar in the back'](_URL_1_) generally applies to every branch and army, with obvious variations. \n\nFinally, and as always, lets never forget that Band of Brothers is an interpretation of a book made for our entertainment; and such content will always have inconsistencies, as myself and /u/rittermeister have [discussed before](_URL_0_). \n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2mnys4/why_is_the_101st_easy_companys_neutralizing/", "http://cdn.ipernity.com/113/72/98/6847298.25ed17e7.640.jpg?r2", "http://www.90thidpg.us/Research/Original/Hairstyles/Images/Large/haircut.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "etcwyvo" ], "score": [ 32 ], "text": [ "Adapted from [an older answer](_URL_1_): \n\nIt's a myth that \"only the richest American families\" in southern states could own slaves, which is perpetuated mainly by Confederate apologists hellbent on arguing that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. \n\nSpoiler alert: it was about slavery. \n\n*Many* people in the antebellum South owned slaves. I wrote an answer on this awhile ago, adapted from the multiple times it's come up before. Before we get to that, here's a handy chart adapted from the 1860 census that looks at percentages of families who were enslavers, and percentages of enslaved people, in the seceding states and border states: \n\n## Enslavers and enslaved population by state \n\n### Seceding states \n\nState | Enslaver families by % of population | Enslaved people as % of population \n---|---|----\nAlabama | 35 | 45\nArkansas | 20 | 26\nFlorida | 34 | 44 \nGeorgia | 37 | 44 \nLouisiana | 29 | 47 \nMississippi | 49 | 55 \nNorth Carolina | 28 | 33 \nSouth Carolina | 46 | 57 \nTennessee | 25 | 25 \nTexas | 28 | 30 \nVirginia | 26 | 31 \n\n### Border states (did not secede) \nState | Enslaver families by % of population | Enslaved people as % of population \n---|---|----\nDelaware | 3 | 2 \nKentucky | 23 | 20 \nMaryland | 12 | 13\nMissouri | 13 | 10 \n\n[The answer I referenced above](_URL_7_): \n\nIt's funny you mention Twain, because he classified lies into three categories: lies, damn lies, and statistics. That statistic you quote is used by Confederate apologists to make it sound like the war wasn't about slavery. (It was about slavery.) To answer your second question first, while many enslaved people worked on slave labor camps (Monticello, Mount Vernon, etc), many households in the South owned \"only\" one or two enslaved people. \n\nAdapted from [an older answer](_URL_4_): \n\n > What percentage of whites owned slaves?\n\nIf you ask this question in this way, you'll get what seems to be a low number because it counts only property owners, who are heads of households, and not families/households who would benefit from the slave. (Think about it in this way: in my household I own a car, but my wife and child also benefit from my ownership of the car -- she drives it, he rides in it, we all use the groceries it brings home, etc.)\n\nIt also depends on whether you look at the percentage of slave owners (or slave-owning households) in the overall population of the U.S., or in slave states particularly.\n\nSo the better question is what percentage of *households* owned enslaved people. Here's a resource for the 1860 census which breaks down slave ownership by state: _URL_5_\n\nI wrote about this awhile back in the context of a border state: _URL_0_\n\nTo expand on that just a bit, the reason why how you count slave ownership matters is that if you state the question as \"what percentage of whites owned people in 1860\", you get a number that's about 8 percent of families owning enslaved people. (See the 1860 census link for context.) That number is often used by Confederate apologists to \"prove\" that the war couldn't be about slavery, because such a low percentage of households owned enslaved people. \n\nSo now we get into some basic stats. The 8 percent number is accurate, but it's also misleading, because fully half the states in the United States banned slavery, and those states held well over twice the population of the southern states -- about 22 million in the North, about 13 million in the South. Further, in the South, about 4 million of the population were slaves. So 22 million people were ineligible to own enslaved people right away, plus there were about four million enslaved people themselves -- so the question has to center on the population eligible to own enslaved people, that is, the remaining 8.2 million. \n\nIf you take a look through that [census link](_URL_5_) it's quite illuminating; slaveholding families ranged from a low of three percent of the population in Delaware, to highs 46 percent in South Carolina and 49 percent in Mississippi. It's also interesting to look at enslaved people as percentage of population, where 57 percent of South Carolina's population and 55 percent of Mississippi's were enslaved people. \n\nFor more on this, see also these threads: \n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_6_\n\n_URL_2_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2200dc/if_i_was_an_average_american_citizen_either/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/axtec4/precivil_war_america_if_very_few_people_in_the/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4vmrd0/at_the_peak_of_slavery_in_the_continental_united/d5zqps9/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/46ixsh/how_financially_privileged_was_slave_ownership_in/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4al3zm/approximately_how_many_americans_owned_at_least/d11yv26/", "http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2200dc/if_i_was_an_average_american_citizen_either/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/axjfp4/how_common_was_it_to_own_slaves_in_precivil_war/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "catjncc", "catp0qv", "catdkel" ], "score": [ 4, 2, 5 ], "text": [ "Irredentism is a fairly common phenomena. For a long, for instance, Greece had ambitions to take back eastern anatolia, which had once been part of the Greek Byzantine world, from the Turks, regardless of the fact that Turks mostly now lived there, and launched numerous wars to that effect. ", "Would the [Reconquista](_URL_0_) fit the same pattern?", "Check out the [Back to Africa Movement](_URL_0_) from 19th century America. It lead to the foundation of Liberia (fun fact: the capital of Monrovia is named after James Monroe!) \n\nSierra Leone has a similar history of resettlement in the foundation of the Province of Freedom, which was founded for the \"resettlement\" of black loyalists who fled the Revolutionary war in America, as well as other poor, free blacks from around the empire. \n\nNeither of the projects had smooth sailing.\n\nSource: Took a class called \"Small Wars in the Global Context\" Mostly covering cold war proxies and African civil wars. There were no overarching books on those topics, only some memoirs from reporter and child soldiers. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista" ], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-to-Africa_movement" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbmjesz" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I assume you're talking about an *acknowledged* illegitimate kid?\n\nIf so, and you're a boy, you'll probably be made a duke or an earl and the king will pay for you're upbringing and you'll have a very comfortable life, including favouritism for a political career if you want one. If you're a girl, you'll probably be married off to a peer.\n\nAlso, while it's unlikely, you may potentially be a candidate for the throne; both Henry I and Henry VIII had illegitimate sons that were at times considered potential successors." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d1xb8ho", "d1xgrgv" ], "score": [ 104, 105 ], "text": [ "While some anthropologists hang out here, you should X-post this to /r/AskAnthropology, as this well predates written history.", "The good fellows over at /r/AskAnthropology gave me some [wonderful answers](_URL_0_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/4e65dj/is_the_out_of_africa_hypothesis_still_widely/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c92lq6l" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "To answer briefly, there was a massive amount of contact between the two cultures. Trade continued between them in the early years, and after the Anglo-Saxon conversions were complete numerous missionaries were sent to different parts of Germany, the most famous being Boniface and Willibrord in the eighth century. I do not know, but I can't imagine that any Anglo-Saxons would have fought on the side of the pagan Saxons against Charlemagne, nor that they would have felt more kin with the Saxons specifically than other Germanic groups on the continent. Connections continued after Charlemagne, with one of Alfred's advisers being John the Old Saxon. If I remember right, there is also some evidence that the Old Saxon poem *Heliand* was copied in England in the late tenth century, but I forget the details on this at the moment." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fack6tn" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "I've written [pretty extensively](_URL_0_) before on the causes of the war, on [British war aims](_URL_2_) and their [alliance with American Indians](_URL_3_), and how they contrasted with [American goals](_URL_1_). To make a long story short, the British were defending their colonies in Canada and the Caribbean from an American invasion, and they had no interest in conquering the United States, at any point in the war.\n\nHowever, even in a purely defensive war, the British realized fairly quickly that passively defending their borders was not going to end the war quickly, and was unsuitable for the style of warfare preferred by their native allies - early, aggressive successes by British commanders like Isaac Brock earned the British a popular renown among American Indians, which contrasted heavily with Henry Procter. Brock was universally liked and respected by American Indians, and had a famous relationship with Tecumseh, who allegedly reported on meeting him: \"This is a man!\" Procter was likened to a bull, running away with its tail tucked between its legs. \n\nBut aggressive defense didn't necessarily mean that they were attempting to conquer the country, by any means. The goal was either to raid in such a devastating, sustained manner that the country would surrender or the civilian population would no longer support the effort (it was already *highly unpopular*), or to capture key cities and force a treaty on terms favorable to Great Britain. The (brief) capture of Washington was an effort to that end, and it should be noted that the destruction of public buildings was a recognized aspect of long 18th century warfare, and it was practiced on both sides. Burning the White House wasn't *necessary* and was viewed at the time as excessive, but it certainly wasn't beyond the pale, and Americans had done similarly in captured Canadian cities, as well.\n\nBy 1814, there were two large-scale efforts to end he war by capturing key cities. An invasion force assembled in Canada would sweep down into Northern New York, following Lake Champlain. A second force was being assembled in the Caribbean, and would invade the southern coast, capturing New Orleans. Of the two efforts, the New Orleans campaign was the more critical; New Orleans was an economic bottleneck, because it was where the Mississippi river met the sea, and a great deal of American agricultural produce was shipped down that river. With New Orleans in British hands, they would have a powerful bargaining chip with which to end the war.\n\nBoth of these campaigns ended in disaster, which gave a somewhat inflated impression to the American public that the war had been *won* when they heard news of the Treaty of Ghent following the battles of Platssburgh and New Orleans, more or less back-to-back.\n\nThe long term plan, such as it was, was *end the war*, hopefully from a position of strength. Being able to hand back an important city to the United States would be a powerful motivation to cave to British demands.\n\nI'll be happy to answer follow-ups.\n_____\n\nJon Latimer's *1812: War with America* and Donald Hickey's *The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict* are the two best overall histories of the war. For more on the American Indian role, check out John Sugden, *Tecumseh's Last Stand*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9mdy7o/who_won_the_war_of_1812_between_the_united_states/e7egpsx/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7xzsty/why_didnt_great_britain_invade_america_during_the/duchphe/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a96zwe/why_did_the_british_gave_away_maine_to_the_us_war/ech2e02/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/950o6u/what_did_great_britain_want_to_do_with_the_usa_if/e3pdyh6/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cvl6gdo" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "I'm no expert on this, but I'm currently reading [Steve Silberman's Neurotribes](_URL_0_), which is a cultural history of autism. It's not specifically about homosexuality, but it does delve into the use of electro-shock therapy on autistic children, as what's known as aversion therapy. Basically, the psychiatrist gives an order, and if it isn't followed, a shock is administered. Theoretically, the subject will learn to avoid the behavior on his/her own. \n\n[This article](_URL_1_) from the Huffington Post (but written by an archivist at the National Gay and Lesbian Archives) \nSilberman proposes that those administering these \"cures\" believed they were acting humanely. Given that it was deemed impossible to change the attitude of society toward homosexuality, it was more humane to change the undesired behavior. \n\n[This article](_URL_1_) (from the National Gay and Lesbian Archives) might also shed some light on your question. Remember that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder before 1973, and the prevailing attitude of psychologists seemed to rest on curing disorders, instead of either encouraging acceptance or studying how best to integrate into mainstream society. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.amazon.com/NeuroTribes-Legacy-Autism-Future-Neurodiversity-ebook/dp/B00L9AY254", "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-scot/shock-the-gay-away-secrets-of-early-gay-aversion-therapy-revealed_b_3497435.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cx9zknb" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "Precisely because they were able to calculate the circumference of the Earth. Ancient Greek ships weren't able to handle the open ocean, and it was thought all the way up until Columbus' time that there was nothing but open ocean between Europe and Asia. Sailors and explorers at the time would have wisely figured that they would die of thirst, starvation, or to a storm before they ever made it to the other side, and this was actually a huge obstacle for Columbus himself to get funding since everyone thought he would die. Any Greeks setting out to the West would know they would find a watery grave, and if any tried that's exactly what they got with their ships at the time." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d1n8hb9" ], "score": [ 13 ], "text": [ "[Punk in the Soviet Union](_URL_0_)\n\nedit: not in the 60's, but might be interesting." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fb02b/was_there_a_punk_subculture_in_the_soviet_union/?ref=search_posts" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpvqun8", "cpw0ahn" ], "score": [ 8, 212 ], "text": [ "If you check our [FAQ](_URL_0_) we have a whole section dedicated to pre-Columbian contact that may answer your question.", "Connections between what is now the American Southwest and Mesoamerican are so well established that it is almost inappropriate to think of them are entirely separate areas. These links were primarily trade based, not political or military, with products like [tropical birds/feathers](_URL_1_) and [cacao](_URL_4_), as well various other products like cotton, rubber, and copper goods flowing north from Mesoamerica in exchange for Southwestern goods, primarily turquoise (Phil Weigand's work is focused on this). There were cultural links as well, with Mesoamerican style ballcourts appearing in the Southwest and an endless discussion of whether symbolic elements of Southwest and Mesoamerican religions were borrowed, adopted, or simply convergent. McGuire's ([1980](_URL_3_)) paper is dated, but represents not only a seminal summation of the evidence for connections, but also a turning point in moving away from the older diffusionist idea that the complex societies in the Southwest were necessarily founded by long distance traders from Mesoamerica. \n\nThe Meso-SW connect, running up through West Mexico, reached its peak in the early (Mesoaemrican) Postclassic, about 900-1200 CE. This is pre-Aztec, after the decline of Teotihuacan and the Classic Maya, during the time when the Toltecs in Central Mexico and Chaco Canyon in the Southwest. There several sites in NW Mexico/SW US which flourished during this period as a result of this connect, such as Alta Vista and La Quemada. After this period, the Southwest and Mesoamerica see a [period of drought and aridity](_URL_0_) (ironically known better as the Medieval Warm Period) which would lead to a decline in these interstitial groups. This climatic change was also a factor in the dissolution of the dense, complex societies in the SW and would spur the migration of Nahua groups from the Chichimec region into the Basin of Mexico, where they would eventually found the Aztec state.\n\nOutside the Southwest, however, there is little indication of contact between Mesoamerica and other North American groups. Indeed, the only Mesoamerican linked artifact found outside the SW-Meso context is a [single obsidian scaper](_URL_2_). The inevitable question is \"why not more connection?\" but \"why\" is rarely a useful question in examining historical trends. One thing to take into account is the immense distances involved and the lack of pack animals. Direct trade between Tula and Cahokia, for instance, would *walking* from central Mexico to Missouri. Moreover, because humans can't graze like pack animals, it would have involved feeding all the porters carrying goods, which meant they would have had to carry supplies for themselves across long distances with uncertain resupply. Hassig in *Aztec Warfare* makes the case that these sort of logistic limitations were key in Mesoamerica being a hegemonic political system, rather than one that routinely exercised direct control. It's a useful concept to consider with regards to long distance trade as well. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/nativeamerican#wiki_pre-columbian_trade_and_contact" ], [ "http://www.pnas.org/content/107/50/21283.full", "http://kjknudson.com/publications_and_presentations/JAA_Somervilleetal_macaw.pdf", "http://www.jstor.org/stable/2694879", "http://www.jstor.org/stable/30247838", "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440311000689" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmdo9bt", "cmdoexw" ], "score": [ 17, 8 ], "text": [ "\"Punk\" was used to mean listless or generally poor. So this could be taken to mean that he was going to a party that was bland and he wasn't having a good time. Would that make sense in the context? Context is everything. References to this use of the term in North American slang appears in the Oxford English Dictionary.", "Punk as a word has been used some time before the explosion of punk rock in the ‘70s to refer to ruffians, street rats, or any sort of person that would be considered below you in some sense, usually lower class. Like in the famous Dirty Harry scene when he asks the \"punk\" how many shots he fired (this was in ‘71, the general accepted time that \"punk rock\" becomes used as a phrase for the scenes popping up in London and New York is about ‘76 or ‘77). That’s how the prostitution definition ties in, because of their association as a “lesser” class. Uses like this can be seen even further back than Dirty Harry. I don’t know when the first usage of it was, but it’s used in in Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, Act V, Scene 1:\n\n > My lord, she may be a punk; for many of them are neither maid, widow, nor wife.\n\nSometimes it was used (mainly in prison) to refer to the subservient on in a gay relationship (think like the equivalent of a contemporary \"prison bitch\"). There's a quote of it in the Jazz musician Mezz Mezzrow's autobiography from 1946 about this:\n\n > \"The real trouble between the two gangs was caused by a fact that Big Six, a colored boy, had a white \"punk\". A punk, if you want it in plain English, is a boy with smooth skin who takes the place of a woman in a jailbird's love life. I'm not going to apologize for Big Six; I'm just saying that the Southern boys had their punks too, plenty of them, but they resented a Negro doing the same things they did with a white boy\". (p.15)\n\nThe first uses of “punk rock” started to come along in the late 60’s early 70’s to describe the harder more striped down garage rock sound of bands like ? and the Mysterians. One of the first uses is mentioned in the note for the compilation album [*Nuggets: Original Artyfacts from the First Psychedelic Era, 1965–1968*](_URL_0_). I’m looking at the booklet included in the ’98 box set reissue, and the producer Lenny Kaye is talking about how him and his associates came to name punk rock by taking this (as he says) “young energy” style of playing rock n’ roll and mixing it with these more “rebellious” lower class aesthetics. They later changed the name to garage rock and “in ’77 the Sex Pistols appropriated it”.\n\nIt seems like overtime punk grew from meaning prostitute and prison bitch, to become anybody who was just the lowest of the low, then later it came to have the connotations of underclass rebelliousness and juvenile delinquency associated with current punk subculture. Without any more context of your relative’s life and the party, it’s hard to tell what exactly he might have meant, I’d assume since he’s upper class he was saying that either the party was full of people that he saw as “punks” or, possibly, he could be saying that at the party he thought it was worthless, or in poor taste. Granted, if he was a stereotypical \"good Christian\" like you say, then his definition of what constitutes a low life and low life behavior might be more expansive than someone else.\n\nReally it's hard to tell for sure without more information." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuggets:_Original_Artyfacts_from_the_First_Psychedelic_Era,_1965%E2%80%931968" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7oqwar", "c7orfdb", "c7ou96e", "c7ouobg", "c7oyk9b", "c7oykqa" ], "score": [ 3, 8, 4, 15, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Some did. The most prominent one in the north was probably Edward Winslow who was one of the political leaders a Plymouth. He was eventually recalled for diplomatic service by the new king. He died on a voyage to the West Indies.\n\nHere's the wiki for some more info.\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)", "Well, there were several failed colonization attempts, for example the [Scottish colony in Panama](_URL_0_) in the 1690's. The 300 survivors returned to Europe after only two years. From what I understand, a huge amount of money had been invested in the endeavor, and its failure was an economic and political disaster as well as a national tragedy.", "Early-ish is pretty vague but in the early 19th century as many as one out of three returned to Europe. The Irish were something of an exception averaging only 1/12 returning to Ireland due to unusual circumstances.", "In the seventeenth century it was pretty common for people to settle in the New World for a few years to fish, trap, or log before returning to Europe. Merchants in particular would often only stay in the New World long enough to set up agents or to collect enough goods to fuel their European operations. Newfoundland in particular was notable for a largely temporary and transient population during the seventeenth and much of the eighteenth century as workers, merchants, and planters would often return to Europe after a few seasons. \n\nIt may be unfair to call these people settlers since many of them never set out with the intention of permanently staying in the New World. ", "It was not unusual for Irish emigrants to go to the US and return home.\n\nIn the 19th century my great gr-gr-grandfather did it. \n\nIt was not unusual for transient workers and there is a book The Hard Road to Klondike by Michael McGowan describing just that. ", "Quite a few Puritans from the Massachusetts Bay Colony returned to England after their side won the English Civil War." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Winslow#Leadership_at_Plymouth_and_with_Cromwell_in_England" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darién_scheme" ], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjoepjz" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "A little while ago, there we had [a thread](_URL_0_) concerning this rather obscure topic. Perhaps you want to take a look at it." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2c1taj/part_of_the_nazi_party_platform_reads_we_demand/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c987esv", "c98abj4" ], "score": [ 6, 3 ], "text": [ "[Students for a Democratic Society](_URL_0_) was one of the most popular and powerful of the \"New Left\" student groups. SDS was founded in 1960, and permitted Communist party members within their ranks (this was a change from previous leftist student groups). SDS campaigned against the Cold War and militarism. They became the primary student opposition group to the Vietnam war, and grew immensely as that conflict developed. SDS didn't engage in overtly pro-Soviet activities (though they did allow Communists to march with them), but they were widely seen as being sympathetic to the Communist cause and agenda. \n\n\n\n\n", "AFAIK it was common for left-wing intellectuals to not only be \"any less hostile\" but actually be _sympathetic_ to the Soviet ( [see Angela Davis](_URL_0_) ) up to 1973 when [The Gulag Archipelago](_URL_1_) turned the public opinion of the left-wingers against the Soviets." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.sds-1960s.org/" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_davis", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago#Historical_impact_of_the_text" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "crv2cu4", "crv9w4n", "crvb08v" ], "score": [ 12, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Look up what they did in the Netherlands. They were very effective in gathering intelligence before the invasion, trained, supplied and provided information for the Brandenburgers who took vital bridges during the Invasion of May 1940, and managed to capture almost all Allied spies active in the Netherlands between 1940 and 1943, as part of Operation Northpole.\n\nMy source: Kingdom of the Netherlands during WW2, Loe de Jong", "Their legacy is a rather muddled one as it turns out. From 1935-1944 the chief of the Abwehr, Wilhelm Canaris, never appears to be wholeheartedly committed to the Nazi cause and would eventually be executed for high treason. \n\nWithout a doubt, there were likely some diehard Nazi's in the Abwehr but when the chief of the organization is...less than enthusiastic, I cannot imagine getting many results. For instance, he contributed to Francos' decision to refuse German access to Spanish land by providing arguments that Franco would later utilize. He assisted several jews in fleeing the country and made several connections to M16.\n\nSource - Bassett, Richard (2005). Hitler's Spy Chief: The Wilhelm Canaris Mystery. ", "German case officers were given a lot of free reign over their agents and operations. The control was much more decentralized than British Intelligence. \n\nThe careers of German case officers were also much more dependent on the success or failure of the agents each officer personally ran. This meant that even if they had private doubts about an agent (such as suspicions of being a double), they were obligated to keep supporting them as if nothing was wrong. \n\nThere were even case officers who nearly lost their lives based on their agent's operations. The case officer who ran double agent Eddie Chapman (\"Zigzag\" to the allies, \"Fritz\" to the Germans) was an Abwehr officer living the good life in occupied France. After Fritz was sent to the UK and disappeared for a few weeks, the case officer was transferred to the hell of the Eastern front in wintertime. After Fritz reappeared, the case officer was transferred back - but a shadow of his former self. \n\nWhereas the credit or blame for successes and failures of British agents was shared throughout the agency. This allowed the British to run larger, more complicated operations such as the Double Cross and Operation Fortitude. \n\nsource: the Ben Macintyre books: Double Cross, Agent Zigzag, and Operation Mincemeat." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ce4csnv" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "There are many, many examples of this in Roman civilisation alone. Not to put too fine a point on it, but are you aware of Julius Caesar and [crossing the Rubicon](_URL_0_)?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/caesar.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cie4jzd" ], "score": [ 25 ], "text": [ "Well, the archetypal form of those sorts of characters certainly existed. Tolkein, as a professor of English, was very aware of his influences and what he was drawing on. The later horde of fantasy authors ripping him off? Probably less so. \n\nOne of the earliest expressions of what this sort of archetype was the Yeoman introduced in the prologue of Chaucer's *Canterbury Tales*. He is the only attendant accompanying the Knight and Squire on pilgrimage, presumably as their bodyguard since he is well-armed and they are not mentioned to be bearing weapons. Just as the Knight and Squire are idealized representations of their \"types\" ( the Knight is a bold crusader and paragon of chivalry, the Squire is a fresh-faced youth jousting for the hand of a lady), the Yeoman is an idealized image of what yeomen could be. He's very well-armed, carrying his longbow, a sword, a dagger, and a buckler. He has \"a cropped head had he and a sun-browned face,\" from working outdoors and in the forests. The Yeoman's job, in peacetime, was to administer the forests on his lord's lands. This included apprehending poachers, stopping illegal logging or grazing, and watching over the deer population. Chaucer himself was once appointed as a forester, although his position was more administrative than the Yeoman's. It's never mentioned explicitly, but it's very possible that the Yeoman accompanied the Knight on crusade or in some other war. Standard English armies of the day were made up of large archer formations protected by men-at-arms. If the Yeoman did go to war with the Knight, it's possible that he would be a captain or other officer of the archers in the Knight's retinue. From his weapons and other equipment he's carrying (peacock-fletched arrows, a \"gay bracer,\" and a silver medal of St. Christopher), it's clear that the Yeoman is economically well-off and thus the sort of person who might raise a company of archers for service in war. The Yeoman is not mentioned to be mounted, but he could certainly afford a horse if he wanted one. Mounted archers were employed by the English for rapid movement on campaign, raiding, and scouting, although for pitched battles, they would dismount and fight on foot. \n\nSo how does that connect to the ranger archetype of modern fantasy fiction? Well, the \"ranger\" concept is essentially a blending of the roles of a yeoman archer. The peacetime duties of a forester and the wartime duties of an archer are blended into one role. Faramir's rangers^1 are actually a semi-accurate depiction of how yeoman archers fought. In the fight where they are introduced, they seem to have a force of archers deployed behind a screen of infantry. Their strategic purpose, disrupting enemy movement through Ithilien, is somewhat similar to the chevauchées of the Hundred Years War. A real chevauchée would often be focused on looting undefended villages rather than getting into larger fights, but sometimes the English launched large-scale raids for the purpose of forcing the French to come out and face them in pitched battles, which is a little closer to what Faramir seems to be doing. Lacking access to Gondorian accounts of their campaigns in Ithilien, it's hard to say how exactly Faramir was going about it. The only observers are Frodo and Sam, neither of whom had a keen eye for military details. The rangers of the *Ranger's Apprentice* series are a little more fantastical, since they seem to most closely resemble a 14th century CIA than any medieval archers. Fun for telling a YA fantasy story, but not really anything historical.\n\nTo sum up, the ranger archetype in fantasy fiction is an amalgamation of several different roles a yeoman might perform. Men with experience in foresting were considered to be the best source of archer recruits for a campaign, but they wouldn't be sneaking around on the battlefield wearing some kind of medieval camouflage. In a pitched battle, they'd be fighting in formation with the rest of their company. On campaign, they might be called on for raiding and scouting duties, but that wasn't a role exclusive to men with forestry experience. So the ranger archetype has roots in literary traditions and memories of medieval English archers, but isn't really reflective of their historical reality. \n\nEDIT (footnote)\n 1: That is, Faramir's rangers as they are depicted in the book *The Two Towers*. They're pretty much all Robin Hood in the movie. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dd5ur08" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "per capita what? Per artilleryman? Per frontline infantryman? Per European population?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cuywuld", "cuz1ccd", "cuz8tsd", "cuzie1j", "cuznw3r" ], "score": [ 874, 44, 23, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "The answer lies in our conception of magic. To most people in the modern world the first image that comes to mind is Harry Potter making things fly around the room, shooting big, violent spells everywhere. Historically, this is not how witches were seen. \n\nMagic was almost always related to a relationship with the Devil, which made it inherently evil. The witches gained their power by worshipping Satan. By doing his bidding on Earth, he in turn granted them with extraordinary powers. \n\nTheir resulting magic was much more subtle. Most reports from Europe and the Americas allege that a certain person cast some magic upon a cow and killed it or caused some crops to fail. Magic was used to harm others, but not in the direct way that we often see in popular culture. \n\nTake the Salem Witch Trials, perhaps the most famous example in American history. When a few girls started acting in a strange manner, screaming and writhing to draw attention, it was assumed that people had cast spells upon them to make them suffer. The results of this case aren't really important for your question, but this would be an example of a way that people believed magic took a direct and tangible effect.\n\nArresting and executing the witches was simply reasserting God's will on Earth. The witches were under guard and were never expected to bust out riding a broom while breathing fire. The most they could do was, in a rather lengthy time, slowly poison one's soul or cause incremental physical ailments. \n\nSo, since most of the time charges instead focused on abstract allegations of sabotage and rarely human violence, they were not too worried. Most mass-hysteria episodes coincided with difficult times economically, politically, or environmentally, but it was always easier to say, \"My cow died and I hate that girl. She's a witch!\" The girl could take revenge, but it'd be rather difficult for her to find the time to slowly implement her incremental magic if she's constantly under surveillance and then burned to death. \n\nEdit: Sorry for the lack of sources and formatting, I'm a little bit new here. \n\n* Dr. Brian Pavlac's book *Witch Hunts in the Western World: Persecution and Punishment from the Inquisition through the Salem Trials* is a good overview of the topic. If you want a quick version, his website lays it out pretty well with a few FAQs. \n\nFor example, regarding their conception of magic he writes, \"Usually the danger was seen in an organized conspiracy led by the Devil. Or the concern was witches causing harm (maleficia) through spells: raising storms, killing people or livestock, and/or causing bad luck.\" As people became more and more hysterical, the government almost always stepped in to counteract the Devil's influence, so it was very much an institutionalized phenomenon. \n\nHe also briefly comments on why outbreaks occurred in some places more than others. He writes, \"Historians are still trying to explain the reasons for this great variety in witch hunting. Important factors could have been: the power of the central government; the independence of local authorities; tensions created by war, failing economies, or famine; and uncertainties about religious conformity.\" \n\nFor more info on the Salem witch trials... \n\n* The rather famous Cotton Mather left a firsthand account of the trials. He describes how New England culture understood magic and its effects throughout. For example, he wrote the following of the first case that triggered the trials. \n\n > It was not long before one of her Sisters, an two of her Brothers, were seized, in.Order one after another with Affects' like those that molested her. Within a fe weeks, they were all four tortured every where in a manners very grievous, that it would have broke an heart of stone t have seen their Agonies. Skilful Physicians were consulted for their Help, and particularly our worthy and prudent Friend Dr. Thomas Oakes,' who found himself so affronted by the Dist'empers of the children, that he concluded nothing but an hellish Witchcraft could be the Original of these Maladies. \n\nAs you can see they didn't believe witchcraft worked anything like we do today. Because of this their fear of a witch locked up in a jail cell was naturally much different than our's would be. \n\nThere are many more books on the Salem Witch Trials, and it really is fascinating to look at why the entire thing happened. \n\n* I'd recommend *The Salem Witch Trials: A Day-By-Day Chronicle of a Community Under Siege* by Maryilynne K. Roach. It's essentially a timeline of the whole thing with the historical context. It's kind of long, but very informative, and not overly academic. \n\n* For a more scholarly take try *Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England* by John Demos. \n", "I have to ask a follow-up. Knowing how the \"tests\" for being a witch were tests no one could pass, for example, I have often wondered if those prosecuting witches really believed in it or was that just political rhetoric. Have we any evidence historically that the powers that be really believed in it as much as the townspeople did? Were there any prosecutors who, through their writings, let on in some way that they did not believe but were promoting an agenda of some sort?", "I think it might be interesting to add something to the top answer.\nI'm especially addressing the period of the 16th century in northestern Italy - but many of those consideration can be extended to central Europe during the same period.\n\n\nFor many people, especially in rural communities, the belief in witchcraft was deeply connected with the belief in god; thus the practice of religion, the traditional rites and rituals connected with the passing of the seasons, the cultivation of the fields accordingly to the lunar phases, etc. were deeply blended together. To believe in god, the devil, angels was almost the same to those people as to believe in curses and charms. And practicing this kind of magic was not necessarily in contrast with the belief in god and the church for them. \n\n\nNot only there were persons believed to have those kind of powers but they believed themselves to possess the ability to do those things, at least in certain special periods of the year. You can check [this](_URL_0_) wikipedia article or rather the main source, if you have it available (unfortunately I have it only in italian), which is: \n\nGinzburg, Carlo (1983) [1966]. The Night Battles: Witchcraft and Agrarian Cults in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. John and Anne Tedeschi (translators). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. ISBN 978-0801843860.\n\n\nHere the author mainly focuses on a group of people that called themselves \"Benandanti\" which I might translate with \"the ones who walk in the good\" and claimed to fight the evil doers. Many of them were born with a caul, which was thought of as a good omen. \n\n\nIn the words of one of them (I'm quoting from the wiki page, rather than translating myself from italian, but there are many other interesting testimonies from the book if you can find the engish version):\n\n\n*I am a benandante because I go with the others to fight four times a year, that is during the Ember Days, at night; I go invisibly in spirit and the body remains behind; we go forth in the service of Christ, and the witches of the devil; we fight each other, we with bundles of fennel and they with sorghum stalks.*\n\n\nTherefore you have people testifying they were walking around in spirit to fight against devils - some of them referred to themselves as \"God's hounds\". They admitted to perform charms and to have experienced temptation by the devil in various forms. In fact many trials in the region started with genuine interest from the church into these kind of beliefs, to determine wheter these people were lunatics or really practicing some sort of magic. Anyway those beliefs appear to have been rather common and widespread.\n\n\nThose ideas survived long after the witchcraft trials ended and you can still find traces of it in local folklore. For example in many cities in northern Italy they still celebrate the new year with the burning of a straw figure representing a witch, in order to favour a good reaping season. And in italian you still say that someone is \"nato con la camicia\" i.e. born with the amniotic sac to signify that he is somewhat \"fortunate\" or even \"charmed\". Similar expressions survive in other central euroepan countries.\n\n\nThus people were actually living in a complex net of - sometimes hard to concilate - beliefs, taken in between the church and its desire to establish a moral and material authority and traditions rooted in the pagan folklore. Many tried to concilate those contrasting issues by making up a system of beliefs which included and mixed together a bit of everything. In this context putting witches to trial was a way to prevent famines, fight epidemics, avoid injuries and people percieved and used those trials in a way not much different than taking care of murderers or thieves, for the belief in these kind of supernatural forces was deeply rooted in their society.\n\n\nI hope I didn't wander too far from the original question and this might be of interest to some.", "I've been generally under the impression that often magical activities occur b/c of some form of intoxication. (I don't have any sources, and it's quite possible that I'm talking out my ass.) Is there any validity to this? \n\nFollow-up: have there been significant periods in Western history when magic has been seen as a primarily good or helpful activity, or has it always been vilified?", "For a book that may complicate your understanding of witchcraft, I recommend [The Night Battles](_URL_0_), by Carlo Ginzburg" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benandanti" ], [], [ "https://books.google.com/books?id=LngTuKdHLiIC" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "emedv6g", "emg3jiu" ], "score": [ 12, 3 ], "text": [ "I highly recommend [this thread](_URL_1_) by /u/knight117 and [this one](_URL_0_) by /u/kardlonoc which both deal with the question you ask. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe TL;DR is \"sort of\". They trained but primarily in a more functional sense. Weapons practice, horsemanship, hunting, exercises in armor etc are all demanding activites. Added to this there seems to have been a relatively widespread focus on more general fitness among knights-to-be which involved things like lifting or throwing rocks, wrestling, climbing, jumping and running.", "I will chime in again to sort of summarize the previous topic that was nearly four years ago as /u/superplaner linked. It is a excellent source and discussion. \n\nThe source of this is this article:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nTo answer your question, yes they did. There are pictures of knights and fencers lifting stones and throwing stones as part of their practice. However lifting wasn't 'dedicated' as it is today.\n\nTo explain a good comparison is a modern day boxer, fighter or Olympic fencer to be more on point. These athletes spend a majority of their time training, a ton of time in the doing what they do and practicing but also a good amount of time on general fitness such as running, lifting, stretching and whatever else they need to do. Boxers sometimes spend more time running in training than they do boxing just to amp up their endurance. \n\nAnother good comparison is soldiers which knights were. Soldiers don't spend all their time lifting, but rather training that allows them to be well organized at all times as a group in whatever they do with some practice into shooting and CQC. \n\nTo understand that, that while there was lifting, the act of practicing swordsmanship was generally strength training enough for them and the most effective. The article points out that new soldiers would often start off with weapons that were double the weight of the normal weapons and then would switch to normal weapons for real fights. \n\nBut do understand strength wasn't the only goal but obviously to use the sword to the best of your ability. To that regard, modern day weightlifters would be stronger than most knights...in terms of lifting weights\n\nBut as cheesy as it sounds strength wasn't pure back then, strength came from wielding a weapon of some kind, be it a sword or a bow that needed to be pulled and all the techniques that came with that. \n\nWhat knights did was not pure strength training as we know it but it was done to increase the physical strength of knights to a certain degree." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2h2kwv/did_medieval_exercise_include_pushups_or_situps/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6lhry3/how_did_medieval_knights_stay_fit_for_combat/" ], [ "http://www.thearma.org/essays/fit/RennFit.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cvd6azt" ], "score": [ 13 ], "text": [ "For one, the Roman Empire was actually not a very innovative entity. There are a few pieces of advanced technology like concrete which would not be re-discovered until after the renaissance but for the most part the Empire was simply good at achieving the economy of scale through mass deployment of capital to accomplish public works projects (i.e roads, Coliseum) using existing technology.\n\nSecond of all the Medieval era had a -higher- rate of technological advancements than the Roman period. The medieval period saw significant advances in agricultural techniques (i.e the two fields/three fields system), equipment (i.e the heavy plow, better shipping) and machinery (i.e the windmill and the mechanical clock). While they \"looked\" less impressive than the Coliseum those are in fact more important in enhancing productivity and building up the basis for industrialization (i.e the first mechanical looms in the 18th century).\n\nThe other big thing is that people have a tendency to emphasis hardware (i.e steam engines, concrete) but it was really \"software\" (i.e commercial institutions which allows capital to be routed towards industrialization) which was probably the more important factor in industrialization. \n\nLast of all it should noted that the eastern half of the Empire (Byzantium) actually did survive for another 1000 years and did not industrialize. The idea that Rome was a lost technological paradise when compare to the Medieval era doesn't hold water upon closer examination." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c32s45m", "c32vb02", "c32xa0r", "c32s45m", "c32vb02", "c32xa0r" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "It depends on how far you wish to go with the ideas. The ideas of Francis Bacon certainly weren't new to Europe, and he really didn't have any breakthrough with science. He didn't make calculus or describe the motions of the stars. Roger Bacon said everything he did many years before; and even he was influenced by Middle Eastern scientists.\n\nThough Diderot was of importance, he is greatly overshadowed by Rousseau and Montesquieu.\n\nLocke v Hegel is incomplete, as Hobbes was greatly against everything Locke stood for, and that's not even mentioning Hume.\n\nRussell's \"History of Western Philosophy\" is a great text on Western Philosophy, and there's quite a few sections on Enlightenment era philosophy in it that are in detail without being boring. Drawing on that should help quite a bit", "I am posting this so I come back later but one of the best things for this, depending on your students, could be a French Revolution simulation. I will come back with more when I have not been awake for 20 hours.", "As a student, I found this progression logical and chronological: starting with astronomy (we covered the Ptolemaic system first for background, then Copernicus, then Kepler and Galileo), using Newton as a bridge, then logic (compare/contrast Bacon and Decartes), then covering the social aspects (talking about various philosophes).\n\nWe read excerpts from Descartes' Discourse on the Method, Bacon's Novum Organum, and Newton's Principia. In small sections they are manageable.", "It depends on how far you wish to go with the ideas. The ideas of Francis Bacon certainly weren't new to Europe, and he really didn't have any breakthrough with science. He didn't make calculus or describe the motions of the stars. Roger Bacon said everything he did many years before; and even he was influenced by Middle Eastern scientists.\n\nThough Diderot was of importance, he is greatly overshadowed by Rousseau and Montesquieu.\n\nLocke v Hegel is incomplete, as Hobbes was greatly against everything Locke stood for, and that's not even mentioning Hume.\n\nRussell's \"History of Western Philosophy\" is a great text on Western Philosophy, and there's quite a few sections on Enlightenment era philosophy in it that are in detail without being boring. Drawing on that should help quite a bit", "I am posting this so I come back later but one of the best things for this, depending on your students, could be a French Revolution simulation. I will come back with more when I have not been awake for 20 hours.", "As a student, I found this progression logical and chronological: starting with astronomy (we covered the Ptolemaic system first for background, then Copernicus, then Kepler and Galileo), using Newton as a bridge, then logic (compare/contrast Bacon and Decartes), then covering the social aspects (talking about various philosophes).\n\nWe read excerpts from Descartes' Discourse on the Method, Bacon's Novum Organum, and Newton's Principia. In small sections they are manageable." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cfjk1dl", "cfjlt57" ], "score": [ 102, 35 ], "text": [ "This is a great question and a fascinating one. It's always difficult to tell what the average person's life was like in antiquity. If you ever study Alexander's life in depth, you'll run into many unanswered questions and conflicting accounts. If a figure as famous as Alexander remains mired in ambiguity, imagine how tough it is to pinpoint the life of this \"average man\".\n\nFirst, it's reasonable to conclude that the average soldier didn't know they were going to the edge of the known world. The most they knew was that, after the Greeks were suppressed, they were headed for Asia Minor. Alexander probably didn't even know he was going to end up in India.\n\nIt's also important to note that these weren't people randomly joining up. Alexander's father, Phillip II, handed him \"the most perfectly organized, trained, and equipped army of ancient times\", according to JFC Fuller (maybe hyperbole/exaggeration but it illustrates the point well.) \n\nSecond, death was not \"certain\" any more than death is \"certain\" in any military campaign. Why does anyone do anything? Because it's a job; because there's treasure abroad; because there's honor in battle; because your culture and society expects you to fight; because you've been raised as a warrior since birth; because they were conscripted during the campaign; because they fought as allies for political reasons or as mercenaries for monetary gain.\n\nThere's thousands of reasons why someone would fight. With the dearth of primary sources (e.g. \"Dear diary, I am joining Alexander's army because XYZ\") it's difficult to pinpoint what the average soldier lived like, much less what ambiguous concepts and paradigms drove them to pick up a spear and go kill people in Asia Minor.\n\nThe primary sources we do have are often Alexander's top lieutenants talking about the man himself, troop movements in the aggregate, grand strategy, and so on. When they do address the troops, it's usually as brief as \"the troops were happy because we won\" or \"the troops were pissed for lots of reasons. Then Alexander gave a great speech that everyone loved.\"\n\nYour third question is a little easier. We know a fair amount about what life was like. For instance, Alexander had this group of elite soldiers called the Heitairoi, or the \"Companion Cavalry\". We know that they loved to do two things: Drink and hunt. Alexander himself got some pretty serious alcohol poisoning during a big party with the Hetairoi a few weeks before he died. It's hard to tell from the sources, but they certainly seem related.\n\nWikipedia is a pretty good source on the Hetairoi. This article seems moderately well sourced and accurate: _URL_0_\n\nWe know plenty aout the more technical details; equipment, logistics, and so on. The average soldier's load, for instance, was thirty pounds. Most were on foot, but the wealthier soldiers were on horseback. Most of the gear was carried by troops, rather than servants or pack animals, which meant the army was mobile and flexible (but that also means the every individual dude was humping his own gear for thousands of miles on foot). There are lots of sources about this and they're easy to find; some of my info comes from here: _URL_2_\n\nMany of these young soldiers found wives in Asia Minor, following the \"conquering\" of the Persian Empire. Some accounts suggest Alexander encouraged this.\n\nPeter Sommer's writings are highly interesting. He's not really a historian, but he replicated Alexander's journey on foot. There's a documentary on YouTube where he makes a bunch of observations about what it must've been like. You can read more here: _URL_1_\n\nUltimately, the best place to look to is the sources. The original accounts of Alexander's lieutenants have been lost, but we have five main surviving accounts based on those lost accounts: Arrian, Curtius, and Diodorus Siculus (also Justin and Plutarch but those wouldn't help answer your question at all). These are fairly cheap. They are also probably available on google scholar, perseus or some other database.", "First of all, there have been a lot of people recently on this sub using the term \"Hellenic Period.\" There is no such thing as the Hellenic Period. Greek history in antiquity is divided into the Dark Ages, the Archaic Period, the Classical Period, and the Hellenistic Period. The Roman Period is also referred to, and the Mycenaean and Minoan Periods are often referred to, although the technically correct thing to do is to refer to them by their Helladic Bronze Age labels.\n\nOkay, got that through with. I once had a professor who explained the purpose behind war and joining an army in the ancient world with a single sentence: booty. Obviously it's more involved than simply grabbing plunder, but for an ordinary man, even for a king the spoils of war from plunder alone are incredibly vast. The study of ancient economies has shown generally that warfare was one of, if not the singlemost, important economic activity for most ancient societies at a certain level, and even past that level of development it is still of enormous importance. The promises of sharing in the spoils of war would be incredibly important for an ordinary soldier, something that is clear again and again in accounts of armies from Hannibal to Caesar and even to Xerxes. With regards to Alexander, remember that the troops of the Phalanx probably weren't paid, unlike the mercenaries in the army, until towards the end of the campaign, when they demanded from Alexander what they were due.\n\nBut I said it was more complicated than that. Well, yes, it is. But it varies greatly from place to place. The feeling of necessity to follow a strong leader in antiquity is a pretty strong one, often descending from rituals and the traditions of ancestors, i.e. you follow your leader because it's the thing to do. Members of ancient societies don't really follow the same thought processes that we might, particularly in weighing the pros and cons of a decision like this. They'd just do it because it's considered necessary. \n\nSo I said that it varies. What about Macedon? The kingdom of Macedon was extremely backward compared to the rest of the Greek world. So backward, in fact, that it preserved social customs that had been lost *in the Dark Age* or even before. Yeah, that old. That archaic. In particular, scholars often stress the degree to which the Macedonian society which Philip took over resembled that of Homeric Greece. It's an analogy that can easily be taken too far, but in many ways it's very true. Macedonian society was grounded in a highly hierarchical system of barons, lords, and vassals, and while the individual man wasn't really a serf the way he might be in the Middle Ages, he still owed direct allegiance to his lord. The Macedonians of Alexander's army serving in the Phalanx would've thought of their service more or less along the same lines as the faceless masses of men standing behind the champions in Homer. They were there because their lords had gone to war and they owed their lords a duty. \n\nThat of course isn't the only reason. Human beings are complicated, and Philip's levies were taking place at a time when he was trying to restructure Macedonian society (or at least the aristocracy) in a revolutionary way. But they're certainly very important reasons and ones that would've been foremost in the minds of the soldiers. I think the most important objection that can be made to all of this is the mutiny of the soldiers. If Macedonian society was so rigid that troops would allow themselves to be conscripted (remember that these guys aren't going voluntarily, but because their lords have conscripted them) why would they revolt? For one thing, it didn't even occur to them to revolt for years, despite all the hardships they faced. Many scholars see it as an indication of just how hard these men were pushed by the end that it finally broke out in revolt, not only against their king, but against their lords as well. It's also an indication of just how rapidly Macedonian society changed during that time.\n\nNow, I haven't really answered the question satisfactorily, and I'm aware of that. The difficulties in ascertaining a person's motives without any direct evidence are of course immense, but I what I've tried to do is steer you towards the right path in understanding the cultural and social stimuli that would've been driving these men. The best thing to do is to really acquaint yourself with the social and cultural idiosyncrasies of Macedonian society to really get a handle on the way these people thought. I recommend taking a look at Hammond--he's somewhat out of date, but his work on Macedonian society and how it influenced Alexander is quite important. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companion_cavalry", "http://www.petersommer.com/travel-writing/alexander-the-great-travel-article/", "http://books.google.com/books?id=OiMWqRokCZ4C&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=alexander+the+great+average+soldier&source=bl&ots=mhOgLzEmRR&sig=4wDkMY4yCakAv9UOG_RPuGDGYR8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ECMFU9DwKYrp0AGanYCIBw&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=alexander%20the%20great%20average%20soldier&f=false" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdtb59e", "cdticjb" ], "score": [ 23, 10 ], "text": [ "Having asked my colleagues at #Twitterstorians, they suggested the following piece, which should answer your question.\n\n_URL_0_", "War reenactment was an early sort of 'roleplaying', where people dress in the uniforms of armies and reenact battles\n\nThere was a reenactment of the battle of Gettysburg at the \"Great Reunion\" in 1913.\n\nSource: _URL_0_\n\nIn England, the \"Sealed Knot Society\" was created in 1968 to reenact battles from the English Civil War.\n\nSource: _URL_1_\n\nMilitary reenactment as a form of \"roleplaying\" probably predates roleplaying games. \n\nOf course, participating in stage plays with an historical setting is a form of 'roleplaying' which probably predates all others." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.robmacdougall.org/blog/2007/05/dungeon-master-zero/" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War_reenactment", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sealed_Knot_(reenactment)" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cegls48", "ceglwmo", "cegxw33", "ceh7htd", "cekzwxg", "cemg78o" ], "score": [ 22, 152, 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Jewish names can be patronymic, matronymic , occupation or place names, or even chosen for their cadence! for example:\n\n**Patronymic**\nson or sohn, eg *Mendelssohn* - son (yiddish)\nwich or witz, eg *Stanowitz* -Son (slavic origin)\n**Matronymic and Craft**\nMan, eg *Goldman* - Gold from Golde, Man Meaning Husband of.\nMan is also used in occupation and craft names, eg **WASSER** (Water)man , meaning water carrier or **ACKER** (plow) man.\n\n**Place of Origin**\nNames ending in Y/ Ski can often be denoting place of origin, eg, *Berliny* or *Goranski*.\n\n**Common name composites and their meanings**\n\n**Stein** - Stone ,\n**Berg** - Mountain ,\n**Bloom** - Flower ,\n**Fein** -Fine ,\n**Baum** - Tree ,\n**Rosen **- Rose ,\n**Blatt **- Leaf ,\n**Zweig** - Branch ,\n**Tal **- Valley ,\n**Schmidt** - Smith.\n\nHope this is helpful. My own family name is a place name, a Y being added to their place of origin.\n\n", "I think you're falling victim to a bit of a logical fallacy here. The \"-berg\" and \"-stein\" names have become stereotypically Jewish in the Anglophone world because many Jews have them, but by no means were these names exclusive to Jews in Europe. Fair warning, I'm not Jewish myself, but:\n\nJews did not really even have traditional surnames in Europe (again, we're discussing Ashkenazi Jews here, which is only one branch) until around the 19th Century. This started under Emperor Joseph II of Austria-Hungary, who issued something called [The Edict of Tolerance](_URL_0_) in 1782. This recognized, to some extent, religious freedom for Jews, but five years later, the Emperor also [compelled them to adopt German surnames](_URL_1_). Prussia did the same thing not long after. Then, when Napoleon took over most of Europe, he also compelled Jews in various regions to adopt surnames. \n\nThe reason many of these surnames have suffixes like -berg, and -stein isn't totally clear. Some may be because Jews adopted the surnames of the local lord of their region, many of whom had names ending like this. Others may be because Jews often were given toponymic names, because this was the most obvious option. Jewish names like Deutsch and Frank, for example, are general toponyms, but you might also get more specific like von Mises or Krakauer. Sephardic names, also, are almost entirely locality based: Silva, Navarro, etc. \n\nSince -berg often ended places that were near or associated with mountains, this is a possible origin of the commonality with Jewish names. It's also possible that since Jews were picking these out, that some of them were artificially created and just based on town or locality names, like Rosenberg or Birnbaum. \n\nSome Jews paid lots of money to have nice names, which is why you have a lot of association with gold and silver and diamonds and such. Others got new names when they immigrated from Europe to America or elsewhere and were compelled to give names at the immigration office -- this would explain names like Greenberg, an amalgamation of English and German. \n\nAlso, like anyone else, Jews sometimes took or were given names associated with their professions. So names like \"stein\" or \"Steiner\" being associated with Jews might have been because they were jewelers or stonecutters. This is also why names like Kaufmann and Marchant are popular with Jews, along with Schumacher, Gerber, Spielmann, etc. Even names like Banks. None of which, I might add, are considered at all exclusive to Jews.\n\nAnyway, I'm digressing. The simple answer to your question is that those types of endings are just stereotypically associated with Jews in the Anglophone world, probably due to so many Jews with names of that nature being prominent in show business (among other areas). But those names are also common to many non-Jewish Europeans: Stefan Edberg is not Jewish, for example, nor was [Baron vom Stein](_URL_2_), for another.", "This might be divergent enough for a whole other thread, but what about Russified German-Jewish last names: Shteyngart (Steinhart), Vayner (Wiener), et al? Did the migration of Ashkenazi eastward actually happen after this point?", "When the Jews were forced to take German surnames, many chose to carry their Jewish history with them in the form of cryptic alludes to the Jewish culture/religion. There are many examples with many names. Some took names that sounded similar to Jewish names and tribes.\n\n* Meier/Meyer (\"dairy farmer\"): One of the most common German names also became a common Jewish name because of it's closeness to *Meir*. An illustration is Golda Meir who was Golda Meyerson before she \"re-hebrewed\" her name.\n\n* Rubin (\"ruby\"): Similar to Ruben.\n* Selig/Seligmann (\"blessed\") for *baruch*\n* Zucker (\"sugar\") for Zacharias\n\nOthers alluded to fruits of the holy land or biblical figures\n\n* Baum (\"tree\") for Abraham, the founder of the Jewish family tree.\n\n* Teitelmann (\"Figman\")\n\n* Stammler (\"stutterer\") for Moses \n\nColors and animals were used in names according to their symbolization of Jewish tribes\n\n* Roth (\"red\") for Ruben\n* Löwe/Löw/Loeb (\"lion\") for Juda\n* Grün (\"green\") for Simeon\n\nAnd some were downright obscure, like\n\n* Maus (\"Mouse\") for Moses\n* Apfel/Epi (\"Apple\") for Ephraim\n* Oppermann/Opfermann (\"Sacrifice man\") for Cohen\n* -burg or -berg for *baruch*\n \nThe tl;dr is really: The distinct sound of German-Jewish surnames exists because many Jews tried to bring a little piece of their own culture and religion into those new, forced names.\n\n[Source.](_URL_0_)", "Just saw this on /r/linguistics and thought of you, OP!\n\n[An interesting Slate piece on Jewish surnames.](_URL_0_)", "I found this to be relevant to the discussion: _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1782_Edict_of_Tolerance", "http://sh1.webring.com/people/bt/touviagoldstein/documents.html", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Friedrich_Karl_vom_und_zum_Stein" ], [], [ "http://books.google.fr/books?id=4LssAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false" ], [ "http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/01/08/ashkenazi_names_the_etymology_of_the_most_common_jewish_surnames.html" ], [ "http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/01/08/ashkenazi_names_the_etymology_of_the_most_common_jewish_surnames.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "denik7n" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "North and South Korea both claim to be the one true Korea with the other one being an illegitimate government. Historically, both sides have legitimate claims with Pyongyang and Kaeseong both being major capital cities of former dynasties during Korea's 5000 year history.\n\nAfter the Korean War, both sides attempted to claim legitimacy on the international stage through diplomacy. They would sign deals with other nations usually with the caveat that those nations not recognize the other Korea. Naturally, the Cold War participants and their allies aligned with the respective Korea's with the Third World being the toss-up countries.\n\nSouth Korea had much more recognition during the 50's and 60's due to the fact that the UN backed the South during the Korean War. In the early 1970's, North and South Korea began to talk and with that came more recognition for the North. By 1991, both Koreas wanted into the UN and were only allowed in on the condition that both of them were allowed in as separate, recognized countries.\n\nAs to why they have so few *allies*, that has to do with the collapse of communism. North Korea has mutual defense treaties with China and Russia. Previously, the Russia deal was with the USSR. At the DMZ, the northern neutral observers were from Poland and Czechoslovakia, two (now three) countries that have been part of NATO for the past 15-20 years. With the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, Soviet allies fell away leaving only Russia and China.\n\nWhy don't they get more allies? Who would want to be their ally? In the 1980's, the North attempted to assassinate the South's president in Rangoon, killing multiple people in the attempt, they blew up a Korean Air flight, and they kidnapped Japanese and South Korean civilians. In the 90's, they pulled out of the Non-Proliferation treaty and began pursuing nuclear weapons. You can look at what they've done in the last 20 years (VX nerve agent assassination in a major international airport?!?!) and draw your own conclusions as to why no one is rushing to jump on the North Korean bandwagon these days." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dca4oie" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "For both Louis the Pious and his son Charles the Bald, these were both names by which they were known during their lifetimes. As for Charles' opinions on his nickname, we've no record of how he felt about it, but he might well have like it and found it funny, since it's possible that it was ironic, and that he was in fact an unusually hairy man - given that we know the name was used during his lifetime and any contemporary depiction of him has a full head of hair.\n\nAs for the why, I'm not sure I can answer that one. It does help to distinguish between kings with the same name who ruled around the same time (like all the later Louis' in French history), but given that Louis the Pious was also Louis I, that doesn't really hold up. I've never read an explanation of it, to be honest - sorry!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dat313m" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Hey there, AskHistorians allows homework questions, but other people can't do the work for you - for the way HW questions are treated on here see [the rules](_URL_0_) and [this roundtable discussion](_URL_1_). To boil it down, you have to show that you've done some work yourself and specify the question - where do you hit the wall when using your sources? Are you looking for better ones/ones specific to a certain angle? Is there one part of your research of which you'd like to know more about? Say what you know, try to narrow down your inquiry and someone knowledgeable might help you with that. Good luck!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_homework", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4cb022/rules_roundtable_8_the_raskhistorians_homework/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cugmmwf" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "This goes well within the 20 year rule, you may want to ask this on a religious oriented sub, such as /r/Catholicism or /r/Christianity.\n\nAs an aside, the church can have jobs outside just being a priest. I know my local pastor is also a successful doctor, and a local brotherhood prints and publishes books, though they still use lots of donations." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccldrty" ], "score": [ 32 ], "text": [ " > You'll find details on this point (and precise references) in Cajori's History mathematical notations, 340. He credits Descartes in his La Géometrie for the introduction of x, y and z (and more generally, usefully and interestingly, for the use of the first letters of the alphabet for known quantities and the last letters for the unknown quantities) He notes that Descartes used the notation considerably earlier: the book was published in 1637, yet in 1629 he was already using x as an unknown (although in the same place y is a known quantity...); also, he used the notation in manuscripts dated earlier than the book by years.\n\n_URL_3_\n\nThe book\n_URL_2_\n\nAlso check out\n _URL_4_ Earliest Uses of Various Mathematical Symbols\n\nParticularly\n_URL_0_ \n Earliest Uses of Symbols for Variables\n\n\nAnd _URL_1_\nEarliest Known Uses of\nSome of the Words of Mathematics\n\n\nSorry if answer is brief/badly formatted, I'm on my phone. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://jeff560.tripod.com/variables.html", "http://jeff560.tripod.com/mathword.html", "http://archive.org/details/historyofmathema031756mbp", "http://mathoverflow.net/questions/30307/explanation-why-x-y-z-are-always-variables/30414#30414", "http://jeff560.tripod.com/mathsym.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dx30wk2" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "[From a previous answer](_URL_0_):\n\nSo the history of the KKK and the Nazi movement isn't a particularly big one, but given the similarities - being largely centered around ideologies of racial exclusion - it shouldn't be a surprise that they did, occasionally, intersect.\n\nAs far as Nazi Germany itself goes, it isn't entirely clear just how aware Hitler and the Nazi movement even was of the Ku Klux Klan. To start, the Klan itself had a very minimal presence in Germany. A Klan inspired group, the Order of the Knights of the Fiery Cross, was founded in Berlin in 1925 by three Americans, but doesn't seem to have been explicitly connected to the American KKK, and its membership seems to have capped at under 400. IT was quite short-lived, and had no real impact, being just one of many small groups that popped up during the Weimar period. Some members likely went on to join the Nazi Party, but there was no direct connection with the NSDAP.\n\nHitler's associate Ernst 'Putzi' Hanfstaengl claimed that Hitler broached the idea of cooperation with the Klan, but Putzi is not necessarily the most reliable source, as the German-American 'Old Fighter' had a hard fall from grace and later worked for the Americans during the war. Putzi, with his American heritage, would certainly be aware, and others in the Nazi hierarchy made comments on the Klan, such as Alfred Rosenberg, whose Party journal *Der Weltkampf* published several articles which made mention of the Klan in the mid-1920s, but Hitler seems to have left no explicit mentions which would demonstrate his personal familiarity. That said of course, Hitler did make broader public statements which expressed approval for the Jim Crow regime of the American south, and other Nazi publications likewise do disturbingly positively of Southern racism. Grill and Jenkins characterize an article by E. van Elden published in 1927 thus:\n\n > Elden graphically described the burning of a black man who had been accused of raping a white woman in a small Georgia community. The author questioned whether lynching was ever justified and concluded that it was actually essential whenever blacks raped white women. Any other lynching, however, represented only mob rule. Elden easily saw German parallels with the American South because of \"the lust of black beasts in the Rhineland.\" One could not blame southerners, concluded the article, for attempting to protect women from the \"moral depravity of Negroes.\"\n\nSo in short, while explicit praise for the Klan was quite limited within the Nazi party, this likely reflects a lack of familiarity, as there was certainly \"appreciation\" for the kind of extremist racial views that the Klan held. Somewhat Ironically, Americans also saw the similarity, using it to lambast the Klan as the \"nearest approach that any American organization has to the Nazi party in Germany\", as the Birmingham News wrote in 1933. An important thing to keep in mind though is that by the time when the Nazis rose to power and Americans were paying attention to it... the Klan had significantly collapsed, losing its power through the 1920s and having fairly limited influence in the 1930s. The American South was still *rife* with racism and neck deep in Jim Crow, but many Southern newspapers followed the lead of the Birmingham News, vociferously condemning the Nazi movement in the 1930s as similar to the \"extremists\" of the KKK, while entirely missing the irony in condemning Nazi Germany's \"[denial] to a whole class of its people their equal rights as citizens on account of their Jewish descent\" while themselves instituting a regime of racial exclusion against African-Americans. Black publications followed suit in their condemnations of Nazi racial doctrine, but of course took a much more open-eyed stance as they compared it to the situation on their own doorstep, such as with a 1938 editorial in Crisis which stated \"The South approaches more nearly than any other section of the United States the Nazi idea of government by a 'master race' without interference from any democratic process.\"\n\nBut, of course, what about the Klan itself? Simply put, the Klan was cautious, but not entirely opposed, at least prior to the outbreak of war, and there was some interaction between the KKK and the German-American Bund, i.e. the American Nazi Party. As noted, the Klan had been in marked decline by the beginning of the 1930s, and some Klan leaders believed that an alliance could help stem its loss of members, and maybe even bring about new growth. Outreach between the two groups was quite slow, but eventually the result of this was a rally held at the Bund's NJ compound 'Camp Nordland' where a joint meeting between members of the Bund and the KKK - bedecked in their \"regalia\" - occurred on August 18, 1940. The organizers claimed 3,500 attendees, while other estimates claim it was only about 1,000. The KKK participants were a distinct minority of the attendees either way, but certainly numbered at least 100 or so. Regardless of the numbers, the meeting also was emblematic, though, of the decline of the Bund, whose leader, Fritz Kuhn, had recently been sentenced to prison for embezzling Bund funds and tax evasion. So not only did the Klan-Bund combined rally draw protesters who gathered at the camp entrance to picket against both groups, but it also drew protests from within the Bund, as several dozen Kuhn loyalists showed up intent on starting a ruckus over disagreements in leadership, resulting in several arrests for assault.\n\nRegardless though, as for the rally itself, it saw speakers from both groups, with 'Grand Giant of the New Jersey Realm of the Klan', the Rev. Edward E. Young' giving an impassioned speech about the shared values of white supremacy between the two groups, similarly echoed by Bund member, and the principal organizer of the rally, Edward James Smythe, who proclaimed it his \"patriotic duty\" to effect the meeting of the two groups. Grand Dragon of the New Jersey Klan, Arthur Bell, received particularly great applause when he railed about how the Jews were behind attempts to force the US into the war. Asked later about the rally during a Congressional investigation by Rep. Martin Dies Special Committee on Un-American Activities, August Klapprott, one of the Bund leaders, stated \"[O]f course, I welcomed the idea [of] an Americanization rally\" which essentially speaks to the general tenor of how the cooperation was viewed at the time by both groups of participants, namely a rally for their views of what America should be - a country for white men. \n\nTo be sure though, while that was how it was billed, it wasn't how it exactly went. Both before and after, there was much disagreement within the Klan about whether it was a good idea. As noted before, the 'pro-camp' believed that the alliance would be a good move for retaining membership, and they were willing to accept the veneer of Americanization that the Bund tried to project, but many Klansmen were opposed as they didn't accept it, and were much more favorable to the idea that the German-American Bund was nothing more than an ~~front~~ advocate for a foreign power. The Bund, having many first and second generation immigrants, additionally offended the sensibilities of some Klansmen. At its height in the 1920s the Klan had been quite vocal in opposition to German immigrants, but a decade, and necessity, was breaking down at least some members' opposition, although hardly all, especially in the South, where the largest outcry against the Bund came from, published in the Klan publication *The Fiery Cross*." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6gy4nr/the_recent_e3_reveal_of_the_new_wolfenstein_game/diugt1v/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d22dlmm" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "**1/3: Historiography**\n\nThe Battle of Leuktra (371 BC) is notoriously difficult to reconstruct. As Pritchett once remarked with obvious exasperation, \"there are more reconstructions of Leuktra than of any other ancient battle, and the end is not in sight.\" There are a number of philological and historiographical reasons for the controversy, but the main one is - ironically - that we have so many sources for the battle. Most Classical Greek engagements are known from just one source. For Leuktra, we have four full accounts:\n\n* Xenophon, *Hellenika* 6.4.9-15. This is the only contemporary source, and written by an experienced commander with close ties to the rulers of Sparta.\n* Diodoros of Sicily, *Library of History* 15.55-56. Written in the 1st century BC, possibly using the lost work of the 4th century BC historian Ephoros as a source.\n* Plutarch, *Life of Pelopidas* 23. Written in the 2nd century AD. Plutarch was himself a Boiotian, and possibly used the lost 4th century BC historical accounts of Ephoros and Kallisthenes.\n* Pausanias, *Tour of Greece* 9.13.3-12. Written in the 2nd century AD, presumably based on local traditions.\n\nIn addition, there are numerous anecdotes about Leuktra in both Polyainos' and Frontinus' collections of stratagems. Now, if all these sources were complementary, we would know more about Leuktra than about any other ancient battle. But, of course, they're not. They offer completely incompatible accounts of the battle that get more fanciful the greater the chronological distance form the actual event.\n\n* **Xenophon** describes a simple battle in which a deep Theban phalanx preceded by a cavalry screen crashed directly into a shallower Spartan formation, making the allies of both sides irrelevant to the course of the battle. As attrition mounted and key officers fell, Spartan morale eventually broke.\n* **Diodoros** has it that the Spartans advanced in a crescent formation, hoping to encircle the outnumbered Theban force. Seeing their advance, the Theban commander Epameinondas deployed his army in echelon to keep his weaker troops out of the fight, and concentrated all his strength on one of the pincers of the Spartan crescent.\n* According to **Plutarch**, the Spartans advanced in line, but attempted to extend their line to the right and then wheel inwards to attack the Theban phalanx in the flank. To prevent this, Epameinondas first ordered his elite Sacred Band to charge into the Spartan wing mid-manoeuvre, and then led the main phalanx against their main force as they tried to regain their formation. Plutarch alone mentions the Sacred Band.\n\nWhat are we to make of all this? For centuries, scholars have recognised that they must choose one account over the others, since they will not coexist. They have offered arguments in favour of all 3 accounts, and their reconstructions of the battle have varied accordingly. I won't bore you with the initial blows of this controversy, which involve a lot of Germans and Gothic script; the key modern interpretation is that of J.K. Anderson.^1 \n\nFirst, Anderson pointed out that Diodoros' account perfectly mirrors the solution offered by Diodoros' contemporary, the tactician Onasander, in the event of encountering an enemy in crescent formation. Since the crescent formation is otherwise unheard of in Classical Greece, it seems all too likely that we should dismiss Diodoros' account as a purely theoretical tactical exercise with no basis in historical reality.\n\nSecond, Anderson argued that Xenophon was biased in favour of the Spartans, that he hated the Thebans, and that he was merely writing an apology for the Spartan defeat. He was not the first to assume that Xenophon's account is basically worthless, but he started a trend in recent scholarship (including notable figures like Buckler^2 and Cartledge^3) that starts from the premise that this contemporary source is best ignored.\n\nThird, he made a forceful argument in favour of Plutarch's account. He pointed out that the manoeuvre described in this account is the same as the one the Spartans used to win at the Nemea in 394 BC, and that it is also described in detail in Xenophon's fictional account of the battle of Thymbrara in the *Kyroupaideia*. Of course, Xenophon would not have described such Spartan sophistication at Leuktra, because he wasn't trying to give an honest account; but Plutarch, according to Anderson, preserved the truth. The Spartans were trying to outmanoeuvre the Thebans, but they were caught off guard by Epameinondas' rapid response; they were no match for the combined might of the Sacred Band and the 50-deep phalanx.\n\nThis interpretation has remained dominant until very recently. The revolt began quietly with Devine, who pointed out that Xenophon, as a contemporary source, probably should be taken seriously.^4 But his own reconstruction of the battle is completely mad. The case was made much more forcefully by V.D. Hanson a few years later.^5 Hanson showed how the accounts of Diodoros and Plutarch were themselves based on unreliable sources already discredited in antiquity, and stressed that we should trust Xenophon, the veteran mercenary general, to know what he was talking about. Indeed, for all its simplicity, Xenophon's version perfectly explains how the battle was won and lost. Hanson then makes the crucial point that modern authors are probably hesitant to rely on Xenophon precisely because he suggests *the Spartans were beaten by very crude tactics and Epameinondas did nothing new.* Modern scholars have been guided by their assumption that the Spartan defeat could only be accounted for by spectacular tactical innovations. This led them to favour the less reliable accounts of Plutarch and Diodoros over the actually quite blunt and honest picture sketched by Xenophon.\n\nNow, I said \"very recently\" because it took a long time for Hanson's view to catch on. A lot of scholars probably still favour Anderson and therefore Plutarch; some might even be in the camp of Hammond and therefore Diodoros. But with Hutchinson,^6 Lendon,^7 Wheeler^8 and others now endorsing Hanson's \"simple\" view of Leuktra, it seems Xenophon and Theban brute force are now gaining ground. It fits much better within the tactical context of 4th century BC Greece than the later accounts. New interpretations of the Sacred Band also support the view that they had no decisive role to play at Leuktra. It would take a lot to persuade scholars to return to accounts that are inevitably later and more derivative.\n\n**References**\n\n1. J.K. Anderson, *Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon* (1970)\n\n2. J. Buckler, 'Plutarch on Leuktra', *Symbolae Osloenses* 55 (1980), 75-93\n\n3. P. Cartledge, *Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta* (1987)\n\n4. A.M. Devine, 'EMBOɅON: a Study in Tactical Terminology', *Phoenix* 37 (1983), 201-217\n\n5. V.D. Hanson, 'Epameinondas, the Battle of Leuktra (371 B.C.) and the \"Revolution\" in Greek Battle Tactics', *Classical Antiquity* 7 (1988), 190-207\n\n6. G. Hutchinson, *Xenophon and the Art of Command* (2000)\n\n7. J.E. Lendon, *Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity* (2005)\n\n8. E.L. Wheeler (ed.), *The Armies of Classical Greece* (2007)\n" ] }

[]

[ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4ejs5f/why_were_there_so_many_famous_pitched_battles_in/d21cea5" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "co1psuq" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "I wrote [an answer](_URL_0_) to a similar question a few months back. The tl;dr of it is that Nero likely never was crazy, he was just really unfit to be an emperor of Rome." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2iuvet/why_and_by_who_was_nero_accused_after_the_fire_in/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fg5bmyy" ], "score": [ 695 ], "text": [ "Hotel living has a *long* history--the *Eloise* books by Kay Thompson are probably the most famous example. I can talk a little bit about some of the earlier history, specifically, hotel living in Paris!\n\n*(This is adapted from several of my earlier answers with some new stuff thrown in).*\n\nParis is the City of Lights...but it sure wasn't very lit in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when it had one of the lowest electrification rates of any major city. It also had one of the worst housing situations in the Euro-American world, especially given the *doubling* of the population between 1871-1920. As you can imagine, this burden fell mostly on immigrants and the lower classes.\n\nAttempts at mitigating the horrific conditions, like establishing factories in the suburbs instead of the city (with extensive slum settlements building up around them), or even some government-sponsored housing projects, could never come even close to meeting demand.\n\nAs a result, Paris even more so than other cities developed a system of \"hotels.\"\n\nBut these are not what we often talk about in the U.S. at the time--the de facto boarding houses for single men where housekeepers would take care of \"women's work\" for them, or for single working women where they could be watched and \"stay respectable.\"\n\nNo, these were tenements with really lousy--metaphorically and often literally--living conditions.\n\nThe *hotels garnis* resembled very lousy--metaphorically and often literally--versions of our hotels today: single-room \"apartments\" with no kitchen. (Although, sometimes also no bathroom). They even often had a restaurant on the ground floor. So when you hear about Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre spending all their time in cafes...well, guess what.\n\nParisian hotels were filled with transient workers, new immigrants, basically the young and poor--single women and men, single women with children, young couples.\n\n\nTo give you an idea of the conditions of the worse of these: Helmut Gruber describes housing for the working women of Paris (in the slum tenements known as \"insalubrious islands\" and in the hotels garnis) as:\n\n > The majority lived in domiciles lacking indoor water, heat, electricity, daylight, and ventilation, and they shared slovenly sanitary facilities...It is difficult to imagine where and how they actually washed their clothes, and how often...The absence of hygiene is evident from reports by teachers of the lack of cleanliness of children and from the high death rate from tuberculosis and pulmonary disease.\n\nBut despite these conditions, hotel residents weren't all just sitting around cafes philosophizing. Gruber also notes that tenement and hotel residents were *very* active organizing in order to keep rents down to something they could afford on their salaries, protesting to the government to enforce protections for them against landlords/slumlords.\n\n~~\n\n*We used to have a really great answer on the U.S. end of things I mentioned, but that user seems to have deleted it.*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f82ahx3" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "I think a couple of things are getting mixed up here. \n\nFor the process of amending the Constitution, as laid out in the 1787 document (Article V), here is the original language:\n\n > The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.\n\nSo what that means: first a Constitutional amendment needs to be passed by two thirds of each house of Congress, or two thirds of the states need to call for a Convention to propose amendments.\n\nHowever, once an Amendment passes this stage, it needs approval by three fourths of the states. This can either come in the form of the state legislatures voting for the amendment, or through special state conventions elected to vote for or against the amendment. \n\nEvery single constitutional amendment to date has been passed through Congress. All of those amendments bar one (the 21st Amendment, repealing the 18th Amendment) were approved by state legislatures, rather than state conventions. \n\nThe method of proposing amendments through a Convention requested by at least two thirds of the states has to date never actually been attempted, and it's not very clear just how this process would even work in practice.\n\nThe notable feature of Section 6 is less the ratification requirement of three fourths of the states, which is constitutionally-required, but the deadline for ratification of seven years. This is a feature for constitutional amendments that was introduced in the 20th century - the 18th, 20th, 21st and 22nd Amendments have deadlines in the text of the amendment, and the 23rd, 24th, 25th and 26th amendments have deadlines in the introductory text of the amendment as passed by Congress. The 27th Amendment notably had no deadline as it was originally approved by Congress as part of the package of Amendments known as the Bill of Rights, was ratified by a few states, and then largely left \"dormant\" until being rediscovered by an undergraduate student at University of Texas Austin, Gregory Watson. His paper on the amendment got a C from his TA, but ultimately his research led to a campaign to get the amendment ratified by three fourths of the states, which happened in 1992.\n\nSo why time limits? Richard F. Hamm's *Shaping the Eighteenth Amendment* gives some clues as to why this particular amendment was the first one to have such a rider successfully attached. Opponents of Prohibition had originally wanted a two year grace period for implementation after ratification, and/or compensation to brewers and distilleries - Congress eventually came up with a one year period. Opponents also saw a seven year window for ratification as \"fair\" - the original proposal from then Ohio Senator Warren Harding was for four years. It was basically a means of weakening attempts to block the passage in Congress by providing a window of time to prevent passage in the states.\n\nOf course, it's not super clear just how constitutional or binding time limits are. In 1921 the Supreme Court heard *Dillon v. Gloss*, in which, to make a long story short, an arrest under the Volstead Act (enforcing alcohol prohibition) was contested under the pretext that adding a time limit to the 18th Amendment invalidated the whole amendment process. The Supreme Court basically said: \"Time limits are fine, we guess.\" But notably the 18th Amendment had been ratified by the necessary states before the time limit was up, so it wasn't necessarily a very tough call to make. \n\nOf course there is a potentially interesting case to be made about the legality of time limits because of the Equal Rights Amendment, passed in Congress in 1972 with a seven year limit, that in 1978 was extended to a ten year limit (ie, to 1982). This ten year limit was set by a resolution voted on by a simple majority, and in any case due to increasing political resistance, it was not passed by the necessary states by 1982 (although four states rescinded their ratifications in the 1970s, and this isn't something provided for or forbidden in the Constitution). Of course several states have since ratified the amendment, with Illinois being the 37th in 2017. If a 38th state ratified the amendment - well, it's not 100% clear just what would happen.\n\nTo go back to Article V, note the two exceptions to the amendment process: no amendment could ban the slave trade before 1808 (when Congress was constitutionally allowed to ban it), and no amendment can change the number of Senators each states has (it's theoretically an un-amendable part of the Constitution, unless each State agrees to it)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "df7c4nl" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Fortunately there is a cook book from the late 4th or early 5th century CE. That book is Apicius. Keep in mind these recipes would have been for the upper class of society. There is a section on fowl which includes chicken, pheasant, goose, duck and doves. It also includes ostrich and peacock along with a few others. If you'd like you can check out the book at the following link from project Gutenberg.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nYou are also correct in turkey being a recent addition to European cuisine. The turkey is among one of the New World foods. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm#bki_chvii" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpvzxg3" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "It was taken from the hands of the nobility in 1999 when Labour removed the rights of peers to sit in the House of Lords, which is the UK's second chamber.\n\n92 hereditary peers are left there today, along with 26 Princes of the Church. The rest are members of political parties that were ushered while their party was in power. Sixteen years later it's still a controversial issue and reeks of corruption to many.\n\nFYI, this subreddit has a rule that excludes everything that happened under twenty years ago. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6ta2fv", "c6tdaen", "c6tdefi" ], "score": [ 3, 5, 9 ], "text": [ "There's an [interesting article on this at _URL_0_](_URL_1_).", "Rodney Stark wrote an interesting article in the mid-90's arguing that as early Christianity attracted a disproportionately large number of female converts, they were therefore accorded a higher status within the subculture than in the society at large. IIRC, he argues that they unlike Greek and Roman societies, the church regularly allowed women to serve in positions of power and authority, especially as deaconesses. ", "This is mainly about the upper classes, as a necessity mandated by our sources. But an extremely brief summary: Greek and Roman medical theory believed that women had not received enough heat in the womb, and thus had failed to mature into full humans, i.e. men. So women are considered inherently biologically inferior. Women were expected to get married, get married early (~14), produce children, and re-marry if their husband died in order to produce more children. Remaining unmarried was highly anomalous, even religious virgins (such as the vestals) generally only remained virgins for a set period (for example until 30). The production of children was considered absolutely vital to the future of the state, community, and family. It was also hugely dangerous. Marriage was understood as one of the core institutions of the Empire, vital to maintaining it. Men were the unquestioned head of the household, all the property, etc. Women essentially passed from the control of their fathers/older brothers to husband.\n\nChristianity, on the other hand, brings with it a strong focus on bodily asceticism, of which sexual renunciation (and given above, extremely visible) was an important part. Christians both encourage consecrated virginity among young women, but they also support widows who wish to remain unmarried. Both of these allowed women to escape the societal strictures of the time, and to at least a limited degree the control of men, and to avoid the terrifying (we can see this in their literature) dangers of childbirth. Also vitally, it enables widows to retain control of their deceased husband's property, which for the upper class could be quite substantial (some of the widows who corresponded with Jerome in the 4th century were among the richest people in the world at the time). This is all pretty problematic from the point of view of prevailing society. Thus, in Late Antiquity it is Christianity which is accused of being anti-family. \n\nIt's also important to note that many, if not most, Roman religious practices excluded women, whereas Christianity did not. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, Christianity was very popular with women. \n\nA lot of this comes from Peter Brown's *Body and Society* which is a really excellent study of this sort of thing. \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "PBS.org", "http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/women.html" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "drkbuv0", "drlzkz9" ], "score": [ 5, 6 ], "text": [ "This is incredibly interesting as a way to approach teaching. Do you know if this is implemented in non-indigenous settings too or is it something that is a process within specifically indigenous settings?", "Another very fascinating write-up, thank you. I actually have a few questions.\n\nIn most threads on indigenous or marginalized/subaltern peoples of any kind, there is a common caveat that accompanies any historical answer on this subreddit. For example, from a recently excellent answer about Native American perceptions of dinosaur bones:\n\n > This is my general notice that \"Native American\" encompasses two vast continents filled with innumerable people in the various landscapes of those continents, whose thoughts, traditions, and cultures were not static, but evolved and flourished over a period of thousands of years.\n\nYet, in our current thread, your post is written about \"Indigenous peoples\" and \"Indigenous pedagogy\". Essentially, I'm curious, are these methods specific to certain indigenous groups? Is this a kind of generalization (i.e. for a United Statesian context)? A better question might be: What is the historiography of indigenous historical methodology? Is this a post-colonial construction, or did the pre-colonial Aztecs and the Algonquin peoples share fundamental educational values which could be summed up as \"Indigenous pedagogy\"?\n\nAddendum to this: is \"Western\" a kind of misnomer, in this case? Do pedagogical systems in China or the Middle-East fall under this purview? I just fear that there may be a less Eurocentric way to frame the divide. \n\nSecondly;\n > These benefits also extend beyond Indigenous students and can be applied to non-Indigenous students alike, those who, in my opinion, do not benefit from many Western methods of teaching as previously thoughts \n\nThis was interesting to me, because I usually encounter criticisms of educational paradigms through a self-fulfilling lens; education systems help student navigate educational systems and a workforce based on those educational systems. That is, the system serves itself, and society at all levels is shaped by and for people which went through the system. In this sense, a radical departure from Western educational paradigms could potentially undermine Indigenous attempts at prosperity, equality, and agency, despite the equal (if not greater) value of the pedagogical system itself. \n\nEssentially, if an indigenous student goes through an undergraduate degree with a more indigenous pedagogy, would they be at a disadvantage in moving on to medical school and being forced to navigate a less-familiar Western pedagogical system? \n\nAnd finally:\n > Thus, the words of elders to relate what happened in the past has as much authority as the written word (if we are putting Indigenous peoples and Western societies on level playing fields, that is).\n\nThis may be outside the scope of the thread, so feel free to link to a previous answer on the subject. My understanding of both the academic consensus on psychology and criminology is such that human memory is far, far more fallible than generally believed. Not that written sources are infallible or anything of the sort, I'm just curious, is that an uncontroversial statement to make (written word having as much authority as the spoken)? I understand the social and political reasons to avoid civilizational arguments for the superiority of literate texts, but from a historiographical perspective, is this opinion shared by scholars working outside indigenous contexts (givenn that all human cultures still maintain some oral elements, i.e. folklore and whatnot)? \n\nSorry for all the questions, I'm really diving into unknown territory for myself here. " ] }

[]

[ "https://i.imgur.com/yfzc5B1.png" ]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9bvyy7" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "It rather depends how you define things. If you count tribal disputes as wars, then it is unlikely there was ever a year without war. If you don't count tribal disputes, only formal armies, then the majority of human existence was without war. Mind you, most of human existence was before history." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cuhanfl", "cuhb7qj", "cuhbh6s" ], "score": [ 85, 20, 8 ], "text": [ "This one is kind of complex. \n\n[Operation Barbarossa](_URL_2_) was the operation the Axis had planned to invade the Soviet Union. Nazi Germany had started to amass troops and equipment and had a pretty substantial force at the border in February of 1941. The original plan for the operation was to take place in May of 1941. There really was no shock, Stalin knew of the amassing of German troops and was warned by Soviet military leaders of an impending attack.\n\nMussolini and the Italian Military were fighting the [Greco-Italian War](_URL_3_) in Greece and making no headway. This is considered the start of the [Balkan Campaign](_URL_6_). The stalling of Italy in Greece lead to Hitler start [Operation Marita](_URL_4_) which was the German invasion of Greece, which coincided with the Italian invasion of Greece, which had stalled. Hitler had no intentions of invading Greece at this point, but was forced into action by Mussolini.\n\nTo sum it up quickly at this point. Italy tried to invade Greece from Albania, without Hitler and a lot of other important Italian leaders knowing, and failed. Greece actually pushed back and started taking ground in Albania. Hitler pushed forward with Italy to invade and defeat Greece.\n\nThe failure of Italy to defeat Greece on their own meant that some of the troops and materials for Operation Barbarossa were used in The Balkan Campaign. Which, with some other weather related issues lead to Operation Barbarossa being delayed. The delays are questionable at this point, there is some speculation that the Operation could have continued, even with the Germany military being deployed in Greece. \n\nPrior to the entire Greek campaign, Italian forces under Mussolini had dealt with setbacks in the North African Campaign. Which lead to Rommel being deployed to Africa to aid the Italians in that campaign.\n\nThe relationship between Hitler and Mussolini was complex and stressed. Mussolini never felt like an equal and the invasion of Greece was not advised by Hitler, rather performed by Mussolini to impress Hitler. Which basically lead to Hitler having to bail him out. Hitler commonly didn't communicate with Mussolini, so not knowing about the invasion of the USSR isn't odd.\n\nSo to answer your first question. Mussolini already had his hands full with the Greco-Italian war. Aiding Hitler at the border of the USSR would have been near impossible. Hitler delayed Operation Barbarossa to aid Mussolini in Greece. \n\nAnecdotally, I would assume that there was some irritation on Hitler's part with Mussolini. From everything I have read about the relationship between Hitler and Mussolini, Hitler never viewed Mussolini as an equal and Mussolini never felt like an equal. Even prior to any invasions. \n\nSo while both Italy and Germany had signed the [Pact of Steel](_URL_0_), both countries had trouble with meeting the obligations of the pact.\n\nAs to when did the Italians get into the USSR? The [Italian Expeditionary Corps](_URL_1_) were deployed to the USSR in July of 1941. Later the expeditionary corps were upscaled to a full sized army unit in [July of 1942](_URL_5_)\n\nOperation Barbarossa had started in June of 1941, so the assistance of the Italian military had come less than a month after the campaign started.\n\nThen you get into the whole invasion of Northern Italy. Hitler had basically set up a puppet government and put Mussolini in charge of Northern Italy after Southern Italy was retaken by the Allied forces. Mussolini and his mistress trying to escape to the Swiss border, being captured by allied Italian fighters, both of them being shot and then their bodies were hung in a park in Milan and defaced by many, many Italian citizens.\n\n\n\n\n\n", "In general the two Axis powers did not have a productive or coordinated relationship. Though they'd bonded in the mid 30s over Abyssinia and Spain, Hitler never clued Mussolini on big decisions like the Anschluss with Austria or the invasion of Czechia, and cracks began to emerge as Hitler pushed for war in 1939. Mussolini had promised to stand with Germany when the time came, but he had anticipated a conflict in the mid 40s and when things got serious he had to tell Adolf that Italy wasn't ready. This was a big blow to Mussolini's prestige, made worse when the Wehrmacht bowled France over the following May. Italy's hasty and embarrassing declaration of war on France followed. \n\nAs a result, Mussolini started to look distinctly unreliable, and Italy a decidedly second rate ally. This made Hitler, never the most consultative person, even less likely to share major plans. In late 1940, envious of Hitler's triumphs and unhappy with Italy being sidelined to the North African theatre Mussolini decided to recapture some status by invading Greece. \n\nThis was a terrible idea that rapidly became an absolute disaster, not only because Italian troops got their arses handed to them by a smaller, poorer nation. It threw off the timetable for the North African campaign at a point where Britain was scrambling to defend Egypt, it as good as invited the Allies to send forces to the Balkans, it upset Stalin and meant that forces would have to be diverted from Barbarossa preparations. It was in this context that Hitler met Mussolini in January 1941 and gave no hint that he was preparing to invade Russia.\n\nSources: \n\nKershaw *Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions that Changed the World 1940-1941*, 2007\n\nKershaw *Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis*, 2000", "I can't answer your central question \"why didn't Hitler tell him\" completely, but here's some relevant context:\n\nThere wasn't a lot of consultation between German and Italian leaderships regarding plans for the war to begin with - when Germany attacked Poland (September 1st 1939), Mussolini had only known about the plan to do so less than a week before (August 25th). \n\nRegarding plans to attack the USSR in 1941, the Germans couldn't expect much help from Mussolini's Italy anyway - the Italian military hadn't been prepared for a new war of aggression like the German had, and it was just going through a kind of consolidation phase (remember, the late 30s had been a phase of military activity for Italy, the Italo-Abyssinian War and the occupation in Africa as well as the intervention in Spain had already used up resources when Germany attacked Poland).\n\nIt's also important to consider how the relationship between Germany and Italy had changed between 1939 and 1941: before that, there was *some* kind of at least political and symbolic equity between the two regimes. When the war began, Italy wasn't ready for the kind of Europe-wide war Hitler wanted (to put it bluntly, somebody might want to add nuance to that). \n\n* Italy stayed out of Poland in 1939,\n\n* rushed into France in June 1940 when the Germans made visible progress, but showed a lack of military planning and equipment, losing lives and time for small and insignificant gains of ground in the Alps,\n\n* started a war against Greece in October 1940, partly because Mussolini wanted to repair the damage to his and Italy's reputation that had come out of the embarassment in France (his standing as *duce del fascismo* relied partly on military success, which was an important motivator for him to rush into the next aggression despite the considerable strain already on Italy's military and also despite the Germans trying to get him off the idea); \n\n* and lost out again and again against the British in Africa between December 1940 (in Egypt) and May 1941 (when Italy lost its colonies in East Africa).\n\nThat was Italy's military track record in 1941. Mussolini had attempted to lead a \"parallel war\" to Germany, and had pretty much failed. The balance within the Axis had shifted heavily towards Germany.\n\nWhen the attack on the USSR began, the Germans (especially Keitel, the Wehrmacht's chief of staff) tried to convince the Italians not to send troops. They changed this stance only after their own war against the USSR had begun to stall. Hitler wrote a personal letter to Mussolini in December 1941 in which he basically greenlighted Italian participation in Russia. So regarding the second part of your question: Italy got into the war in Spring 1942 with up to 220 000 soldiers at one point, which is a considerable number regarding the circumstances. However, they weren't really equipped for the climate, didn't have much heavy artillery and would also not effectively work together with the Germans since German and Italian leaderships couldn't agree on combining command structures.\n\nSources: Wolfgang Schieder, Der italienische Faschismus (and less directly Brunello Mantelli, Kurze Geschichte des italienischen Faschismus). Both of these books are short oversight monographs, not extensive academic works (although both written by historians with a reputation for that specific topic)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Steel", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Expeditionary_Corps_in_Russia", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Italian_War", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Greece", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Army_in_Russia", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Campaign_%28World_War_II%29" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8b2e5s" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "In the case of the Roman empire, there are several possibilities:\n\n- The loss of North Africa to the Vandals. North Africa was the breadbasket of the Western Roman Empire, and without it, huge cities could no longer be supported. There was a similar but less dramatic depopulation of Constantinople after Egypt was lost to the Arabs in the 7th century. This is probably the most important reason.\n\n- In the waning days of the western empire, invading Germanic tribes cut the supply of water into Rome and only the Aqua Virgo, which ran completely underground, continued to deliver water. In other words, large Roman cities were dependent on proper maintenance of aqueducts, and if they were destroyed for any reason, it would be difficult to continue to support a large population.\n\n- There were several severe and protracted plagues, combined with a long period of invasions and conflicts.\n\n- It has been speculated that the deforestation of the Western Mediterranean might have been an important cause. I really can't say how well accepted this argument is at the moment." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6zjky0", "c6zjn8y", "c6zkbf2", "c6zl3m9", "c6zl9vu", "c6zlm3o", "c6zm347", "c6zmink", "c6zmlz5", "c6zmzas", "c6zoly0", "c6zomp7", "c6zqe2r", "c6zvcz8" ], "score": [ 2, 8, 6, 3, 21, 12, 2, 4, 2, 7, 3, 2, 3, 4 ], "text": [ "To answer my own question, in case anyone is curious, some of my own favorite books to recommend are the following:\n\nWW2\nSurvival in Auschwitz, by Primo Levi\nWith the Old Breed, by Eugene Sledge \n\nEconomics/Society\nFreakonomics and Superfreakonomics, by Levitt and Dubner\nThe Tipping point, and Blink, by Malcom Gladwell\nConfessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins (not really strict history, but a fascinating book)\n\nUS history:\nLies my Teacher Told me by James Loewage \nHoward Zinn's \"A People's History\"\n\nWorld: \nA History of the World in 6 Glasses by Tom Standage \nGuns Germs and Steel (surprise surprise)", "Egyptian History:\n\n1. The Literature of Ancient Egypt, by W. K. Simpson and others. Offers a really wide range of great stories/texts/hymns/poems etc, with a little blurb for each discussing where it comes from/why it's important etc.\n\n2. Ian Shaw [editor] The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Covers everything up to the Roman period, in solid detail, but in an inherently accessible manner.\n\n3. Aidan Dodson - Amarna Sunset and Poisoned Legacy. Two very accessible yet thorough discussions covering Egypt's Late New Kingdom - from the heresy of Akhenaten to the decline of the Ramesside Era. Really interesting stuff that doesn't often appear in popular knowledge, and includes some recognisable names eg Tutankhamun, Ramesses II etc.\n\n4. Miroslav Verner, The Complete Pyramids: the story of Egypt's Old Kingdom told through the medium of the great monuments. Is written by one of the foremost scholars on that period, and discusses the history of Egyptology at the same time as talking about the monuments and people of the time.", "Modern China: * Oracle Bones* by Peter Hessler. I recommend it to everyone! ", "Vincent Cronin's *Napoleon.* It is a biography about none other than the first Emperor of the French, and it is one of the best available.\n\nFor something much denser and with more of a pure military focus, there is David Chandler's *The Campaigns of Napoleon,* which I cannot recommend enough for anyone interested in the period. It is a rarer and more expensive book, but it is more than worth the cost.", "Updating a list I wrote earlier for a request for resources on North Korea and the Kim regime:\n\n - **Refugee account:** *The Aquariums of Pyongyang* by Chol-Hwan Kang and Pierre Rigoulout. A terrifying account of the Yodok concentration camp where the families of political prisoners are/were sent for punishment. Yodok was actually fairly high on the pecking order of North Korean camps, and the reason the book exists in the first place is that Kang is among the few who not only survived but was released. The book gained widespread recognition in the West after it ended up on George Bush's reading list and its authors were invited to the White House. Victor Cha (see below) comments on this and the effect it had on Bush's view of Kim Jong-Il.\n - **Overview of propaganda:** *The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters* by B.R. Myers. Not everyone is on board with the author's conclusions -- he's extremely harsh to the generation of South Korean politicians behind the Sunshine Policy, which he considered both an ethical problem and a strategic blunder -- but it's a thorough look at the toxic ideology that is approved for mass entertainment and journalism in North Korea. This is what they say to themselves when no one is looking, although perhaps it might be more accurate to describe it as what you can say in North Korea without getting arrested or shot. \n - **Statistical accounts:** *Famine in North Korea: Markets, Aid, and Reform* by Stephen Haggard and Marcus Noland, and *Witness to Transformation: Refugee Insights into North Korea* by the same guys. By necessity, these are somewhat drier accounts of what's going on in North Korea, but it's a mindfuck to read what statisticians *think* is going on in the country and what later refugee accounts corroborate. For example, Haggard and Noland arrive at the conclusion that the true roots of the North Korean famine probably started in the late 1980s when the Soviet Union started to fall, and stopped giving a shit about paying to support the ridiculously inefficient NK economy. Then you read Demick's book (see below) and see accounts from housewives in North Korea who say that they started getting shortchanged by the public distribution system at the exact same time. *Witness to Transformation* will give you some background on who is most likely to escape North Korea in the first place and what happens to them afterwards, with accompanying commentary (none of it terribly optimistic) about what this implies should the NK government eventually fall.\n\nAs an aside, reading the *Markets, Aid, and Reform* study was what convinced me that B.R. Myers was probably right about the damage that South Korea did to nuclear negotiations during the Six-Party talks. \n\n - **Mixed bag o' topics:** *North of the DMZ: Essays on Daily Life in North Korea* by Andrei Lankov. This one's unique, as it's a series of essays written by a Russian writer who went to school in North Korea back during the 1980s, and that's a perspective that the Western world rarely sees. Lankov's articles are not only a valuable window into how the North Koreans were seen by their allies -- or more appropriately, \"allies\" -- but he also comments on a very wide variety of topics not usually addressed by scholars. Interestingly, his time in North Korea predates Andrew Holloway's (see below) by only a few years, and the NK that he writes about from that era is both recognizably the same NK that Holloway describes and an interesting contrast to the changes you'll see in the society as the Kims tried to prove that they could have co-hosted the 1988 Seoul Olympics. \n - **If you read nothing else, read this:** *Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea* by Barbara Demick. Demick was a Los Angeles Times reporter who was assigned to the Seoul bureau for several years and spent a lot of time interviewing North Koreans who'd escaped the country before it became somewhat common. This one really brings home to you the number of personal and family tragedies that the regime has caused, and why everyone who helped Kim il-Sung on his rise to power should have been shot. A finalist for the National Book Award in 2010.\n - **And after you read Demick -- or maybe before you do:** *Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty* by Bradley K. Martin. This one gives a lot of background into the stuff you'll see in Demick's book, and interestingly also gives some insight into academic arrogance in the Western world concerning the Korean peninsula. The popular narrative on Korean history as written by vanguards like Bruce Cumings was far kinder to the Kim regime than it deserved, and Martin was given a lot of crap for writing about the concentration camps and the famine.\n - **An American diplomat's perspective on the Six-Party talks and international relations in Asia:** *The Impossible State* by Victor Cha. This was published within the past year and, like Lankov's perspective, it's unique. Cha was the Director for Asian Affairs for the NSC under Bush and saw a lot of Japanese, Russian, Chinese, South Korean, and North Korean diplomats for his job. This isn't the book to read if you want an in-depth history of North Korea, but it's an incredibly cogent commentary on why NK is popularly known as \"The Land of Lousy Options\" in diplomatic circles, and what the American perspective was during the talks. There's also several behind-the-scenes stories from both the White House and the diplomatic world, including Bush's drop-in on a visiting group of Chinese generals and an interesting insight into the North Koreans' (correct) interpretation of Japanese politicking concerning aid.\n - **The true believer turned hopeless cynic:** *[A Year in Pyongyang](_URL_0_)* by Andrew Holloway. Holloway was a Brit who lived in Pyongyang editing NK's English-language propaganda for a year, and he wrote the book as a way to keep from going insane while trapped in a fairly boring and extremely controlled city. If nothing else, I find it an absolutely fascinating meta-commentary on what one person can see of a society even when that society is determined not to let him see anything. As he says, he was a Marxist who was sympathetic to what appeared to be the underlying goals of North Korean society, but he managed to figure out that the wool was being pulled over his eyes despite a fairly regimented year. \n\nThere's still some heartbreaking assumptions, though -- mainly his firm belief that, whatever the Kim regime's mistakes, they would never commit the atrocities he had seen in more capitalist countries elsewhere, that NK just wasn't that kind of society. Turns out NK was *exactly* the kind of society that would ship people off to death camps. Holloway's account has many mistakes, but they were honestly made, they reflect what the Western world knew of North Korea at the time, and he obviously struggled with his portrayal of a society that he genuinely wanted to like due to his personal beliefs, but knew was deeply flawed. ", "World War One! *Check it*.\n\n**Lead-Up and Causes**\n\n- Barbara Tuchman's *The Guns of August* (1962) is a marvelously accessible narrative history of the early days of the war. It does a good job of situating the conflict within the waning era of the Empires, and its combination of solid research and exhilarating prose has more than accounted for the acclaim it has received.\n\n- However, you might also fruitfully check out Tuchman's *The Proud Tower* (1966), which gives an account of the world and its tenor in the years immediately prior to the war (1890-1914 is the scope, if I recall correctly). It's more of a collection of essays than a sustained narrative, but every last one of them is fascinating and useful.\n\n- Richard Hamilton and Holger Herwig (who is awesome) have put together *The Origins of World War I* (2003), which makes as good a run at being the definitive treatment of this subject as any text has yet achieved.\n\n- Similarly, Herwig's *The Marne: 1914* (2011) is an excellent account of the war's astounding opening battles. Provides a sound, easily comprehensible description of why the war was not \"over by Christmas [of 1914]\", and for how the static system of trench warfare at last came to be.\n\n- Fritz Fischer's *Griff nach der Weltmacht* (1961) is an essential -- though controversial -- work describing the manner in which Germany instigated the war and asserts that her war aims were essentially predatory from the start. The debate over this work is enormous, but Fischer's claims must be contended with by anyone who seriously hopes to understand what the war was about.\n\n- Annika Mombauer's hotly-anticipated documentary anthology, *The Origins of the First World War: Diplomatic and Military Documents*, comes out in March of next year. There've been a number of similar volumes over the years, but if the advance buzz on hers is anything to go by it will easily eclipse them all. In any event, this or something like it will provide a very useful background against which to view the developments of the summer and autumn of 1914.\n\n**General Histories**\n\nJohn Keegan's *The First World War* is a fine single-volume introduction, but not the only one. There are others:\n\n- Hew Strachan's *The First World War* (2004) offers a remarkably international view of the conflict, and in a compact single volume at that. This was meant as a companion piece to the (also quite good) television documentary series of the same name which he oversaw. Still, if you want more, look to his much larger *The First World War - Vol. I: To Arms* (2003) -- the first of a projected three volumes and absolutely staggering in its depth. This first volume alone runs to 1250 pages.\n\n- Sir Martin Gilbert offers *The First World War: A Complete History* (2nd Ed. 2004). The title is a bit of a lie, but this work from Winston Churchill's official biography is as lucid and sensitive as anything else he's written.\n\n**Famous General Histories**\n\nThese volumes have become subjects of study in their own right, but are still well worth reading for the student determined to tackle this conflict in depth:\n\n- Winston Churchill's *The World Crisis, 1911-1919* is a work in 5 volumes that contentiously holds the title of the \"most comprehensive\" history of the war. A modern abridgment (clocking in at around 850 pages) is readily available, and well worth a look. There are significant debates within WWI historiography about Churchill's judgments and biases, so it would be worth looking into them as well before taking everything within the book at face value.\n\n- John Buchan's twenty-four volume *Nelson's History of the War* began being released before the war was even over (in 1915, if I recall correctly), and remains a thoroughly lucid, readable account of it. Anyone reading it must always bear in mind that most of its volumes were written without knowing what would happen next -- this lends the work a striking degree of immediacy, but also harms its ability to contextualize events in the light of stuff that would come later.\n\n- C.R.M.F. Crutwell's enormous volume, *A History of the Great War, 1914-1918* was published in 1934. It has become the subject of historical inquiry in its own right, and the gigantic Strachan volumes I noted above were commissioned as a replacement for it.\n\n- The *History of the Great War Based on Official Documents* (finally completed in 1948) is the official British history of the war as compiled by Sir James Edmonds with the help of Cyril Falls, F.J. Moberly and others. It runs to twenty-nine volumes and is predicated upon the conveyance of straightforward information rather than any kind of narrative whatsoever.\n\n**The British**\n\n- Richard Holmes' *Tommy: The British Soldier on the Western Front, 1914-1918* (2004) is a work I cannot recommend too highly or too often. It is thick, ferociously well-sourced, entertaining and comprehensive. Holmes was one of the best we had until his untimely death last year, and *Tommy* finds him firing on all cylinders.\n\n- Paddy Griffith's *Battle Tactics of the Western Front: The British Army's Art of Attack, 1916-1918* (1996) is one of the more provocative and influential texts in the \"learning curve\" movement, which maintains that the British army experienced a sharp uptick in the quality of its tactics thanks to the lessons learned on the Somme. Griffith is a somewhat irascible figure well known in the table-top war-gaming world, but this remains an essential work.\n\n**The French**\n\nA regretable gap in my general knowledge of the war's historiography. I'll do some poking around and try to update this later.\n\n**The Germans**\n\nIn addition to the Fischer book I already mentioned above, you should consider these:\n\n- Holger Herwig's (yes, him again) *The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary, 1914-1918* (1996) is arguably *the* modern text on the subject of how the Central Powers conducted their end of the war and what the cultural impact of it upon them was. A sometimes heartbreaking work, but all the better for it.\n\n- Christopher Duffy's *Through German Eyes: The British & The Somme, 1916* (2006) is a remarkable and necessary work that offers a recontextualization of the Somme Offensive -- so often viewed as a thoroughly British tragedy -- from the perspective of those troops against whom wave after wave of Englishmen advanced in the summer and fall of 1916. Seeing this event from the other side paints a somewhat different view of it than is typically enjoyed, and I cannot recommend it highly enough.\n\n- Norman Stone's *The Eastern Front: 1914 - 1917* (1975) is a very readable account of the German army's efforts against its Russian counterpart. It has also benefited from a recent republication by Penguin, and as such is very readily available.\n\n**The Canadians** \n\nI have to get the oar in for my own people here, so I'll recommend Tim Cook's marvelous, modern two-part analysis of the Canadians at war: *At the Sharp End: 1914-1916* (2007) and *Shock Troops: 1917-1918* (2008). Dr. Cook is a good man to share a beer with, and en even better writer -- these are well worth a look even for those who are not immediately interested in Canada's involvement.\n\n**Specific Engagements**\n\n- Herwig's work on the Battle of the Marne was already mentioned above.\n\n- Gordon Corrigan has a good single-volume appraisal of the Battle of Loos in 1915 (*Loos 1915: The Unwanted Battle*, 2005). Something of a prelude to the Somme Offensive of the following year, it is most popularly remembered now (which says a lot, and I don't know if anything good) as the battle that killed Rudyard Kipling's son.\n\n- There are too many books on the Somme Offensive to name, so I'll settle for William Philpott's *Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme* (2009), which commendably combines absurd expansiveness with a novel thesis. A highly necessary (and fucking welcome) antidote to the otherwise all-prevailing \"absolute tragedy thesis\" that seems to mark the rest of the major writings on this campaign.\n\nWith regard to the Ludendorff Offensive in the Spring of 1918:\n\n- Martin Middlebrook has a penchant for taking a single day and using it as the basis for a broader historical inquiry. Just as he did with the First Day on the Somme, so has done in *The Kaiser's Battle: 21 March 1918 - The First Day of the German Spring Offensive* (1983). It focuses primarily on the one day, but has frequent recourse to the campaign as a whole.\n\n- John Terraine's *To Win a War: 1918, the Year of Victory* (1978) remains a classic account of the war's final year, and has much to say about the circumstances that caused the Spring Offensive to fail and the Hundred Days Offensive to succeed.\n\n- David Zabecki's *The German 1918 Offensives. A Case Study in the Operational Level of War* (2006) is admirably focused but without sacrificing breadth.\n\n**Conscientious Objectors and Pacifists**\n\n- Adam Hochschild's *To End All Wars* (2011) is an admirable attempt to integrate the story of objectors, resisters, pacifists and the like into the already well-established tableau of the war's history. It is a less than objective work, to put it mildly -- the tone is often one of outrage rather than dispassionate provision of facts. Still, the war seems to bring this out in people in a way that others do not, so this is scarcely a surprising feature. It's still a good start, though; broadly focused on Great Britain and British colonies.\n\n- Louisa Thomas' *Conscience: Two Soldiers, Two Pacifists, One Family* (2011) examines the tensions involved in non-combatant decisions on the American home front, with particular focus upon her great grandfather, Norman Thomas, who refused to fight at a time when two of his brothers had chosen otherwise. More of a meditation than an outright history book, but still quite interesting.\n\n- Peter Englund's fascinating narrative history, *The Beauty and the Sorrow* (2011), contains about twenty interwoven accounts of the war from a variety of perspectives, many of them on the home front. It's more determinedly international than the other two books I've mentioned, and is focused on a variety of different cases (not all of them strictly relevant to the title heading above).\n\n**Interesting, Quirky Case Studies**\n\nIt's a coincidence (I think!) that both of the following are set within a naval context, but there it is:\n\n- Giles Foden's *Mimi and Toutou Go Forth* (2004) tells the absolutely insane story of the Battle of Lake Tanganyika in Central Africa, 1915. A gang of British eccentrics dragged two boats through the jungle to do battle with the German *Graf von Gotzen*, and a more motley band of people has seldom been assembled. Geoffrey Spicer-Simson, their commander, is the kind of man who makes one feel intensely inadequate.\n\n- Richard Guillatt and Peter Hohnen's *The Wolf* (2005) is the remarkable tale of how a state-of-the-art German warship was disguised as a merchant freighter and then taken around the world in a multi-year campaign of piracy and destruction that was nevertheless marked by the absolute chivalrous gallantry of its captain and crew. The *Wolf* was forced to survive only on what it could capture from other ships, and by the time it returned to Kiel it carried over 400 passengers from 25 different countries, the bulk of whom had become great friends with one another and with their courteous German captors.\n\n**Commendable Fiction and Autobiography**\n\nThere have been rather a lot of novels and pseudo-memoirs written by veterans of the war and others; not all are equally worth one's time. These, however, are:\n\n- Frederic Manning's *The Middle Parts of Fortune* (1929): A moving, honest and finely-wrought account of the career of a deeply intellectual and sensitive man who is nevertheless content to remain among the lower ranks. For my money, this is the best of the works produced during the \"war books boom\" of 1927-33.\n\n- Ernst Jünger's *Storm of Steel* (1920) . For convenience's sake I'll just point you to the appraisal [I wrote of it here](_URL_0_).\n\n- Cecil Lewis' *Sagittarius Rising* (1936) is one of the few major books from this period that focuses on the war in the air, and it's pretty damned good at that. Lewis went on to co-found the BBC and win an Oscar (in separate incidents), for whatever that's worth, but his book would be worth reading even apart from that.\n\n- A.O. Pollard's *Fire-Eater: Memoirs of a V.C.* (1932) is one of the more bracing and positive memoirs to come out of the war, and the fact that it was written by a guy whom his superiors suspected of almost recklessly enjoying the war might account for this.\n\n- Rebecca West's *The Return of the Soldier* (1918) has little to do with the war beyond using it as a backdrop for a very sad, beautiful little story. It takes no time at all to read, but is so completely worth it.\n\nThere are plenty of other such works (I could go on about them in a post as long again as this one), but there are limits!\n\n**To Be Avoided (For Now)**\n\n- Paul Fussell's *The Great War and Modern Memory* (1975) is probably the most influential and important work on the subject of the war's history and remembrance ever written, and it is just... disgustingly poor. It's very well-written, certainly, but it is so limited in its scope, so biased in its perspective, so cavalier with its deployment of historical fact, so bitchy in its tone and so basically useless to anyone who wants some idea of what was actually going on that I frankly wish I could go back in time and punch the then-still-living Fussell in the kidneys until he agreed to write something else. I go into more detail on this [here](_URL_1_).\n\n- A.J.P. Taylor's *The First World War: An Illustrated History* (1963) is highly accessible and entertaining, but the author's casual disdain is absolutely insufferable and frequently harms his objectivity. Worth reading primarily to demonstrate that a book this inadequate was not only once tolerated but actually praised.\n\nI'd also warn against anything by John Laffin, Alan Clark or Julian Putkowski, for the time being.", "I highly recommend Benedict Anderson's 'Under Three Flags: Anarchism and the Anti-colonial Imagination' (Verso, 2007) It situates the more radical and liberal events in philippine history during the late nineteenth century in the larger setting of worldwide radical movements at that time. I used this as a source in my final paper. You would have to have some knowledge of Philippine history beforehand though.", "Latin American History:\n\nMatthew Restall, \"Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest\"\n\nBasically a historian goes over 7 (actually 8) popular myths that people hold about the Spanish conquest of the Americas. Using historical evidence, he shows why they are wrong. Its popular history, so its a pretty light read compared to most stuff you'll see.\n\n\nAmerican History:\n\nElija Gould, \"Among the Powers of the Earth\"\n\nBasically situates the American struggle for independence from 1756-1823 in the context of the world. Interesting read, and its global focus brings up a lot of interesting stuff you probably wouldn't have known before reading it.", "Here is my modest contribution with some WWII suggestions. If students in your area are like the high school students here, they can't get enough of WWII literature.\n\nK.H. Frieser, *The Blizkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the west*. This book gives some fascinating insights on the Blizkrieg. It states it was not a thought-through strategy and shows how the improvised campaign succeeded. It also goes a long way to breaking the myth of a overpowered German army at the start of the war. \n\n_URL_1_\n\nIf you're interested in the Japanese side of the story I can highly recommend *Soldiers of the sun: the rise and fall of the Imperial Japanese army*. This book describes in great detail the way Japanese society and its army was shaped from the 19th century to the Second World War. It is incredibly interesting and sometimes really moving. I was really touched reading this. \n\n_URL_0_\n", "It's late, so only one book for now. \n\n*Building New Deal Liberalism: The Political Economy of Public Works, 1933-1956*, by Jason Scott Smith. \n\nIt's my favorite book simply because it puts a numerical face on the PWA and WPA. Sure you've heard about the post offices, bridges, and roads, but the numbers are just staggering and impressive. For example, the PWA completed projects in 3,068 of 3,071 counties in the United States, including 7,488 schools, 388 bridges or viaducts, and the aircraft carrier USS *Yorktown*. The WPA built a total of 40,000 new public buildings and imporived 85,000 others. Much of the infrastructure our post-war boom grew on was built during the New Deal. ", "Environmental history, particularly US:\n\nChanges in the Land, William Cronon. Early, preeminent work in the field -- and short enough to be readable by students. It began life as a grad school seminar paper, so it's fairly tight in scope. Describes the environmental impact of the colonies, and vice-versa. Certainly shorter than\n\nNature's Metropolis, by William Cronon. Fascinating book; fairly big, though. Might be too big for a high school student to tackle. If I had to recommend something easy to digest, I might go with\n\nFlight Maps, Jennifer Price. Getting old now, but still a great introduction to how we deal with nature in a consumer culture.\n\nCrimes Against Nature, Karl Jacoby. Particularly if your high school is in rural america, this or one of the other recent histories of hunting might be interesting to your students.\n\nAnd then there's all the many environmental histories of cities; if you live in a major city in the US, there's been a recent book about it. Rawson on Boston; Klingle on Seattle; Colton on New Orleans. Many more.", "Late 19th Early 20th Century Paris: *Spectacular Realities: Early Mass Culture in Fin de Siecle Paris* by Vanessa Schwartz. Far too often we miss little clues as what the average person found entertaining. The lighter side of the reading will give you a really fun read about different forms of entertainment that are only 100 years old but seem completely foreign to us (the Paris Morgue, for instance, was a tourist destination). The heavier discussion that takes place asks questions about the individual in the crowd, and the construction of the world's first \"modern\" city.\n\nI find that a lot of people have jumped to conclusions on the Arab Spring, but that has also led to a lot of interest in modern Middle Eastern History: *Being Modern in the Middle: Revolution, Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Arab Middle Class* by Keith David Watenpaugh is a fantastic book detailing the rise of a middle class in Syria. For a long time these kinds of histories focused on 'notable' men who 'pushed history forward'. Watenpaugh does a great job of constructing a middle class that, by it's very nature, seeks to be modern. The real question lies in what do non-western cultures consider to be modern? \n\nI'm not going to burden you down with my whole bibliography, but those are my two favourite books in my areas of expertise. These are both really good reads, they flow well and can help students become interested in scholarly reading. Also they're both relatively short with Schwartz topping out around 200 pages and Watenpaugh arough 300. ", "The book list I organized is specifically geared towards \"advanced laymen\".\n\nAlso, I am about to hit the character limit for that list. I can make a new list, or someone who feels capable can do so. Just let me know.", "The AskHistorians Master Book List is [here](_URL_10_). You may find it very useful. \n\n**American Civil War**\n\n* Shelby Foote's massive three volume work [*The Civil War: A Narrative*](_URL_14_)\n\n* Ulysses S. Grant's [*Memoirs*](_URL_13_). One of the absolute best memoirs of a war-time general ever. \n\n* Sherman's [*Memoirs*](_URL_4_) Not quite as good as Grant's, but still very, very good. \n\n* [*Blue-Eyed Child of Fortune: The Civil War Letters of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw*](_URL_0_) Collected letters of Shaw (Colonel of the 54th Massachusetts). May prove to be particularly interesting to fans of the movie *Glory*. \n\n* [*This Hallowed Ground*](_URL_15_) by Bruce Catton. Excellent one volume account of the Civil War. \n\n**American Revolutionary War**\n\n* [*Iron Tears: America's Battle for Freedom, Britain's Quagmire: 1775-1783*](_URL_12_) Excellent account of the politics of Britain concerning the Revolutionary War. \n\n* [*Redcoats and Rebels: The American Revolution Through British Eyes*](_URL_7_). Another account of the war from a British perspective. \n\n* [*Washington's Crossing*](_URL_2_) by David Hackett Fischer. Thoroughly researched account of the Trenton campaign that completely debunks the myth that Washington killed a bunch of soldiers who were drunk and asleep. \n\n* [*The First Salute*](_URL_6_) by Barbara Tuchman. Tuchman takes the title from the action of the governor of St. Eustatius. The focus is on the naval aspect of the war, particularly the interactions of Holland, France and England. \n\n**Random Reading**\n\n* [*Agincourt: Henry V and the Battle That Made England*](_URL_17_). Top notch account of Agincourt, but also does a great job covering that entire campaign. \n\n* [*Empires of the Sea: The Siege of Malta, the Battle of Lepanto, and the Contest for the Center of the World*](_URL_9_). Account of the siege of Malta in 1521 that was fought to control the Mediterranean. \n\n* [*Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water*](_URL_8_) Reisner's eye opening account of the history of dam building and water usage in the West.\n\n* [*The Last Indian War: The Nez Perce Story*](_URL_1_). Elliott West does a great job of explaining the history of the Nez Perce, the conflicts with white settlers, and then covers the war. \n\n* [*Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time*](_URL_16_). Dava Sobel's popular history of John Harrison's quest to build the perfect clock and thus win the Longitude Prize. \n\n* [*The Pirate Coast: Thomas Jefferson, the First Marines, and the Secret Mission of 1805*](_URL_5_) Richard Zacks' account of the Barbary coast pirates and the man who was tasked with stopping it. \n\n* [*Hero: The Life and Legend of Lawrence of Arabia*](_URL_11_) Korda writes a comprehensive biography of Lawrence. Many biographies of Lawrence are focused mostly on the war years, but Korda goes well beyond that. \n\n* [*An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942-1943*](_URL_3_) Very well written and researched look at the US Army's role in the invasion of North Africa. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.aidanfc.net/a_year_in_pyongyang.html" ], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/san2c/thoughts_on_storm_of_steel_in_stahlgewittern_by/c4cka77", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12mw78/what_impact_did_the_first_world_war_have_on_the/c6wjaoi" ], [], [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/Soldiers-Sun-Rise-Imperial-Japanese/dp/0679753036", "http://books.google.nl/books/about/The_Blitzkrieg_Legend.html?id=7Y0MxdP-ws4C&redir_esc=y" ], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Eyed-Child-Fortune-Letters-Colonel/dp/0820321745/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352669508&sr=1-1&keywords=letters+of+robert+gould+shaw", "http://www.amazon.com/Last-Indian-War-Pivotal-American/dp/0199769184", "http://www.amazon.com/Washingtons-Crossing-Pivotal-Moments-American/dp/019518159X/ref=pd_sim_b_15", "http://www.amazon.com/Army-Dawn-1942-1943-Liberation-ebook/dp/B000ZMRSGM", "http://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-General-Sherman-Library-America/dp/0940450658/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y", "http://www.amazon.com/Pirate-Coast-Jefferson-Marines-Mission/dp/B0016J2CCI", "http://www.amazon.com/First-Salute-Barbara-W-Tuchman/dp/0345336674", "http://www.amazon.com/Redcoats-Rebels-American-Revolution-Through/dp/0393322939/ref=pd_sim_b_2", "http://www.amazon.com/Cadillac-Desert-American-Disappearing-Revised/dp/0140178244", "http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Sea-Battle-Lepanto-Contest/dp/0812977645", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/timi4/the_askhistorians_master_book_list/", "http://www.amazon.com/Hero-Legend-Lawrence-Arabia-ebook/dp/B003V1WTDG", "http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Tears-Americas-Britains-1775-1783/dp/B004JZWW80/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352669889&sr=1-1&keywords=revolutionary+war+iron+tears", "http://www.amazon.com/Ulysses-S-Grant-Selected-1839-1865/dp/0940450585/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352669386&sr=1-1&keywords=grant+memoirs", "http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Narrative-Vol-Set/dp/0394749138", "http://www.amazon.com/This-Hallowed-Ground-History-Vintage/dp/0307947084/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352669738&sr=1-2&keywords=bruce+catton+this+hallowed+ground", "http://www.amazon.com/Longitude-Genius-Greatest-Scientific-Problem/dp/080271529X", "http://www.amazon.com/Agincourt-Henry-Battle-That-England/dp/0316015040" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cotdn0x", "cotdn4c", "cotr800" ], "score": [ 4, 30, 9 ], "text": [ "'The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt' by Toby Wilkinson describes how \"original sin [and] final judgement before a great god, and the promise of a glorious resurrection\" (p143-144) are already devised during the reign of pharaoh Pepi 2 (around 2250 BC). Although initially the resurrection was for Kings only, this eventual resurrection would soon be adopted by all the royal family and shortly after anyone who could afford a coffin.\n\nTo be fair: Egyptian Theology kept changing in these centuries, but if we can believe this way of thinking, based on inscriptions on millenia old burial sites, this idea of Judgement Day is unbelievably old indeed. Much older than the Greek civilisation.", "To quote Mettinger's [The Riddle of Resurrection](_URL_0_), which is probably the best survey of ANE gods and resurrection (Baal, Dumuzi-Tammuz, Adonis, Melqart-Heracles, Osiris, Eshmun-Ascelpius):\n\n > The dying and rising gods were closely related to the seasonal \ncycle. Their death and return were seen as reflected in the changes of \nplant life. The death and resurrection of Jesus is a one-time event, not \nrepeated, and unrelated to seasonal changes.\n\nand\n\n > There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death \nand resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the \nmyths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world. While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique 1 character in the history of religions. The riddle remains.", " > Ancient religions were full of \"dying gods,\" gods and goddesses who died and then rose in a specific cycle. We have Adonis, Persephone, and Dionysus, and that's just in Greek mythology. The list is massive, but these all have the idea of a cycle in common. They'll die again, and come back again, forever.\n\nI think I'd better point out that there's a pretty gigantic hole in your assumption, here. Ancient religions aren't nearly as full of this trope as 19th century naturalist interpreters of religion would have you believe. Ancient religions aren't all *that* full of dying gods (there are quite a few, but they're all complicated and different from each other), and annual cycles usually only appear if you look at liturgical practice.\n\nIf you ignore practically everything about Adonis and Persephone, then yes, they start to look a little bit similar. But they're certainly not \"gods and goddesses who died and then rose in a specific cycle\". Adonis dies once and once only. Persephone and Dionysus don't die. Dionysus gets *born* twice (and twice only). Adonis has a regular seasonal residence while he's alive, and Persephone continues to have a seasonal residence, but that's just about the least important thing about them.\n\nThe reason someone like Adonis gets caricatured as \"the dying god\" is because his death was celebrated and reenacted with a regular liturgy on an annual basis. But exactly the same is true of Jesus: go to a church on 30 March-18 April this year, and you'll see a reenactment of his entry into Jerusalem, veneration of the torture device on which he died, and hear accounts of his death. Go again on 20-26 March 2016 and you'll see exactly the same thing again. Does that make Jesus a god who dies and then rises in a specific cycle?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.worldcat.org/title/riddle-of-resurrection-dying-and-rising-gods-in-the-ancient-near-east/oclc/48966476&referer=brief_results" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e7e47di", "e7e5em7" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "That's his unit. Company A, 13th Machine Gun Battalion.\n\nSee page 76 of this PDF\n\n_URL_0_", "Hi there! The MG BN probably stands for Machine Gun Battalion. You might find our [resources on locating military records](_URL_0_) useful, and if you know his name and the cemetery he is buried in then it might be possible to find more information through them, although I'm not sure if the US has an equivalent of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://history.army.mil/html/books/023/23-2/CMH_Pub_23-2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjtn5KMgffdAhXIT98KHV4jDaoQFjAFegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw03HCpceVlbfoUvg93XYMmJ" ], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/militaryrecords" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ekqsr3w" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Not to stifle discussion, but /u/hillsonghoods wrote [some fantastic replies to a similar question](_URL_0_) of mine which I'd recommend checking out." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9h8xj3/from_ska_to_rocksteady_and_reggae_to_dub_jamaican/e6ae1oa/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cymod9v" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The ancient sources for helots are of such paucity and quality that scholars keep getting to diametrically opposite conclusions about who they were, what was their servial status, and the timing of their servitude. If you're interested in Helotry, I'd recommend this [collection of essays](_URL_0_), edited by Susan E. Alcock and Nino Luraghi. It's a fascinating book and great because many of the authors hold completely contradicting views, reflecting how 'thorny' the whole topic is. Following is a brief outline of the basic facts that most academics (well, me at least!) agree with. \n\nAs the holy *Oxford Classical Dictionary* reminds me, other Greek states than Sparta had servile populations which were not privately owned *douloi*, but, because their status seemed superior in important respects, came to be categorized as ‘between free men and *douloi*' (Pollux 3. 83). When discussing non-Doric states, we might call them serfs etc.; 'helots' is specific to Laconia and Messenia. 'Helots' were thus not an oppressed ethnic group, but rather a term referring to a certain social class. Helots could be manumitted (although at least in Sparta, in only exceptional circumstances) and thus 'stop' being helots. Our best sources to helots are about Spartan helots - I cannot say to what extent the Spartan example can be generalized into other Doric city-states. In Sparta, helots had some property rights, unlike slaves (which weren't very common in classical Sparta, mind), and whereas slaves were always considered as a personal property of one individual, helots were sort of considered to be the property of the citizen community as a whole. Spartan helots had some military obligations, too, whereas slaves did not; their main responsibility, however, was to provide their Spartan masters and mistresses with a fixed quota of natural produce. \n\nTo answer your question, what do we know about helots before they were helots; not much, really. It is believed that the classical helots are descendants of those Greek peoples that the Dorians enslaved during the [Dorian invasion](_URL_2_), somewhere between the 7th and 10th centuries. The word 'helots' (*heilōtai*) is most likely derived from a root that means *to capture*, and the helots certainly 'enjoyed' the position of being ritually demeaned and considered as a sort of the 'enemy within' in the Spartan state (J. Ducat in his *Spartan education* stresses this 'ritual demeaning' of helots), on top of the very real fear of a helot revolt (e.g. [Thucydides 4.80](_URL_1_)). Every year, the Spartan [ephors](_URL_3_) ritually declared a war against the helots, and Spartans could guilt-free kill helots. The ancient sources suggest that this was to keep the massive helot population in check, which the ancient authors believed to by far outnumber the citizen population. Not that it made any sense for the Spartans to kill helots on everyday basis; the helots were basically the bedrock of the Spartan states as their main source of agricultural labour. The most famous example of the helot oppression is of course the infamous *krypteia* institution, which was an initiation rite for young Spartan men where they went to the countryside in groups to randomly kill helots with daggers (well, this is the picture Aristotle paints; e.g. Plato described it a bit differently). \n\nHelotry survived as an institution well into Hellenistic era, and it wasn't the helots who freed themselves in the end. Helots survived as a self-perpuating body until Theban general Epaminondas freed the Messenians from the Spartan league in 369, and the remaining Laconian helots weren't freed until early 2nd century B.C. A revolutionary chap called Nabis seized the Spartan crown around 207 B.C., and he put under way some badly needed modernizations, including effectively ending the status of helots, and also the *periokoi* class of citizens was practically abolished later during his reign. \n\nEDIT: spelling" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2005/2005-06-26.html", "http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Thuc.+4.80", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_invasion", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephor" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjtzqr7" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Frankly I only know of the common topknot (\"Chonmage\") which was mostly done as a way to ensure that the kabuto helmet would fit snugly on one's head. The idea was that the topknot would be able to fit through a small hole in the helmet. Over time, while this tradition was forgotten, as the bushi and local daimyo began to take power, they continued using topknots as it was a sign of their military prowess." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dg9qcyw" ], "score": [ 14 ], "text": [ "Not discouraging any new answers coming in, but you better believe that /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov wrote about [this topic already](_URL_0_). Hope it helps!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4sgees/in_western_europe_or_the_americas_did_women_ever/d593h46/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cqbtgxs" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "**Commenters:** Please keep our commenting rules in mind as you respond to this. We've already had to remove a lot of comments that weren't up to the standards of the subreddit.\n\n**OP:** We actually have this question asked from time to time, or questions like it. You might be interested in these previous posts:\n\n* [So, what do we actually know about the life, existence, etcetera of the man called Jesus Christ?](_URL_0_)\n\n* [What do we really know about Jesus Christ?](_URL_5_)\n\n* [How is it that we can have so much concrete information on Ancient philosophers like Parmenides and Plato, yet so little on Jesus?](_URL_6_)\n\n* [What are your views on the mentioning of Jesus in Josephus' histories? Added later by people copying it down or authentic?](_URL_3_)\n\n* [I'd like a real historians critique of American Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill's \"new discovery\": ancient confessions recently uncovered now prove that the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ.](_URL_4_)\n\n* [What do we actually know about Jesus?](_URL_2_)\n\n* [How much evidence is there for a historical jesus christ besides the bible?](_URL_1_)\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/rubhc/so_what_do_we_actually_know_about_the_life/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/259vcd/how_much_evidence_is_there_for_a_historical_jesus/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1sbq67/we_are_scholarsexperts_on_ancient_judaism/cdwb6nl", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1la62e/what_are_your_views_on_the_mentioning_of_jesus_in/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1o1ca2/id_like_a_real_historians_critique_of_american/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/twdyv/what_do_we_really_know_about_jesus_christ/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15mtgq/how_is_it_that_we_can_have_so_much_concrete/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cquojaj", "cquqwml" ], "score": [ 310, 53 ], "text": [ "First of all let me say that Stalin didn't leave a diary so we can't exactly say what his emotions or personal thoughts were with confidence. That said, he was probably neither of those things. \n\nThe idea that he locked himself in a room for 3 days is certainly not true. We do have a record of his itinerary of the first day after the German invasion. Stalin spent the entire day meeting senior officials and generals, from before 6am to after midnight. He continued to have a fairly busy schedule that entire week. Nor could we say that he was really \"shocked\". Under a cover of military exercises, the Red Army began to mobilize before the Germans had invaded and certain units were ordered to move toward the border. A special directive was issued to the troops that an imminent attack was likely. All of these steps were significantly belated - mobilization should have began nearly a month prior. To say that Stalin was completely shocked would be misleading. Also to say that Stalin and Hitler were \"friends\" is a bit preposterous - the two have never met or even interacted directly. \n\nThat said you COULD make a case that Stalin fell into a state of despair or panic slightly later, about a week after the war began, when it became clear that things were developing catastrophically, the city of Minsk had fallen, and that war might be lost. He retreated to his dacha outside of Moscow, and didn't see people for a period of 3 days. Stalin is described as depressed. When several senior officials came to visit Stalin, upon seeing him he supposedly thought they came to arrest him. However this hypothesis, too, is tenuous. Stalin frequently worked in his dacha, so him being there isn't really evidence of him trying to hide. Almost all evidence comes down to memoirs of a single person, Anastas Mikoyan. Unlike several people who later wrote about Stalin's possible depression, such as Khrushchev, Mikoyan was the only one actually on the scene. It is certainly possible that Stalin was feeling down after receiving terrible news from the front. Anthony Beevor writes that Stalin even floated the idea to offer huge swaths of western USSR (including Ukraine and Belarus) to Hitler in exchange for peace but was then dissuaded of this. In short, it seems that Stalin was more affected by how poorly the war was going rather than the start of the war itself. Beyond that, there isn't a whole lot of evidence to go on, beyond a couple memoirs and speculations of Stalin's associates. \n\nLastly, there is the idea that Stalin himself was about to invade Germany and that Hitler just preempted him. This hypothesis was popularized by a former Soviet spy who wrote under a pseudonym Viktor Suvorov. However, almost no reputable Russian or western historian supports this idea. While it is definitely possible that Stalin planned to eventually attack Germany, it is extremely unlikely that would have happened that year. The Soviet military was undergoing wide-sweeping reforms and reorganization and was in no shape for a major war at the time. \n\nEDIT: My first gold ever - thank you kind sir/lady!", "Isn't it true that Stalin made several attempts to form alliances with the Western powers against the radically anti-communist Hitler and was rejected every time? And the pact with Hitler was really a temporary last ditch effort to protect the USSR?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccdlnr8", "ccdotfp" ], "score": [ 9, 9 ], "text": [ "The Taiping Rebellion started in 1850. It was fairly bloody, even by Chinese standards. The effects of that rebellion also inspired others to rebel and there were associated problems with flooding and famine. _URL_0_", "I'm assuming you're talking about China & US mid/late 19th century. There was HUGE internal chaos in China at the time; not least the Taiping Rebellion (as elmononenano has pointed out). At the same time, there were a bunch of other rebellions: The Nian Rebellion, which was basically a bunch of bandits roaming around the Jiangsu area pillaging and beating people up, huge muslim rebellions in the Chinese northwest, and separatist movements in Yunnan (the Chinese southwest). These were all happening simultaneously. \n\nMore deeply, however, China had been in sharp decline ever since the end of Qianlong's reign. Systemic corruption, complete degradation of the administrative class and economic disruptions from Imperialism had wrecked China. It was completely chaotic, and hence lots of Chinese people left for the US. \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c7haydl", "c7hdzih", "c7hgjnn" ], "score": [ 81, 32, 8 ], "text": [ "I can't seem to find any really solid sources right now, and all my books are still at school (I'm home from college on break right now), but I have studied music history quite a bit, so I can at least give you an answer to your question, even though I can't really give you further places to look currently. I can also give you [this list](_URL_0_) which is pretty accurate despite being from wikipedia\n\nBasically, Mozart had two separate audiences for his operas. Some operas were performed at palaces and sponsored by the archduke or other royalty. Such performances would have been free for the guests of the archduke, but would have been available only to royalty. Other performances took place at public opera houses, which were a new phenomenon at the time. These new public opera houses offered entertainment to the working class at relatively affordable prices- something akin to the price of a movie today.\n\nMozart's time is interesting because it is right around the time when music was transitioning from being sponsored by the aristocracy in Europe to being sponsored by the public. Mozart made most of his money through commissions by the aristocracy, as did all composers before him. He was one of the first composers to experiment with composing music for public consumption- that is, not by commission. He would work with public opera houses to put on performances which he would not be guaranteed to make any money from, because revenue was based on ticket sales, not a commission from a duke or some other noble figure. \n\nI hope this begins to answer your question. Basically, if you were already rich, seeing Mozart's music didn't cost anything, because you would be invited to see it at a palace for free. If you were poor, it was about the cost of a movie ticket today, but it would be standing in a room for up to five hours. And no, it didn't include snacks (though I believe those could be purchased or brought to the theatre)\n\nIf you add any more specific questions as replies to my comment, I am happy to answer as quickly as I can. I will also work on finding some solid sources so you can verify. ", "It's important to note that in Mozart's time, the definition of \"audience\" was much different than it is in today's modern productions. I can't offer you an exact dollar amount for tickets, but it'd be a little unfair to compare ticket prices back then to prices today anyway, because 18th century opera-goers were paying for a completely different experience. For the most part, people went to the opera to distract themselves and socialize, not to actually fully watch the opera. Some would see the show once, then go back night after night to simply not pay attention but hang out. There are accounts that sometimes the amount of drama coming from the chatty women in the audience would overpower the actual drama on stage. Here's a picture of audience dynamic from an excerpt from *Mozart's Operas: A Companion* by Mary Hunter: \"The audience would stay essentially the same for all performances: aristocrats typically rented, or in some places bought, boxes at the theater for the season, and used them as extensions of their homes, entertaining company, eating, talking, playing cards, and sometimes engaging in other less respectable activities. Gambling areas were quite common in many theaters, and helped the theaters break even. The audience would thus pay relatively good attention at the beginning of an opera seria, but then would probably listen more intermittently as the work became more familiar. Daily tickets to the parterre (the seats of the benches on the floor of the theater directly in front of the stage) and to the highest balconies were available, so presumably the audience in those places varied somewhat more than the boxholders. But the boxed aristocrats were the staple audience for opera seria in most places, and it was around their interest and pleasures that most operatic systems were organized.\"\n\nIt wasn't until later in the eighteenth century when Mozart was writing his most famous comic operas (opera buffa) like *Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail*, *The Marriage of Figaro*, *Cosi Fan Tutte*, and *Don Giovanni*, that the audience dynamic really started to shift. The aristocratic box purchase/rental thing didn't change much, but the increasingly relatable content of these operas attracted more ordinary people (in this case \"ordinary\" meant upper middle class). Opera buffa reintroduced the lower class characters (servants) that had been purged from opera at the beginning of the eighteenth century (in opera seria reforms), and these characters were down to earth, sassy, smart, used more conventional language, were easier for most people to identify with, and their stories and parts were laden with social commentary (gender, sex, class, politics). For example, female servant characters seemed particularly sexually empowered; Mozart could do this with lower class characters, but would have offended a whole lot of important patrons if he used progressive characterization for female characters of nobility. Audiences around this time were naturally paying more attention because they were more literate and more self aware (Industrial Revolution+Enlightenment, etc etc), and scholars like to argue that this was when opera culture truly started to move in the direction of our current \"lights off, sit down, shut up, and listen\" audiences. ", "Google found me a leaflet for Don Giovanni from 1788:\n_URL_1_\n\nIf I read it correctly the most expensive seat costs 6 Gulden 40 Kreuzer, the cheapest (\"one person on the last seat\") is 10 Kreuzer. (1 Gulden = 60 Kreuzer)\n\n[This report](_URL_0_) (in German) claims that Mozart's yearly income was 5000 Gulden, while his maid only made 12 Gulden/year.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operas_by_Mozart" ], [], [ "http://bazonline.ch/kultur/klassik/Wie-Topverdiener-Mozart-sein-Vermoegen-verprasste/story/18066880", "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_L6d-cxfUiEs/TLXo-FBGz0I/AAAAAAAAAag/qNya8qPy2fs/s1600/Don+Giovanni_Bill_Oldest.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e8t7vlp" ], "score": [ 450 ], "text": [ "Yay, a question where I actually have some level of cursory expertise!\n\nTL;DR at the end. Sorry for typos, didn't proof before submitting.\n\nTo begin understanding how Mormonism was allowed to flourish requires a brief understanding of the Protestant melting pot that was 19th-century America. Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism) was born into what was known as the \"burned-over district\" during the Second Great Awakening, a veritable hotbed of theological and religious development. Other notable religions cropping up from the same area are Seventh-Day Adventists, Disciples of Christ, Millerites, etc. {The Making of a Prophet, Vogel}\n\nCampbellite theology was making its way into popular religious culture and influencing theological discussions with public debates with Campbellite leaders like Alexander and Barton Stone. Young Joseph Smith (1805-44) grew up likely attending local revival meetings.\n\nFor a boy of a family of 12 with a vagabond father and no sustainable income or regular education opportunities, you can imagine his eyes bulging as he saw the collection plates passed around these congregations after sermons. A relevant piece of Smith's personality should be noted here; Smith was a charismatic man. Charisma has its benefits and weaknesses. He was polarizing, non-committal, and had a malleable set of beliefs and convictions which could quickly adapt to setting and audience. One can see how such a personality would do well as a magnetic religious leader.\n\nThe set of factors which caused Smith to claim he had an ancient record of Native American Jews is a rabbit hole too deep to dive into with this question, but suffice it to say, eventually he claimed to have such a record written on Gold Plates, which he \"translated\" into The Book of Mormon. {Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Quinn}\n\nApril 6, 1830, the first meeting of the Church of Christ was called in New York; \"Joe Smith\" had his own church of \"Mormonites\". Smith also had a bit of a sordid reputation in New York. Eventually, circumstances led to Smith fleeing the state and heading for greener pastures in Kirtland, Ohio. {Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman}\n\nUpon his arrival to Kirtland, Smith teamed up with an ex-Campbellite preacher named Sidney Rigdon. Rigdon was a preacher with multiple congregations and hundreds of parishioners at the time. There were roughly 5-7 families who were adherents to Mormonism in New York, but once Rigdon converted, many of his followers were also baptized into Mormonism, which provided a much-needed lifeline to keeping the young religion alive. \n\nA few notable converts were Newell K. Whitney, Isaac Morley, and John Johnson, quite wealthy people with significant land and business holdings in the area. Smith quickly provided leadership roles for these men to fulfill their need to \"serve the Lord,\" which manifested by them donating large sums of money, as well as various business ventures, to the church. {No Man Knows My History, Brodie}\n\nConcomitant with the rising of Mormonism in Ohio was a concerted effort to settle \"on the border with the Lamanites\" (Missouri). Missouri was still the wild frontier west in the 1830s and seized land from Native Americans was cheap. Mormonism established a foothold there and eventually the Missouri congregations outnumbered that back at HQ in Kirtland.\n\nVarious factors led to Smith's excommunication from the Kirtland congregation. He fled in the middle of the night to escape vigilante justice by his previous parishioners and made it to Missouri. \n\nMissouri in 1838, for Smith, was a place where he could finally put his theocratic motivations into practice. He formed an extra-military group, known as the Danites, to insure the security of the various Mormon settlements, numbering roughly 6-8,000 ppl at the time. After escalating conflict between the Mormons and Missourians, the Mormons raided and pillaged a few nearby settlements and razed them to the ground. Missouri militias responded by massacring the Mormons at a grain mill (Haun's Mill Massacre). Outnumbered and surrounded by multiple state militias, Smith and the Mormons surrendered. They were \"exterminated\" from the state of Missouri and found refuge in Illinois on the banks of the Mississippi. {The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri, LeSueur}\n\nNauvoo, Illinois became the new Mormon stronghold. Smith had learned from mistakes in Ohio and Missouri, resulting in his cultivating relationships with prominent politicians in Illinois. The city of Nauvoo was granted their own private militia which eventually outnumbered the militia of nearly any state in the Union at the time.\n\nBrigham Young rose to prominence here. He, and the other apostles, went on a proselytizing mission to Europe in 1839, selling promises of American prosperity to any Englander willing to listen. Young established an immigration fund with a privately chartered ship, costing each European person a mere 4 pounds to immigrate to the Mormon settlement on the Mississippi. This resulted in thousands of converts making their way to the states. {Nauvoo, Kingdom on the Mississppi, Flanders}\n\nMormonism was a force to be reckoned with.\n\nAt the height of his career, Smith ran for POTUS in 1844 and was assassinated while being held in a jail. Nauvoo was roughly 12-20,000 Mormons (estimates are all over the place and real numbers are really hard to nail down) at this time, the population of Chicago, the next largest city in Illinois, was ~7-9,000 but growing fast.\n\nSmith's death incited a schism crisis. A handful of men claimed to have the rightful authority to be the next one-true prophet. Smith's oldest son was 11 at the time so it wasn't reasonable for him to be the next prophet quite yet (see history of RLDS for further information). {Origins of Power, Quinn}\n\nSome themes to tease out before an overview of Utah Mormonism: 1) persecution, 2) uniqueness, 3) galvanization. \n\n1) Persecution works like fertilizer. Too little and the followers don't have a common enemy, too much and the movement is snuffed out (Catholicism pre-1550). But, just the right amount of fertilizer and the movement will grow and flourish. Mormonism hit that perfect sweet spot.\n\n2) Uniqueness, Mormonism was wacky. Search newspaper databases for articles on Mormonism 1833-45 and many bear a title invoking \"Deluded Fanatics,\" \"Gold Bible Mormonites,\" or something of a similar derisive nature. Smith's claim as not just a preacher, but a prophet, a \"mouthpiece of God,\" made Mormonism really stand out beyond most congregations.\n\n3) Galvanization. Mormonism continued to make media headlines and Smith, along with other leaders, was able to turn that press into a persecution narrative, citing suffering in 1838 Missouri as their real-world examples of how real that persecution really was. A common group with a common enemy lives and dies together.\n\nUtah Mormonism presents an interesting set of factors which caused Mormonism to become what it is today. Brigham Young rose to prominence during the schism crisis and took his group of 6-7,000 Mormons to an area where the U.S. Government would stop bothering them, Mexico. Utah Territory was carved out as a result of the Compromise of 1850, and the new Mormon theocracy had a place to flourish.\n\nLife in Utah wasn't great for the Mormons in the beginning. It was an unsettled badland ruled by people with different beliefs, cultures, and skin color than them. Best estimates put Native American population in the territory around 20,000 when the Mormons got there.\n\nWhile this issue is much more nuanced than a reddit post will justify, the Mormon/Native conflicts (1849-70s) resulted in near extinction of Native American people in Utah. It was only in 1980 when Native populations in Utah reached their pre-Mormon level of ~20,000 ppl. During this growing phase of Utah Mormonism, the European immigration fund remained successful. From 1847-1860, tens of thousands of European converts made the trek across the plains and settled with the growing Mormon settlement. Thousands of white religious fanatics flooding in while conflicts with Native raged and resulted in repeated decimation of the native tribes. These Europeans interbred and created their own self-contained economy with bartering and proprietary money; everybody relied on their neighbor to survive. {Indian Depredations, Gottfriedson}\n\nBrigham Young was king of Utah. He was first Governor of the territory, director of the Office of Indian Affairs, and prophet of the Church; a trifecta of religious and government authority all held by one of the wealthiest Americans living at the time. {Blood of the Prophets, Bagley}\n\nPolygamy also factors into Utah Mormonism more than we can imagine. It created a source of conflict with the U.S. Government that increased the impact of the 3 factors previously discussed. That, coupled with the geographic isolation of Utah, created a system where Mormonism couldn't help but flourish. It was the only authority in a land with dwindling Native populations and European religious fanatics that was well above the critical mass required to grow. {Origins of Power, Quinn}\n\nEventually, the United States Government disincorporated the Church and seized all assets > $50,000 until the practice of polygamy was officially renounced by the religion. It was {Official Declaration 1} and Utah was granted statehood in 1896. It only continued to grow from that point forward.\n\nTL;DR Mormonism was started by a wacky and charismatic guy. Due to a number of complex factors, it had just the right algorithm to flourish into a major religion and build multiple theocracies. Once it attained the crucial \"critical mass\" of followers, nothing could stop it from continuing to grow.\n\nCred: independent researcher and podcaster of Mormon history." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c4hywal", "c4hzepn", "c4hzjux", "c4i0k6a" ], "score": [ 14, 7, 6, 8 ], "text": [ "We honestly don't know accurately, it's mostly educated guesses and deduction, some will be higher than reality and some will be lower than the true number. It's just like with most things in history, I will give an example, with The Battle of the Nile, we know how many British were involved, how many died and how many were wounded due to the quality of records. Whereas we have very little idea how many casualties the French suffered. So without adequate record keeping we have to try and piece it together although we will likely never know the true number.\n\nEDIT: Battle of the Nile example", "The book Mao's Last Revolution is a thoroughly researched and sourced book about the events of the cultural revolution. It is hard to say exactly how many people died, but academics who say that these numbers were exaggerated tend to have their own agenda they're pushing. What exactly are your sources on this?", "Well, one major reason that you see so many wildly conflicting estimates is that it's hard to know who should count as being \"killed by\" the regime. Clearly people directly executed count, but what about people who merely starve to death or die from preventable/curable diseases? \n\nIt can be hard to know whether these people died from incompetence (like when communists seized farms), from external factors (you can't blame everything on those in power) or if it was an intentionally fabricated disaster. Usually in a crisis, most of the people will be dying from starvation and disease, not violence.", "In the case of Stalin's Soviet Union, there is enough archival data that pinpoints a minimum of those arrested/executed/exiled, etc. From incidents like collectivization, industrialization, famine, dekulakization, it gets much harder, there you rely on demographic data and at best it is still guesswork. " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "drurank", "drv5ksc" ], "score": [ 989, 674 ], "text": [ "1. Could you please specify what era you're interested in? In 2006, 50.3% of people living in the Northwest Territories identified themselves as Aboriginal Canadians (First Nations, Metis, Inuit, or multiple/other Aboriginal identities), along with 20% of people in Yukon and 85% of people in Nunavut. Their methods of dealing with winter, and reasons for living where they do (or rather, in 1997) will obviously be quite different from 1957 or 1857 or 1657.\n\n2. This is a little sideways, but: if you're interested in pre-colonial or early colonial era, I have an [earlier answer](_URL_1_) on how Jesuit missionaries in 17th century Quebec confronted winters. It talks a lot about what/how the Jesuits learned from the Montagnais nation (and in some cases, what the Montagnais knew and did that the Jesuits didn't or couldn't do).\n\nI'll excerpt some of the relevant portions and add in more details:\n\n~~\n\n*The \"Jesuit Relations\" of the 17th and 18th centuries have a lot to say about the challenges and benefits faced by early European settlers--in this case, Jesuit missionaries--in the deep of winter in \"these wretched lands.\" A theme that emerges, over and over, is that winter makes travel easier and being indoors harder.*\n\nFr. Paul le Jeune, arriving in Quebec in 1632, describes learning how to walk with snowshoes from the local Montagnais--he was so sure he was going to fall on his face at first, with every step he took--but he had grown quite skilled (though not as good as the Montagnais).\n\nIn 1640, Fr. Joseph Marie Chaumonot wrote back to Rome...[the Jesuits] probably used snowshoes as well--Chaumonot tells us that among the Hurons, snowshoe-making is very specifically the women's task. Le Jeune describes the Montagnais using their snowshoes to shovel, but I'm not sure whether the Jesuits adopted that practice. For transportation across unfrozen waterways, like the St. Lawrence River, the Montagnais would use their canoes as in summer. Over the snow, they pulled sleighs or sleds made of wood.\n\n...[The Jesuits] weren't hunters, so while (writes Le Jeune enviously) the Montagnais were chowing down on moose, the Jesuits ate dried eel (which, yes, they had known to eat--and maybe were getting from?--Native women). Le Jeune writes that winter actually *aided* the Montagnais in catching eels:\n\n > This work is done entirely by the women, who empty the fish, and wash them very carefully, opening them, not up the belly but up the back; then they hang them in the smoke, first having suspended them upon poles outside their huts to drain. They gash them in a number of places, in order that the smoke may dry them more easily. The quantity of eels which they catch in the season is incredible.\n\nWinter was also the season for moose hunting (and hence, eating):\n\n > On the 19th [of December], the snow being already very deep, they captured eight elks or moose. About that time one of them, named Nassitamirineou, and surnamed by the French Brehault, told them that he had dreamed that they must eat all of those Moose; and that he knew very well how to pray to God, who had told him that it was his will that they should eat all, and that they should give none of them away, if they wanted to capture others. [The Montagnais] believed him, and did not give a piece to the Frenchmen.\n\nFather de Noue, another Jesuit, told Le Jeune his experiences of traveling with a group of (I think) Montagnais:\n\n > The inns found on the way are the woods themselves, where at nightfall they stop to camp; each one unfastens his snowshoes, which are used as shovels in cleaning the snow from the place where they are going to sleep. The place cleaned is usually made in the form of a circle; a fire is made in the very middle of it, and all the guests seat themselves around it, having a wall of snow behind them, and the Sky for a roof.\n\n > The wine of this inn is snow, melted in a little kettle which they carry with them, provided they do not wish to eat snow in lieu of drink. Their best dish is smoked eel. As they must carry their blankets with them for cover at night, they load themselves with as few other things as possible.\n\nAnd modern practice to the contrary, drinking chocolate is actually a *Central* American tradition.\n\n~~\n\nThe *Jesuit Relations* are available [for free online in English translation](_URL_0_)! I suggest opening a few volumes and searching for snow, ice, and related terms if you're further interested in this particular topic.", "I'll add in a few things - often mass snow dumps and cold weather don't go hand in hand. Normally when I see it snowing that's a sign that it's warm. People did and do a lot of things to survive in winter in weather down to much colder than -30.\n\n - people gathered in houses with fires in them. \n - In many places the majority of the food for the winter was gathered during the summer. This includes fish, berries, nuts, and roots, all staples of diet. In communities that lived along almost every river in British Columbia (most of the communities, all of this seasonal harvesting constituted the majority of food, and was done in generally fixed locations at fixed times. Meat as well was often seasonal - think of the caribou and buffalo migrations/hunts by various Dene and Inuit groups in the far north, and by various buffalo hunting groups in the prairies. In particular the Metis big hunt was done once a year, with thousands participating, and going back much further in time we have numerous examples of stationary hunting locations that caught herds at specific points on their yearly migrations. These did not take place in the winter, and people preserved meat by smoking or sun-drying (more smoking the less predictable the water was i.e. closer to the coast). Men did hunt in the winter in almost all cultures, especially after trapping became a major economic force, but it often wasn't as necessary for survival as it later became when people began to be involved in more economic activities during the summer. For example along the coast, midwinter was ceremony season. In addition, my grandfather survived a lot of his childhood by snaring a lot of food close by wherever he was camping, and having your snares out every night or checking your snares every day is a pretty easy way of getting some food. Snaring food was/is a common way for kids to start trapping, and rabbits and squirrels snared are a normal part of many winter diets. These are still generalities, as Inuit for example hunted a lot in the winter, and resources vary a lot from place to place. Winter hunting was always an important fall back when accidents happened, and the men being gone a lot was also a fairly useful form of birth control.\n\n - people were skilled at building shelters of all kinds. In the north (north of the tree line) in Inuit country people built igloos, travel igloos, snow caves, or even just wind breaks out of snow. This is of course when they are on the land and not in permanent settlements which often had permanent houses made of turf as well as igloos. These could be heated by body heat and seal-oil lamps, generally with multiple wicks. In places such as the Mackenzie delta, despite there being no trees there could be lots of driftwood and fires were fine, in fact some people still heat their houses with wood today using driftwood entirely in the area. Further south in British Columbia people lived in pit houses and hide houses, and could make many kinds of shelters easily and quickly, as well as fires. Harlan Smith lists eight types of houses used just by the Nuxalk, and other first nations as well built a range of shelters for various functions and needs. By and large these houses would be as warm or warmer than our houses, they just might take more wood to keep that way Having spent time in a long house, a good fire in the middle can warm a very large building quite quickly. That said, people who spend a lot of time in the cold can get used to it through acclimation. For example, I camp in winter with a sleeping bag, groundpad, and warm clothing. My cousin hikes in jeans, and will wrap up in a tarp in freezing weather and just go to sleep. I don't recommend it, but when you're used to it, a person can function in very cold weather. This includes adaptations like hunter's reflex where many Inuit can work all day barehanded in minus thirty weather pulling in nets, without their hands freezing because their body will pump blood to their fingers every little while to keep them warm.\n - people had very good clothing, much of it still the equal to technical clothing made today. Fur-lined well made clothing is really quite warm. Also, the snow doesn't really make you that wet if you have good clothing on. It's well enough insulated that body heat doesn't make the snow melt, and if its cold enough, even more so. In particular people were careful of overexerting themselves and getting wet as a result. Caribou skin parkas are still used, sealskin leggings and mukluks are still used, and fur-lined clothing is still used today and is considered very adequate.\n - If you sent me out in my coat, with a blanket and food, I do know how I would survive, and I that's the primary difference. Just like today, in the past people knew how to survive, and that made it normal. First Nations went in to areas that had resources, and they used the technologies and education needed to survive in those areas. Warmer areas were more populated, and with the right technologies, you could move in to places where nobody else was living and have abundance. That said, almost all of Canada's first nations people have migrated north to south, not the other way around, so if anything it's been warm weather tech that people have had to develop over the years.\n\nRelevant sources - for a really detailed description of plant use, see Nancy Turner's two volume set on the topic, covering Northwestern North America.\n\nTurner, Nancy (2014). Ancient Pathways, Ancestral Knowledge: Ethnobotany and Ecological Wisdom of Indigenous Peoples of Northwestern North America.\n\nYou can get Harlan Smith's books from the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Almost any collection of northern stories will tell you a lot about survival methods, as will writing by early explorers who analyzed the methods as they learnt them and often wrote about how not to die. One book in particular I enjoyed was the following:\n\nMishler, Craig, ed. Neerihiinjìk: We Traveled from Place to Place: the Gwich’in Stories of Johnny and Sarah Frank. 2nd ed. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, 2001.\n\nthis book really tells a lot about survival in the North, and I can't recommend it too highly, though my primary interest in it is because of the cultural information." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://moses.creighton.edu/kripke/jesuitrelations/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/42ban7/how_did_the_early_settlers_on_the_east_coast_of/cz9btqy/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbn6ga7", "cbn7unr" ], "score": [ 5, 4 ], "text": [ "To my knowledge the Emperor wasn't praised as a god via rituals as that would go against their religion to their many gods, it would have been seen as an insult.\n\nIn the early 20th century/WW2 era the Emporer was often thought to be a Demi-god or higher being, someone who has unquestionable reign over the entire nation. Many actions during the war and in Japanese society were said to be done in the name of the Emperor, be it kamikaze bombers or some form of societal advancement back in Japan.\n\nTo my knowledge in schools children tended to be thought that the Emporer was the ultimate ruler with an all seeing eye. However, do not quote me on this, I am just trying to remember back to my Japanese studies in school which was some time ago, but I hope this helps. I still encourage a qualified 20th century historian to give you a better answer.", "The idea that the Emperor is was considered a god is only semi-accurate, in that none of the many kinds of mythological/supernatural beings in Japanese lore exactly match what we would think of as a \"god\" in the west. Many other elements of religion that we would take for granted are also absent. A good example is your question about getting into paradise. The answer is no, because in Japanese religion there is no concept similar to paradise/heaven.\n\nThe exact position of Emperor might be best summed up as something like the spiritual embodiment of the nation. He was a kind of demi-god - not because he had any supernatural powers, but because he was the direct descendant of Amaterasu, the Goddess (or *kami*) of the Sun, as well as the patron Goddess of the Japanese people. In the *Kojiki* and the *Nihon Shoki*, two ancient Japanese texts that give an account of the legendary period of Japanese history, Amaterasu appears to her human descendant called Jimmu, and informs of his divine ancestry. She also tells him that his people, the Japanese, are her chosen people and that she is offering them her holy islands (the islands of Japan) for their home. Because of this myth, the Japanese's status as the chosen people of the Sun Goddess became an important of the Japanese nationalism that flourished in the latter part of the 19th century, and the Emperor was honoured as a crucial part of that link/relationship.\n\nThe Emperor was not prayed to as such, though he was treated with extreme reverance. There were shrines to the Emperor, but the function of praying there was to pay respects or pray for the health of the Emperor, not petition him directly. As for the infamous fanaticism of Japanese in WW2, dying in battle was more a civic/patriotic duty than a religious one. It was also a product of the Japanese mindset, which tended to emphasis group interests over individualism. Dying in battle, or in suicide attacks, wasn't done for any particular reward but because it was seen as honourable.\n\nI can't really think of any direct parallels in other religions. Perhaps the closest I can think of would be something like the Pope i.e. not inherently divine but a kind of conduit to the divine. However, even this is a pretty bad comparison. It's also worth saying that most of this only applies to roughly the period 1868-1945. Before this the Emperor was far less important to the national psyche (the Shogun was the central figure), and after the end of WW2 the Showa Emperor (also known as Hirohito) declared that he was not descended from Amaterasu, severing this divine connection.\n\nSources: The *Kojiki* and *Nihon Shoki* - traditional Japanese texts\n\n*The Making of Modern Japan* - Marius Jansen" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cq1rc1d", "cq1ri1v", "cq1rkkk", "cq1s28h", "cq1ul3o" ], "score": [ 131, 29, 12, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "It seems to me that you assume that if there is hunger and some political chaos that all the institutions stop functioning? Germany before WWI was one of the most advanced countries on the planet, they won the most Nobel prices in the sciences up to that point. WWI was 4 years and after it was over the scientists or institutions didn't just disappear. \n\nThey might have been destitute right after the war but they still had one of the biggest economies in the world plus the institutional memory and tradition in the sciences, engineering didn't vanish.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nI hosted the spreadsheet on my Google docs if that is easier:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nThere GDP took hits in those years but they never got below France there level and overtook England in the inter war period. GDP is a flawed way to look at the economy but it's useful to illustrate my point that they weren't as destitute as you might have thought.", "Leading up to World War 1 Germany looked like an academic and industrial juggernaut. Their universities were numerous and the best in the world. Their factories produced more and better goods than anyone else. They appeared to be accelerating as well because foreign leaders were quite worried about the rise of Germany into a continental juggernaut. David Fromkin goes into the specifics of their ascension and the perceptions of it from elsewhere in the beginning of \"Europe's Last Summer\". \n\nThen despite the heavy cost of the war there was little destruction in Germany proper outside of malnutrition and some starvation as a result of the Allied blockade. This meant that that superiority in academics and manufacturing largely remained intact. In the last years of the war and until 1924 the German economy was in shambles but there was a golden period until 1929 when everyone tanked. Germany then came out of the Depression a little earlier than most countries so they really had favorable conditions between the wars to maintain their advanced status.", "hi! You may be interested in these posts\n\ngeneral background\n\n* [When did \"German Engineering\" become a thing and how did it come about?](_URL_2_) - includes links to a few more posts\n\nthe run-up to WWII\n\n* [Was Germany more advanced technologically than the allies during WWII? How did they progress faster?](_URL_5_)\n\n* [Prior to WWII, why were German scientists so good at what they did?](_URL_3_)\n\n* [Why was Germany so far ahead technologically prior and during World War II?](_URL_4_)\n\n* [What kinds of technology and doctrine came out of the naval arms race between Great Britain and Germany prior to WW1?](_URL_6_)\n\n* [Was Germany far ahead technologically in World War 2?](_URL_0_)\n\n* [Was Germany more advanced technologically than the allies during WWII? How did they progress faster?](_URL_5_)\n\n* [How were the Germans able to field such a large and technologically advanced army during WW2?](_URL_1_)", "Any information of the Investment in public education system under Bismarck? ", "Enigma was invented in WWI by Arthur Scherbius, a person who died before WWII even broke out.\n\nFerdinand Porsche, designer of the Tiger tank, was born in 1875 and died in 1951.\n\nHugo Schmeisser, inventor of Stg44, 1884 and died in 1953.\n\nEinstein, famous German Scientist and nobel prize winner, was born in 1879 and died in 1955.\n\nAll of these people were born before WWI. All would have been post-university age by the outbreak of WWI (i.e. at least 25+. Einstein is an interesting case there). So unless they died in WWI, or fled to another country (as Einstein did), all would have been able to contribute to WWII's technological efforts. It's not as if they stopped existing on the outbreak of WWII!\n\nWernher von Braun, person behind the V2 rocket (I assume you meant V2 rocket?) and later main initial component of NASA's rocket program, was born in 1912. He got his PhD in 1934 -- and so is relevant to your question. For his teachers: See above. Other \"old\" people still alive before the outbreak of WWII. For his materials: See /u/Slashenbash's comment about GDP.\n\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.worldeconomics.com/Data/MadisonHistoricalGDP/Madison%20Historical%20GDP%20Data.efp", "https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1c6VaKFh7znO4RT_FBJxQcQLepehkf_4ymwZclpnx-M8/edit?usp=sharing" ], [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ewfg2/was_germany_far_ahead_technologically_in_world/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/307xss/how_were_the_germans_able_to_field_such_a_large/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1z1hc4/when_did_german_engineering_become_a_thing_and/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/25i3jv/prior_to_wwii_why_were_german_scientists_so_good/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1xcdm4/why_was_germany_so_far_ahead_technologically/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/25nj56/was_germany_more_advanced_technologically_than/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2d3vvu/what_kinds_of_technology_and_doctrine_came_out_of/" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "co1g483" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "we have harder metals to work that produce a better product in the end.\n\nThe main issue with bronze is that its a rather soft metal and doesn't keep its edge well. While early iron suffered similar issues (with less reparability) the moment you start getting cast and later wrought iron plus steel you have a might sharper metal that can be used in much more things." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ceq9muv", "ceq9mwr", "ceq9nii" ], "score": [ 4, 58, 8 ], "text": [ "Short answer: the seat of political power, nowadays known as *het Binnenhof*, has been in the Hague since 1446. [The wikipedia entry of het Binnenhof](_URL_0_) can give you some more details on the locale itself. This is where the nobility and other notables gathered during the late middle ages, renaissance and early modernity. \n\nLonger answer: Dutch political power has been fragmented and split over many players. Amsterdam was one such a player and they rose to prominence most notably during the 17th century. That's when Amsterdam became a power player, but the power was still split over many players. A brief overview of players during the 17th and 18th century: Stadholder, the provinces, the cities (each city was a seperate power, although they did band together when politically expedient) and various local notables - merchants, regenten and so on. Perhaps I should list the VOC and WIC here as well, but they were an extension of the politicians and merchants. You then also had a split between 'pro-monarchy' and 'pro-republic' parties, but those political parties fluctuated greatly over the years.\nThe city of Amsterdam didn't become a stronghold of the Stadholder during these years nor was it the seat of the nobility. In that sense, it never became the center of politics or power - it simply was a strong player, but not the center of politics. \n\n\ntl;dr: the Hague is the seat of political power, Amsterdam was simply a key player and eventually the 'cultural' capital of the Netherlands, but the seat of politics never moved there.\n\n\nI'm a bit under the weather though, so if I made any glaring errors or am unclear in any way, do ask/correct me.", "In 1248 William II, count of Holland and King of Germany started building a hall that's today known as the Ridderzaal. His son Count Floris V finished the construction in 1280. This is where the history of the Hague begins.\n\nIn the 14th century the Hague became the administrative capital of the county of Holland.\n\nIn the 15th and 16th century the Netherlands were under Burgundian, Habsburg and Spanish rule. The Netherlands were divided into small 'states' run by nobles and burgeoisie. These small states gathered in Brussels to discuss matters in the realm with their King a few times. This council became more and more powerful and got a lot of privileges.\n\nWhen the Dutch Republic seceded from Spain the states needed a new place to gather. At first this was the city of Middelburg in the county of Zeeland. When this location became unsave they relocated to the Hague. The reason was that it was a village of no significance. It didn't had any city rights which meant that it wasn't self governing and didn't had any representation on the council. Because of the fact that the village had no political power and was therefore neutral ground made the states decided to gather there.\n\nThis was also the time known in the Netherlands as 'the Golden Age'. The Netherlands was one of the most powerful nations and the biggest trade power. The center of all the trade was the city of Amsterdam. Amsterdam would always be the most important city of the Netherlands.\n\nIn 1815 when Napoleon was defeated the Kingdom of the Netherlands came to be. As Amsterdam was the most important city King William I decided that it would become the capital (it was already the de facto capital). Brussels and the Hague became the seats of the government like they used to be. After Belgium seceded in 1830 from the Kingdom the remaining seat of the goverment , the Hague, became the permanent seat of the government.\n\nSources:\n\n* [_URL_1_ where someone took the time to write a summary of a piece that was posted on the site of the Dutch embassy in India.](_URL_4_)\n* [_URL_5_ - de Ridderzaal.](_URL_0_)\n* [A tour I had last week in the Hague.](_URL_3_)\n* [Some bits from my own history knowledge (I'm Dutch)](_URL_2_).\n\nSmall note: I suck at English grammar", "this is something that has its roots in the 80 Years War. After the new republic declared its independence, not all parts of what's now the Netherlands were willing to go along with this. \nBecause of trade considerations, Amsterdam initially remained loyal to Spain until it was forced to change sides after it became isolated in 1578, so logically the new country couldn't pick it as its capital even though it was the biggest and most powerful city in Holland. \n \nThe first Free assembly of the rebels in 1572 specifically calls out Amsterdam's reluctance to join, and proposes to send out letters to other protestant trade cities to effect a blockade of the city: \n \n > With respect to [the interests of] Amsterdam in the Sound, His Highness might write to Denmark and the other Baltic towns at the earnest request of the States and towns of Holland to the effect that because of Amsterdam's great enmity and opposition to freedom and the well-being of the common fatherland [gemeen vaderlants], it should be refused passage and that they [ie. Baltic towns] should put into and trade with Enkhuizen, Hoorn and the other nearby towns devoted to us or, in the case of the Maas, with Dordrecht, where they will find the situations and arrangements as convenient as Amsterdam \n \n[source](_URL_2_)\n \n \nA second element that played a role was the position of the Stadhouder in the Republic, and by extension the House of Orange since they provided all the Stadhouders. \nAmsterdam had a large degree of independence, as did a lot of other cities. But there was always a concern that the Stadhouder would gain too much power and effectively become a king, and the regents of Amsterdam tended to be at the forefront when it came to calling for restrictions to the power of the house of Orange. \n \nLikewise the concerns were often justified as Stadhouders often fought to extend their power, and in [1618](_URL_0_) and [1650](_URL_3_) actively sought to overthrow the Republic to start a monarchy. \nThe Republic did away with the position of Stadhouder twice (the first time after [1650 and until 1672](_URL_1_) ), but in times of crisis reappointed them.\n \nDuring the Napoleonic Wars, Amsterdam became the official capital with also the government residing there. After the Kingdom was re-established in 1815, the government moved back to the Hague, but as a gesture of reconciliation from the House of Orange, Amsterdam remained the official capital. \n \nFor more information I can recommend Jonathan I. Israel's \"The Dutch Republic. It's Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806\"" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binnenhof" ], [ "http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/encyclopedie/monarchie/prinsjesdag/ridderzaal/", "Steljevraag.nl", "http://www.reddit.com/u/TheDomCook", "http://english.prodemos.nl/English/Visitor-Centre", "http://www.steljevraag.nl/viewquestion?questionID=12440", "Koninklijkhuis.nl" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_of_Orange", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Stadtholderless_Period", "http://www.dutchrevolt.leiden.edu/english/sources/Pages/15720819Dordt.aspx", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_II,_Prince_of_Orange" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cn6oo8k" ], "score": [ 13 ], "text": [ "As a corollary to OP's question:\nWhat was the life of an average Jew in Babylon like? How were the classes divided? Were Jews well integrated into Babylonian society? " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c72ytmi", "c732x96" ], "score": [ 7, 3 ], "text": [ "There are two acceptable answers to this question. Militarily, the Soviet Union wins World War Two. They grind the Germans up, tie down major parts of the German army, and push gigantic distances (while taking serious casualties) to throw the Nazis back onto Berlin. The Russian steamroller tied down men, tanks, brilliant officers, and all the supplies of war which the Germans could have well used against the Allies. During the last winter months of Barbarossa alone, the German army uses all the equipment it had built up during the 1930s, especially in terms of tanks. After that, they are forced to live hand-to-mouth for the rest of the war. \n\nHowever, your question asks about the economic side of the war. And for this, it is undeniable that the Allies (read: the United States) fueled the Russian economy, especially in non-war related materials (the Ruskies didnt like our weapons, especially tanks, and tried to build their own whenever possible). I dont have the book next to me (but I can dig it out if necissary), but the US gave the Soviets significant equipment, hundreds of train cars, dozens of engines, enough machines to run entire factories, boots, helmets, belts, pants, cans of food, cans, trucks (they used WW2 era Studebaker trucks, re-branded of course, into the 1970s). The US was economically critical to revving up this unstoppable war machine in the East which demolishes Nazi Germany. So in that way, one could argue that really the US does win WW2 because it fuels ever allied nation in this way, then equips its own army.\n\nHere is the rub then. The Soviet Union needed the US's help. We allowed a significant amount of its male population to remain under arms, instead of farming or working to maintain the economy (make the little stuff that we gave them in great numbers). However, the Red Army could still fight the Germans, and fight them well. If we look at Operation Barbarossa in 1941, the Germans were stonewalled along most of the front. This was done largely without lend-lease. Further, Stalingrad was fought and won using Soviet equipment. While the logistical element was just coming online, I would argue that it didnt have much of an effect on the outcome of the first stages of the battle. It isnt until the encirclement period that this becomes more important. \n\nWith all this in mind, I would argue that the Soviets had more of a chance than we give them. They had manpower, the Nazi atrocities gave them motivation, and their own industry (such as it was) was largely saved and moved east of the Urals. This would have allowed them to grind the Nazis back out of Russia. The victory would not have been as complete, the Soviet Union would not have mobilized so completely, and its post-war position would have been far diffrent, but I think they had the capacity to win by themselves. This is not to cheapen the US's Lend-Lease, it was indeed critical for the Soviets, but I think they could have done it by themselves, and so I would argue that they really did win the war. ", "The allied bombing campaign pretty much destroyed Germany's industrial capacity. I wouldn't call this effort more important than the fact that the Russian's were fighting around 80% of the German army on the eastern front, but destroying your enemies ability to fight is just as effective as beating your enemy in a fight." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fi5bx4t" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "More can always be said, but the following previous answers are quite excellent explanations.\n\nu/Iphikrates offers a [comprehensive treatment on just this topic here](_URL_0_), and u/theshadowdawn has a [similar answer here](_URL_1_), with special reference to the Battle of Cannae." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8gt4bc/why_didnt_spearmen_just_spin_around_when_being/", "https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bf9val/why_was_being_surrounded_so_bad_in_antique/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chdt0q7" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "So, first I'll unpack a few things. What I will be talking about is mainly focused on the French Imperial Army, I don't know enough of the other army compositions to help but I am sure that we have the right people to help. Second, within the French army, there is a difference between light infantry and skirmishers and I'll go into that in a bit.\n\nSo, what makes light infantry? Generally light infantry was made of men between five feet and five four to five six. They were chosen for being nimble and intelligent, being able to conduct open order formations without getting confused (clearly they didn't think much of soldiers intellect). So light infantry (or *chasseurs a pied*) would be trained to fight in both a line formation and open order formation. From there, what they would do would vary from what was needed but more often than naught, they would fight in line formation. \n\nNow, the real use of light infantry was to establish a foothold; ideally a French commander would send his light forward to make contact with the enemy and hold them there. From here, the regular line would march up and fight the now tired enemy while the light pulls back for a flanking attempt. So, the use of light is meant to stop the enemy and buy time to pull in more forces to defeat the enemy.\n\nnow, for skirmishing. As I mentioned, yes the light was trained in open order combat. They could skirmish if needed but often they would leave it to the *voltigeurs*, an elite company of sharp shooters. Before 1809, a French Line battalion would consist of did companies of about 120 men, one company of elite Grenadier (whom are the tallest and most skilled of the battalion), and a company of elite sharp shooters (the aforementioned *voltigeurs*). A light battalion would have the same composition, having chasseurs instead of standard line and carabiners instead of grenadiers. The *voltigeurs* would be the ones skirmishing until they would give way for the standard light infantry in line formation\n\nThere are specific skirmishing battalions, *trailleurs*, which would often be either elite infantry like the Trailleurs De la Jeune Garde but those are unique units." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clzgput" ], "score": [ 11 ], "text": [ "*EDIT: While I love the period, I'm not an expert, so please read /u/LegalAction's counterpoints below.*\n\nThere is an overly idealised fantasy, portrayed in for example the film Gladiator though it is not limited to Hollywood, of the Roman Republic as this freedom-loving democratic nation. It was not.\n\nThe Roman Republic was an oligarchy of an elite group of super-rich families, which were constantly competing with each other for prestige and power.\n\nWanting to go back to the Republic would only make sense if you were one of the elite super-rich families who wasn't the Emperor. In which case though you're more likely to just try and become Emperor instead.\n\nI asked a question about this to one of the experts here recently. [You can read the answer for yourself here.](_URL_1_) But the TL;DR is that for the majority of people all that changed was that it was now the Emperor instead of the Senate appointing their governors/high administrators. The systems below that remained the same, including various local republican systems.\n\nIn either case if a return to the Republic had happened it wouldn't have lasted. Augustus was actually not the first Roman to cease total power after winning a civil war, and neither was Caesar. For that you need to go back around 30 years to [Sulla](_URL_0_). Sulla actually tried to reform the republic so it would survive. But all that happened was that as soon as the generation after him came of age they fought their own civil war." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ljtpu/how_did_the_romans_during_the_principate_the/clwe5yg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d00e6hg" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "A reply to /u/HenkWaterlander ,\n\nMaybe you can clarify what assertion you are questioning, because your wording is ambiguous. Are you suggesting that the Christian kingdoms of Iberia had very little among themselves *before* the Reconquesta? How do you determine \"very little\"? \n\nLeon was united with Castile only after Ferdinand III of Castile invaded Leon following a succession dispute in 1230. This triggered insurrection by Leon loyalists. \n\nCastile itself had a civil war in the 1360s over succession. Galicia was often disputed between Castile and Portugal, who were rivals all the way throughout most of the early modern era. \n\nDue to its position, Navarre was often fought over and partitioned between rival powers. Following a civil war, Ferdinand II of Aragon, widow of Isabella of Castile, was able to obtain Papal support to invade Navarre and obtain kingship in 1513. \n\nSpeaking of Isabella, she became Queen of Castile only after overcoming invasion of Castile by Portugal due to succession crisis in the 1470s. \n\nSo, I'm not sure what assertion you are considering here. The list above isn't even nearly complete .... " ] }

[]

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

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbupdbf", "cburh2e", "cbuyg55" ], "score": [ 18, 61, 19 ], "text": [ "What happened here?", "I can't say that it's never happened, but it seems unlikely that it was widespread. A quick review of a handful of texts doesn't show anything suggesting that this was typical. (\"The Culture of Children in Medieval England\", *Medieval Children*, *The Ties that Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England*, *Growing Up in Medieval London*)\n\nAnd given beliefs about health and the body at the time, it seems unlikely. I'm more knowledgeable about the 18th and 19th century than I am about the medieval era on this point, but I'm relatively sure that both eras shared in the belief that the skin operated as kind of open system between the inside body and the outer world. Looking at the skin would have been an important part of recognizing, diagnosing, and treating disease. It would seem foolish, then, to sew someone into something that would prevent you from doing that.", "Let's look at some photos of Medieval children: \n\n[These guys seems to be wearing loose pullover top with knitted hoses](_URL_5_) with a rope tied at the waist. Some might even have buttons at the front. \n\n[Some wealthy children](_URL_7_), they appear to wear the same kind of clothes the adults are wearing. Their parents would want them to change their clothes for different occasions. \n\n[Longer tunics](_URL_0_), I don't see the point of sewing these clothes on when they are this loose fitting. \n\n[A Nordic girl's frock](_URL_2_). Again, pretty loose. \n\n[Another picture of children in tunics](_URL_3_). \n\n[Portrait of a young girl](_URL_4_). She's wearing a fancy dress that an adult woman would wear. \n\n[Willem Moreel and his sons](_URL_1_) \n\n[Barbara van Vlaenderberch and her daughters](_URL_6_). \n\nAs we can see, It seems like wealthy children basically wore what adults would wear as their parents can afford well-fitted clothes for them. Poorer children wore loose clothes, I suspect it's for both comfort and rooms to grow. It just makes more economical sense to make the clothes bigger so they could wear the clothes for many years. But there is no point of sewing someone into their clothes if the clothes are going to be this big and loose. " ] }

[ "cracked.com" ]

[ "http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/9/1/6/202916_slide.jpg?v=1" ]

[ [], [], [ "http://molcat1.bl.uk/IllImages/Kslides/mid/K038/K038475.jpg", "http://www.wga.hu/detail/m/memling/3mature3/25more1.jpg", "http://www.forest.gen.nz/Medieval/articles/garments/H44/H44.html", "http://www.flickr.com/photos/26872131@N07/3177675770", "http://www.wga.hu/detail/c/christus/2/woman.jpg", "http://www.bucks-retinue.org.uk/guidebook/david_playing_harp.jpg", "http://www.wga.hu/detail/m/memling/3mature3/25more3.jpg", "http://merryfarmer.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/children-working.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c86q04e" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Before the advent of recording, music was fairly rare, but depended on the situation (especially social class). I can comment briefly on America in 1910 and Germany post-1850.\nIn 19th century Germany, music would have been heard in church, where there was typically an organ, a choir, and possibly even a small orchestra or chamber ensemble. This was often the grandest scale of music that most people would hear. For the upper classes, this was the period where having a piano in the home, and amateur singing became a popular focus at parties. Case in point, Schubert wrote dozens (if not hundreds) of short songs (Leider) for voice and piano, and even began a tradition of gathering people in a private home to sing and play them. People still hold \"Schubertiads\" to this day.\nThis was also the period in which formal concerts arose. Before that, going to hear an orchestra was a social event, with lots of eating, drinking, and talking - and who knows how much actual listening to the music. But Liszt was the one who introduced the idea of sitting quietly for a concert, and by 1900, concert and opera halls were huge, and well-attended. Again - if you were rich, you could hear a lot of music!\nI know less about folk, or lower-class music of this period. I would say that music was much less common, and depended on one or two people in a town having instruments - possibly fiddles, flutes, drums, that sort of thing. 200ish years before this, the bagpipe was the most popular folk instrument in much of Europe, but that was on a decline, and I'm not too sure what followed it. So there could be music at festivals and celebrations, and of course casual singing like in the tavern, but formal performances must have been rare.\n\n1910 in America was a pretty interesting time for music. Church still featured choir and organ, and pianos were nearly ubiquitous in middle and upper class homes. While America was struggling to find their place in the classical music world, they were importing tons of music from Europe - Opera and orchestral performances were common, and the programs were full of things like Beethoven, Berlioz, and Bruckner. I believe 1910 (give or take a year) was when Mahler visited America.\nVaudeville was also in full swing at that time, and so finally common people were able to hear music on a fairly regular basis. Vaudeville performers sang and played instruments like piano, banjo, and mandolin - the last one was especially enjoying huge popularity. \nLike in 19th c Germany, if you wanted music, you had to make it yourself most of the time. White people in the southern states were using fiddles, mandolins, banjos, dulcimers, to play music based on celtic roots - we call it \"old time\" music now, and it was to evolve into things like bluegrass and country and western. At the same time, African Americans were developing delta blues, ragtime, gospel, and \"work songs.\" These would be performed at celebrations, or sung casually any time. \nThe big thing to remember is that recording was just starting to become a viable industry - while still a rarity in 1910, phonographs were about to explode, completely changing the way(and the frequency with which ) people could experience music.\n\nTL:DR: In 1910 America and late-1800s Germany, if you wanted music, you had to make it yourself. How often that happened depended on how much money you had.\nPerformances have gotten more and more common as time has gone on. 1910 was actually a pretty great time to hear live music, even if you weren't filthy rich. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmjt59i", "cmjuwv1", "cmjvo9l" ], "score": [ 6, 3, 28 ], "text": [ "What I'm about to say is heavily debated so be careful.\n\nFor a start how do we define Roman administration? if we define it was direct rule from Rome then Roman control had been slipping for a while, the 3rd century AD the empire was rocked by continuous rebellions as at one point (270's) splitting into 3 different empires with Britain and France under its own emperor. Though Diocletian was able to join it all back together again. All this suggests than control from Rome had been weak for a while, instead relying on economic and political influence to retain control. It is known that they had been withdrawing troops from Britain since 383 so its likely was becoming less and less important.\n\nAlso the events of 410 AD wasn't really a withdraw more a local uprising. After the sack of Rome the western empire had collapsed leaving a rump empire based around Italy with the rest going to the local rulers. Constantine the 3rd set himself up as emperor in Britain and started invading France to try and get to Rome. Eventually the British got so feed up of all this they drove Constantine's people out and set themselves up independently.\n\nFrom here it gets complicated as few records survive, it appears that the British tried to keep the old ways going though we don't know how successful they were as the economic links of the old Roman empire broke down so far from the Mediterranean. Eventually this and the invasion of the Anglo-Saxons (some time between 410 and 731) destroyed what was left of Post-Roman Britain.\n\n", "The Roman Field Army left Britain in 410, and never returned. However, the rump of the Roman administration remained, hence references to \"Ambrosius\" in slightly later works. Salway in \"The Oxford History of Roman Britain\" suggests that there had been a pattern of local Emperors in Britain, like Carausius and Allectus, so Constantine III was nothing new. Salway also suggests that the collapse of Roman culture in Britain was fairly absolute over the next couple of generations. He argues that Britain was so dependent upon Rome that it's removal led to complete economic collapse in Britain, leading the very rapid decline in city life, and the fragmentation of society leading to the establishment of many local kingdoms, for want of a better word. The garrisons of the fortified places may have maintained a degree of cohesion for a generation or so, but would then, effectively become self supporting farmers/soldiers, rather like the Celtic farmer/warriors that preceded the Roman invasion, based around their fort, now their regional capital and the hall of their local king, quite possibly the descendant of the garrison commander. \nThere was no invasion by the Saxons. There had been Angeln and Saxones settling in Britain for close to 200 years before 410, with Germanic units recorded on Hadrian's wall, as well as Sarmations at Ribchester. These people would have continued to thrive in Roman Britain, reinforced by migration from N.Germany and Denmark, helped by the de-populating plague of the 4th Century.", "England is a tricky case, because we don't have much in the way of written sources, and archaeology isn't as good for answering polical-administrative questions as it is other lines of inquiry.\n\nWhat we know is that the last legions left Britain in 410 (probably - the sources for this are pretty sketchy, actually), probably to participate in one of the many civil wars that tore the western empire apart from the inside during the fifth century. After that, we have some tantalizingly sparse evidence thhat Britain stayed in communication with the rest of the Roman world, but the extent is difficult to say. It's quite possible that Britain considered itself to still be a part of the Roman empire for some time after the legions left (Guy Halsall raises the interesting suggestion that high-status art in Britain suddenly looks less Roman right around the 470s, as though the political events in Italy had some significance in britain even then). But we really can't say for sure if whoever filled the administrative gap left by the Roman army - probably the 'Saxon' federates in some regions (who were almost certainly, like other barbarian federate groups, multi-ethnic auxilary troops); perhaps surviving Roman elites, or members of local aristocracies (who would, by this point, have also been Roman, unless they chose to de-emphasize that part of their identity in favor of older local culture, or so ething new like the 'barbarian' cultures north of the Rhine).\n\nArchaeologically, Roman architecture seems to be collapsing by the late fourth century (especially villas). This in itself doesn't meant that Romans disappeared from Britain (many of the abandoned villas weren't very old when they were left to collapse, and Britain had been part of Rome before they were built). But they do suggest that elite Roman culture in Britain was looking really different by the start of the fifth century. This change was relatively independent from the withdrawal of the legions (though it may have contributed to the feeling that they could be better used in civil wars elsewhere), and happened before the Saxon invasions (we have vague references to Saxon pirates attacking England in the fourth century, but it's not clear how much of an actual threat this was - or who exactly these Saxons were (since Romans loved to slap names onto babrbarians that the barbarians might not have used themselves).\n\nThen Britain's economy collapses, for most of the fifth century. This collapse started much earlier (Roman industry in Britain was crumbling since the third century, and the movement of Roman administration away from Trier in the late fourth century seems to have further impoverished the province), and doesn't appear to be connected to barbarian invasions. Indeed, there's no archaeological evidence for an 'invasion' per se- just the normal movement of poor farmers through the fifth century that you always see happening. By the sixth century, when things are slowly romving toward recovery, Britain's material culture looks very different - people live in wooden buildings instead of stone, and elites are buried with weapons and jewelry with artistic styles that look very different from Roman precursors. The demography is a blend of locally born people and immigrants from both the east (Germany/Scandinavia) and west (Wales, perhaps even Ireland).\n\nBut this change was gradual, and similar changes were occurring throughout the Roman world. The crucial period for Britain is the fifth century, but the lack of textual sources, and the economic collapse and disappearance of so much of the types of material goods we use to establish chronologies and trace change, make it difficult to know how rapidly the island gave up on being Roman. Certainly by the sixth century, but in Western europe, that's kind of a given.\n\nMany have suggested it was never very Roman to begin with, and that as soon as the legions left the Brittons shouted 'we're free!' The limited evidence available suggests something more complicated, but the precise shape of events is very murky.\n\nRobin Fleming is working on this period currently. Her last book, Britain after Rome, is one of the best recent works on the period. Guy Halsall's Worlds of Arthur is also excellent, and explains the limits of the evidence for this period especially well.\n\n- - -\n\nElsewhere in the Western empire, changes were slow. Clovis - the first orthodox Christian king of the Franks - also considered himself (our sources say) to be a Roman. Given what we know of ethnic identities in late antiquity, this dual identity is not a contradiction. The Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy seems to have been genuinely upset when Justinian suggested they weren't legitimate successors to Rome's legacy in the sixth century. Culturally, many aspects of Roman life continue in the west for centuries. Change on-the-ground was a drawn out process, which started in some ways as early as the third century, was stalled with an aggressive new Roman bureaucracy in the late third and fourth centuries, accelerated with rapid changes in the fifth century, and wasn't completed for a long time after that.\n\nBritain's a special case, because it was always on the fringes, and the evidence is particularly sparse and difficult to interpret." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9r8yly", "c9r90r6" ], "score": [ 21, 15 ], "text": [ "This has more to do with differing definitions of \"clean\" than it does with people in the past being stupid. Dressings were expected to kept fresh. People spend a lot of time covered in dirt and grime, but manage not to get infected all the time. Why should the inside of the body be different than the out? Still, they would try to avoid visibly dirty conditions around wounds. The biggest exception to this was \"laudable pus\" which, at least in the 18th century, was thought to be a sign of the body healing itself.\n\nThe problem comes with sterilization. For us, something that is medically clean must have either been superheated or washed with an antiseptic chemical. The easy ability to do either of these things did not exist prior to the mid 19th century. Moreover, with no understanding of germ theory, there was no understood reason to do so.", "What you're talking about is the development of germ theory, and the reason people didn't figure that out until when they did is simply a matter of not having adequate detection technology. It's not as though people didn't start bandaging wounds until the 1700s; ancient civilizations in both Mesoamerica and Mesopotamia possessed relatively advanced medical technology and even performed surgery. People weren't just walking around with open wounds and rolling around in filth. People knew that keeping a wound clean would prevent infection, but at the same time they also didn't understand the exact mechanism of infection. Once we figured out what germs were we simply stepped up our efforts to kill them by practicing much more rigorous sterilization." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ck1ts0q" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The real height of Louis XVI is not known. However, his coronation \" outfit \" is between 1,90m and 1,93m. \n\nThe tallest King of France was François Ier which was described to be between 1,95m and 2,00m however, thanks to one of his armour, his height was 1,98m. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dxihh2j", "dxipk5f", "dxiwpwz" ], "score": [ 13, 11, 2 ], "text": [ "Certainly.\n\nThis fear was such, that, early on, a non-intervention agreement was signed by many European countries in August of 1936, which created the aptly named Non-Intervention Committee. The most vocal parties for non-interventionism were the French and British. While Italy and Germany were on the committee, they openly flaunted the agreement and guidelines, sending volunteers, aircraft, tanks, and material to Franco's Falangists. The USSR was also on the committee, and it to, ignored the prescription of non-interventionism, sending military aid to the republicans. \n\nBritain and France did, on the whole remain loyal to their pledge of non-interventionism, though France covertly donated planes and specialists to the Republicans.\n\nSo yes, the conflict was met with a fear of it spiraling into a wider war, and while on paper, the major European powers pledged non-interventionism, many of these broke it. ", "To expand somewhat on the previous answer, I think this is one of those questions where it is really important to stop for a moment and think about whose perspective we are thinking about.\n\nThere was certainly concern on the part of the British Government that a proxy war in Spain might lead to a broader conflict between fascist and democratic powers. This led to their proposed solution of Non-Intervention, which they were able to persuade the other major European powers to agree to (but not, as mentioned previously, to stick to). This raises another interesting question though – in breaking the Non-Intervention Pact, did Hitler or Mussolini think they were risking a wider war? Would they have been willing to push intervention so far in the face of determined opposition? This starts to get into speculative territory, but it’s worth noting that depending on which European government’s perspective you take, the degree of ‘fear’ was rather different.\n\nTo my mind, the question gets even more interesting when we consider the problem not just from the perspective of governments, but their citizens. In Britain, whose government was Non-Intervention’s most ardent supporter, the Republican side was considerably more popular than the Nationalists, and there was considerable opposition to Non-Intervention, and a great deal of political and fundraising activity in support of the Republic. Aid Spain, as it became known, was probably the largest sustained international solidarity campaign in modern British history, raising the contemporary equivalent of tens of millions of pounds for the Republic. Most famously, about 2,300 volunteers left Britain to fight in the International Brigades (who in turn were made up of about 35,000 mostly European volunteers) – clearly, these individuals did not fear the potential breakdown of peace as a result of their actions. In fact, they and their supporters saw the debate differently – that by allowing the Spanish Republic to be defeated, fascism would only be strengthened and emboldened, making a European war all the more likely. Many British International Brigade volunteers, both at the time and ever since, claimed that they went to prevent the Second World War from happening in the first place.\n\nHow far was this view shared? In one of the first ever issue-based opinion polls in British history (that I’m aware of), 57% of British respondents claimed to favour the Republic in October 1938. By January 1939, this had increased to 72% supporting the Republic. This number has been cited to show the extent of support for a reversal of British policy on Spain, although to my mind it is a bit more complex. For one, the dramatic shift over a short period – especially so late in the war, seems to indicate that these numbers might be soft. More fundamentally, the question was not whether Britain should intervene, or even change their policy, but simply which side they preferred. So, it’s hardly definitive evidence that the British people were either willing to risk war over Spain, or that they believed there was no such risk. But it does certainly indicate that the answer to your question is going to look quite different depending on whose views you are interested in.", "Other answers above have discussed the approaches by other powers to limit intevention and to stop the conflict from spreading. I am very interested to hear about the impact internally in other countries.\n\nSpecifically what was the impact internal to France? After all superficially it has similar internal political and social problems and shares a border. I presume it further divided the country at a time of a similar popular front government facing reactionary forces." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d1k9qle" ], "score": [ 16 ], "text": [ "(1/2)\n\nWell, you've inadvertently waded into what is probably the biggest ongoing debate in the historiography of slavery in North America right now! There is a huge debate raging at the moment regarding the exact role slavery has had to play in the development of modern capitalism, and the industrial revolution specifically. It's a debate that has been raging since at least 1944 with the development of what historians of slavery call the 'Williams thesis', named for Eric Williams and his book *Capitalism and Slavery*, in which he argued for an intrinsic link between the two. There is today a broad consensus that there is something of an essential relationship between the two and that slavery had a significant role to play in the industrial revolution and the development of capitalist economy; the debate largely focused on just how significant that role is, and whether or not it was definitive (in other words, was slavery a necessary prerequisite for industrialisation, or did it simply give it a helping hand?). For my part, I am unconvinced by the argument that there exists a definitive causal relationship between slavery and the industrial revolution - it has a role to play, absolutely, but I am not satisfied with the arguments that have been advanced to suggest it is the driving force behind western industrialisation.\n\nThe Williams thesis essentially holds that slavery's contribution to industrialisation is one of material investment. According to Williams, in the 17th and 18th centuries slavery in the New World provided the ingredients necessary for industrialisation. Extremely profitable farming operations allowed for the accumulation of vast wealth surpluses that provided the capital to finance the industrial revolution; the transatlantic slave trade created complex international markets, with ports and shipping lines that also carried goods and messaged, along which industrial supplies and consumer goods could later be ferried. As industrialisation gets underway in earnest, slavery begins to go into decline as it becomes apparent that industrial wage labour is more profitable and socially agreeable. It is, according to Williams, abolished in the 19th century as it becomes more profitable to 'proletarianise' slaves and turn them into sharecroppers or wage labourers, aided by improvements in agricultural efficiency made possible by the explosion in engineering creativity brought on by industrialisation. In this conceptualisation, slavery is essentially a feudalistic and pre-capitalist enterprise that is fundamentally incompatible with but necessary for the development of industrial capitalism.\n\nHistorians of slavery now widely recognise that the Williams thesis is fundamentally wrong in this regard. Slavery was not in decline in the 19th century - on the contrary, particularly in the United States, it has been shown to be a thriving and enormously profitable enterprise that did not appear to be dying out of its own accord. The picture in the British Caribbean is a little more complicated - there is still some disagreement over whether or not the region was in economic decline by the 19th century. Generally speaking, there is agreement that Britain's colonies were troubled but certainly not in any kind of terminal danger or decline that meant slavery would inevitably die out (and in some parts, like Barbados, slavery was very much a healthy, expanding institution). Nor are most historians convinced that it is a wholly pre-capitalist enterprise, either. Eugene Genovese took up that mantle most notably after Williams, and that argument has been thoroughly picked apart over the years (Walter Johnson's *Soul by Soul: Life Inside the Antebellum Slave Market* is a solid critical response to the way in which Genovese has misinterpreted the historical record in this regard). I'm going to talk about this in more detail towards the end - and you'll see why I'm leaving it for the end - but suffice to say, New World slavery was not *incompatible* with capitalism.\n\nSo what about Williams' contention that slavery was a necessary prerequisite to industrialisation? Well, this is where the debate gets rather more heated and complicated. There are many historians today still arguing in favour of that component of the Williams thesis, and the most notable lately would probably be Edward Baptist in his book *The Half Never Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism*. Baptist alleges that the enormous profits being made from cotton and sugar helped to finance the industrial revolution in the United States and Britain, respectively.\n\nWhat has also not been explained satisfactorily, in my view, is at what point slavery becomes uncoupled from the wider capitalist economy. Slavery is not, as I go into more detail later, a pre-capitalist phenomenon; it is not a relic carried over from some distant feudal past. It is thoroughly and wholly compatible with capitalist economic practices. Yet scholarly studies consistently fail to find that slavery was particularly and uniquely significant to the ongoing economic prosperity of the United States or Great Britain in the 19th century. The abolition of slavery gives rise to only a small economic shock in the United States, one which is perhaps also partly explained by the end of the Civil War dragging down growth as well - economic well-being recovers very quickly. Likewise, assessments of cotton's contribution to Gross Domestic Product (the value of everything the economy produces in a year) are modest. Baptist's claims in his book depend partly on the immense value of cotton to the US economy which other scholars have shown are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of economic theory: due to what is essentially an accounting error in how he tabulated the worth of cotton production in the 19th century, he has accidentally doubled it, whilst at the same time he miscalculates GDP in such a way that makes his estimates of cotton's contribution to the economy worthless (he excludes asset sales for instance but includes slave sales, even though slave sales are essentially asset sales in a slave economy). Though their 1974 work is rightfully deeply criticised, one of the more positive contributions Fogel and Engerman have made to the scholarship on slavery is demonstrating that the Southwest was just as wealthy as the Northeast in 1860 if you include wealth caught up in slaves (Gavin Wright has shown without slaves the North was 64% richer), only concentrated in the hands of a minority. It seems illogical that there should be such a huge dependency on that kind of wealth that somehow disappears to the point where slavery is abolished with a negligible impact on the wider economy.\n\nLikewise, Baptist's thesis argues that cotton drove industrialisation in Britain, but he does a very bad job at proving it - and indeed, the advent of meaningful cotton mill operations in northern England significantly predates the explosion in cotton production in the Southern US, rather than being driven by it. It is also worth emphasising that Jamaica is particularly suited to growing cotton, and particularly to hand-picking cotton. To this day Jamaican cotton is worth four to five times Egyptian cotton. Yet we do not see any meaningful effort on the part of British planters to tap into this lucrative resource even in Jamaica, which was not a sugar monopoly colony; whilst this may simply reflect poor economic planning, it seems to be rather odd that if these planters were providing the finance and capital to drive industrialisation in northern England, that they would not be logically trying to also tap into the emerging market for cotton goods. Sugar remained king in the Caribbean, even though it was a much less stable market than cotton. And in any event, I would also stress that, although the Civil War in the United States did have an impact on the British economy, there is evidence that Britain was able to heavily supplement its shortfall in cotton imports from both India and Egypt. Britain's own abolition of slavery and the slave trade has been estimated to have cost just 2% of national income, suggesting it was far from the driver of economic growth. The profits from Britain’s colonies are just not enough to finance industry’s wholesale development and growth.\n\nSo what role did slavery play in the industrial revolution? Certainly, it *was* a source of finance, and the plantations of the South and the Caribbean did produce raw materials that helped to fuel industrialisation - though the advent that made this possible, the invention of the cotton gin, comes twenty to thirty years into industrialisation and coincides with the emergence of cotton mills. But the evidence for both the United States and Britain is that the vast majority of the wealth created by slavery remained trapped within the slave system, disappearing upon abolition. The end of slavery is devastating to the elite of both the South and the British Caribbean, wiping out vast quantities of wealth over night and bringing eventual ruin to many estates. Slave owners were, largely speaking, investing in more slaves rather than in industry - though some certainly did invest in industry (as did some slave traders who were not necessarily slave owners). And we know that in Britain, about half of all planters were not actually resident in the Caribbean and had other economic interests. But the evidence for slavery being the *driving* and *causal* factor behind industrialisation is, in my view, rather weak and the argument has yet to be made convincingly. There are too many inconsistencies and problems with the developments in the Williams thesis since 1944. It has a role to play but it is fundamentally wrong, in my view, to attribute industrialisation to slavery. It's just not that simple or straight-forward, and that argument rests on a very simplified, inaccurate view of economic development in the 18th and 19th centuries." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6s048v", "c6s08li" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text": [ "This is too wide a topic to cover in a single post so let me deal with the one question you specifically asked. The hollow square (as a pike formation mostly) works well against cavalry for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the pike is a good weapon versus cavalry due to its reach. A pike formation on the other hand is normally vulnerable to flanking. Changing directions in a pike formation is messy business that requires coordination and skill. The hollow square doesn't really have a front and as such is not vulnerable to flanking. The hollow form also brings the advantage of quickly being able to reinforce a weak spot quickly as troops can move freely within the square. This was often used with a mobile force of ranged troops within the square, specifically the famous spanish square/tercio formation. A square is weaker versus a concentrated assult as much of its strenght is spread out as opposed to focused forward as is the case with a line formation.\n\nIn a more general context, military formations usually develope as a reaction to something else. A firm line is stronger than a brute force charge since every man protects the men next to him. The mobile cavalry can out-flank the line but not the square which in turn is vulnerable to a line formation or attack column. It's all a gigantic game of rocks, papers, scissors.", "Depends on the period and the weapons of the period, this topic is basically asking to describe the basics of tactics of warfare of all history.\n\nOsprey have some basic books of some eras that you may want to look into." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dr1uaea" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "Just as a point of clarification: the waxing and waning of the moon are not caused by the earth's shadow; it is a result of the moon rotating around the earth, and from our perspective, the full half of the moon that is illuminated by the sun appears in phases. The only instance of the earth's shadow affecting the illumination of the moon is at the time of a lunar eclipse, a relatively rare occurrence. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ev2wyrr" ], "score": [ 1170 ], "text": [ "Automotive journalist here. \n\nYour question is intimately tied to the history of automotive magazines, and I’m not aware of a really good, academic history exploring that. I can tell you that the form itself dates back to the earliest days of motoring — Carl Benz filed his patent for the “vehicle powered by a gas engine” in 1886, and both the American publication The Horseless Age and the U.K.’s The AutoCar published their first issues in 1895. \n\nBut they were more industrial news for makers and sellers of cars than consumer opinion for many years. Prior to the development of the car review, automotive magazines experimented with being industry publications full of sales data and how-to repair guides, but the car review we know today was a post-world war II creation. \n\nThe father of the modern car review - a journalist’s opinion of the car based on their experience of driving it - was American Tom McCahill, and he’s widely credited within the industry as the first to publish 0-60 times. \n\nHe convinced Mechanix Illustrated to publish the first such article, where he reviewed his own personal 1946 Ford Coupe, which, he noted, got from a dead stop to 60 mph in about 23 seconds. He left us no notes on how he made this measurement. But he repeated the test in subsequent reviews. \n\nWhy did he pick 0-60 instead of, say, 0-50? Sad to say, no one seems to have recorded his answer. \n\nI will note that it’s quite close to a 0-100 kph measurement, which would seem intuitively more logical. But I have no evidence that he even considered this. Models at the time were generally not sold on multiple continents, so it seems doubtful that it entered his mind. \n\nBoth his review format and his test caught on. By the middle 1950s, publications like Sports Cars Illustrated (today known as Car and Driver) and Motor Trend made it the heart of their content, and they all published 0-60 times. \n\nIt’s worth noting, however, that they didn’t all use a standard technique and haven’t stuck with the same technique all along. Innovations in drag racing particularly changed the numbers — beginning in the 1960s, drag strips used a light beam system to measure time — and in the U.S., enthusiast magazines rented time on these for testing. Because of the way they trigger, the machines allowed the car to roll about 1 foot before they began to measure. The technology has changed, but to keep their numbers consistent, many publications still test with “one foot of roll-out.”\n\nThis practice never caught on in Europe, where drag racing was never a significant phenomenon. Hence, American and European publications tend to use different methods that can produce different measurements. In a world where enthusiasts argue over every tenth of a second, that becomes a little humorous. \n\nHope that helps. I wish there were better sources to point you to, but to the best of my knowledge, the first good academic history of our field has yet to be attempted." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6yao53", "c6yexe2" ], "score": [ 13, 10 ], "text": [ "All were destroyed; Troy before the Golden Age of Greece, Carthage by a victorious Rome around 150 BC, and Sparta was sacked by the Goths around 400 AD after centuries of empty autonomy as a curiosity within the Roman Empire. \n\nInterestingly, it appears that the last few speakers of the Spartan dialect are dying out. After millennia, Tsakonian - a descendant of Doric Greek - is restricted to [only a few hundred speakers](_URL_0_).\n\nThe cultures of Troy and Carthage, on the other hand, have basically been entirely wiped out by history.", "What we think of in the classical sense of Sparta is an abandoned ruin, with scattered relics lying around. [The modern city of Sparta lies just a few miles away](_URL_1_), and is a relatively new town.\n\nTroy, or the site largely considered to be Troy has been rebuild about 9 times over the years [and can be seen in layers](_URL_2_). Though now is entirely a ruin.\n\nCarthage has existed as both a major and minor city over the past few thousand years, [and is another case of a small city with the same name located just a few miles away](_URL_0_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsakonian_language" ], [ "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Quartier_Punique.JPG", "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Sparti_in-river-Eurotas-valley_flanked-by-Taygetos-mountains.jpg", "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Layers_of_Troy.JPG" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cq3hsuy" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "\nThere is no literary or other ancient evidence that directly bears on this question, so one is forced to speculate based on average heights of people in antiquity.\n\nThe only article I've ever seen address this is a 2002 issue of Popular Mechanics, which suggests that based on skeletal remains a 1st century Semitic male would be 5'1\". You can read [the article here](_URL_0_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://books.google.com/books?id=VM8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=popular+mechanics+face+of+jesus&source=bl&ots=OZMu3R-xPN&sig=uPy8RWFvUScKF7k9eEiO1jb0km0&hl=en&ei=qCw3TPegEsOAnQfw8pSEBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=popular%20mechanics%20face%20of%20jesus&f=false" ] ]