Datasets:

Pavithree

/

askHistorians

like 0

{ "a_id": [ "evbip07" ], "score": [ 16 ], "text": [ "What do you mean by \"real names\"? Peter's name in Aramaic is rendered as כֵּיפָא (Kepha), in Greek as Πέτρος (Petros), in Latin as Petrus, etc (all having the rough meaning of \"rock\" or perhaps \"jewel\"). Ignoring translation, his original name was said to have been Simon/Simeon, until Jesus gave him the name Peter (Mark 3:16, etc)\n\nSome of the names differ between the Gospels, too. One is identified as Thaddaeus in Matthew, but as Judas ( \"not Iscariot\") in John, and as Jude in Luke. Bartholomew is identified as Bartholemew in every gospel except John, where he is Nathanael.\n\nThis isn't even to get into the debate about the historicity of the disciples themselves." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cv2bimq" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "There is indeed a fairly strong case. Mallory's body was found a few years ago in a position and in a condition which people have suggested shows that he was on his descent. The last time that they were seen alive, they were very close to the summit and there's certainly no reason to think that they didn't reach it. This isn't a brilliant source, but it gives the basics quite well.\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://surviving-history.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/a-corpse-of-everest-deadly-final-hours.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dunmd6s", "duodn9s" ], "score": [ 23, 2 ], "text": [ "The modern ethnic and religious makeup of Spain (and Portugal) has little to do with the Reconquista but rather with the events that happened once it was over. Those Jews who would not convert were expelled from Spain in 1492 and the Muslims were forced to convert in the early 1500s. For more details you may want to start with this [thread] (_URL_1_) where /u/drylaw talks on the events of 1492 and later and I give some earlier context.\n\nBut all of this happened once the Reconquista was over, in a period I don't really feel comfortable talking about as it's outside the scope of my studies. (Paging /u/Itsalrightwithme and linking to this [thread] (_URL_0_) for more details).\n\nNow, **during** the Reconquista things were pretty different from what you seem to imagine. Both Christian and Moorish kingdoms were fairly diverse, with Muslims and notably Jews occupying positions of high authority in Christian states, for example. To quote Francisco Márquez Villanueva, medieval Christian (and Muslim) polities in the peninsula exhibited 'a *de facto* tolerance that had nothing to do with the modern concept of liberalism, but rather with the practical necessity of group cooperation to avoid ethnic violence and chaos' [1].\n\nTo put things into context, here's a very brief outline of how the situation changed over time. A handful of Arabs and Berbers arriving into the peninsula in the early 700s had to deal with a large Christian and Jewish population that was allowed to continue practicing their religion in return for the payment of a special tax, the *jizya*, that was seen as the price of their status as *dhimmi*, protected minorities (majorities, really). Over the course of the next centuries there was a slow process of opportunistic conversion and acculturation that led to a sizeable part of the population converting to Islam and switching to Arabic. This was sped up, from the 1080s onward, by the arrival of the Almoravids and the Almohads, fanatical Islamic sects turned into warring empires, from Morocco and beyond. Who actually entered the peninsula in direct response to Christians finally starting to take over the divided Muslim polities. The arrival of the Almoravids caused, among other things, a mass exodus of Andalusi Jews into Christian kingdoms of the north and to Provence (and, incidentally, to the emergence of the medieval Kabbalah as we know it). \n\nNow the Christian kingdoms in the North were largely Muslim-free for the first few centuries until the Caliphate fell in the early 1000s and they could finally start their southward expansion. We are not exactly clear on the earlier stages of that expansion. There were, however, isolated incidents of mass violence like the slaughter of the local population at the capture of Barbastro in 1064, perpetrated by Aquitanian and Burgundian troops. But then again, we know about this exactly because it was an exceptional thing, done by outsiders, whereas Iberians on both sides of the religious divide were much more accommodating of each other, as often allying against common enemies of both faiths as fighting each other. (Note that we're talking about the times when the idea of crusades and religious warfare emerges in Christian Europe).\n\nHowever, in the 1080s, once Christian finally start taking over cities and large areas with a sizeable population that is mostly Muslim by that time, there are no mass killings or expulsions. Here's a lengthy [writeup] (_URL_2_) of the early stages of that process that I did earlier. If I may quote myself, rather than try and conquer by force, Christian rulers now negotiate surrender. And they have to make sure the local populace stays in place and continues to produce. So Muslims who were offered and accepted clemency and surrendered peacefully would become King's Moors (or Mudejars, as we call them now), a protected group who kept their Sharia law, institutions and the use of their Friday mosque (at least for the first year after the surrender). They were relocated outside of the capital cities, though, oftentimes settling in 'Saracene neighbourhoods' right outside the castle. Note that even if both Muslims and Jews lived in separate neighbourhoods, the *aljamas*, *juderías* or *morerías*, depending on the local usage, not everybody did so. We do know of people living among the Christian newcomers. \n\nAnyway, starting in the late 1000s, free Muslims were the bulk of the population in the Christian Iberian kingdoms. Some did emigrate to Muslim-ruled lands or converted over time, much like the Christian and Jewish minorities had done in Al Andalus. But most stayed Muslim (or Jewish). There was a wave of anti-Jewish pogroms that swept the peninsula in 1391 but all in all Jews enjoyed better conditions in Iberia that they did anywhere else in Christian Europe at the time. Reading late 1300s French sources at times gives you an idea in France they thought everyone in Iberia was a Jew anyway, slimy pests who only come to Paris to steal things from decent Christian folks. \n\nAnyway, for several centuries until the Reconquista was finally over in 1492 Christian kingdoms in the peninsula had sizeable Muslim and Jewish population. As Villanueva puts it, whereas the rest of Western Europe saw itself as a society divided into three orders or *estates* (those who fight, those who pray and those who do all the manual work), Christian Iberia may be seen as a society divided into three religions, *laws* in the parlance of the times, 'in which each group assumed, loosely, a different socioeconomic function. With the Christians fully devoted to arms, the Mudejars took on industrial tasks and the most productive agricultural jobs (irrigated crops), and the Jews assumed responsibility for scientific learning, administration and the economy' (*Ibid.*, P. 40). In particular, Iberian Muslims dominated arts and crafts, with local Christian rulers and prelates often adopting some trappings of the Andalusi civilisation that was still seen as [culturally and artistically superior] \n(_URL_3_) long after Al Andalus ceased to be a military or economic power to reckon with.\n\nThings did change once the Reconquista was finally over in 1492. But for the period you're interested in the answer is no. There was no intent to destroy a religious group that was clearly seen as a constituent part of the society. \n \n[1]F. Márquez Villanueva, *On the Concept of Mudejarism*, in: *The Conversos and Moriscos in Late Medieval Spain and Beyond. Vol. 1, Departures and Change*, ed. Kevin Ingram. Leiden, Boston, 2009. P. 15. It is a shortish article that I recommend to anyone looking for a good introduction to the subject. You can read it via Google books. \n", "Thanks for the in depth answers! I thought I might have been approaching it anachronistically but I wasn't sure and didn't know enough about the demographics of medieval Iberia to make a call definitively. " ] }

[]

[ "http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.html" ]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5lx21v/what_happened_to_the_muslims_in_spain_after_the/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4vrvw5/after_the_reconquista_how_likely_was_it_for/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5idk95/were_there_muslim_minorities_in_the_christian/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5gdg8c/theres_a_rich_heritage_of_arabic_architecture_in/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eunudko" ], "score": [ 22 ], "text": [ "Nobody prominent that I know of. Why not? Several reasons:\n\n* The US nuclear arsenal was not very large during the period of American monopoly. The USAF thought the US would need on the order of 500 nuclear weapons to take out the entire USSR with nukes along. The US didn't have that number until 1950 or so. So without a lot of nukes, a war against the USSR looks more like WWII than some kind of one-sided WWIII. Sure, a few nukes would be used, but the USSR would respond with massive conventional forces, probably take Europe, and the whole thing would be ugly and bloody. And you still need to get the nukes to your targets deep in the USSR — which wouldn't be a straightforward thing at all. \n\n* Along those lines, one might note that neither the US public nor the Western European public had any intense appetite for another European war at that point. The European democracies were still recovering and rebuilding. The US public was happy to have some peace (short-lived as it would be). This would have been political suicide nationally and internationally — US allies would have likely regarded the US as being tyrannical. Add to the fact that the US would need to use foreign bases as jumping off points for any attacks — nuclear and otherwise — in this period (the US lacked intercontinental striking power at this point; its nuclear deterrent, even well into the 1950s, was based almost entirely on foreign bases) means that even if the US officials _had_ wanted this, it wouldn't have flown without active support by European nations. \n\n* Lastly, it cannot really be understated how \"head in the sand\" US officials were about the prospects of a Soviet bomb. They had made the estimate that it would take the Soviets 5 years to get a bomb in 1945. In 1946, they thought it would be... 5 years. In 1947... 5 years. In 1948... 5 year. In 1949... 5 years. So when the Soviets _did_ set off a bomb, they were \"5 years early.\" The US had almost no policy in place to deal with a Soviet bomb; it wasn't until 1949 that the US even started trying to detect whether they had tested one, and that was done with great reluctance. I just bring this all up to note that the idea that the US policymakers really accepted that the Soviets were going to get a bomb, and soon, is false. What is interesting about this is they had every reason to suspect the Soviets could do it, and probably _were_ doing it (they scuttled all ban-the-bomb discussions in the UN, for example), but preferred to believe they weren't doing it, and the lack of hard intelligence on the USSR made this fiction easy to maintain, until they detected the test. \n\nAll of which is to say: while there may have been a few outside voices who thought this was a good idea, there were major systematic conditions pushing against it, and ultimately the US policymakers didn't take the possibility of a Soviet bomb as seriously as they arguably ought to have. The idea that they would mobilize that possibility into a deeply difficulty and bloody war, one that would have been dramatically unpopular at home and abroad, is kind of implausible. \n\nOne could imagine the US policymakers taking a totally different position and trying to sell the public on it, I suppose — very hawkish, much more mobilization, much more aggressive, far more anti-Soviet — but that was definitely not the path of least resistance. And it's unlikely they would have gotten much if any European buy-in, given how the Western Europeans would really lose out in that scenario (while the continental US would probably be unscathed).\n\nInstead, during the time of US monopoly, the major policymaking battles were about whether the US could slash its military back to peacetime levels, and avoid further significant entanglements abroad. All of that changed after the detection of the Soviet test, of course. But it can be easy to overlook how dramatically different the \"consensus view\" of US politics pre-1949 and post-1949. \n\nThere isn't one book that covers all of the above but Michael Gordin's _Red Cloud at Dawn_ gives great context for the monopoly period and the way in which the detection of the first Soviet test punctured that bubble.\n\nThe more interesting period in a way is the early 1950s, _after_ the Soviets had demonstrated a nuclear capability but _before_ they had many weapons and lacked the means to deliver them on the USA (they could probably deliver a handful to Western European capitals, which is a form of deterrence, but not quite the same thing), and after [the US had started deploying nukes in Europe and Asia](_URL_0_). That still would have taken political will that was lacking, and European cooperation that was lacking, but you do get some people in that time period who said, essentially, if war is going to come, why not start it now, while we have the upper hand?" ] }

[]

[ "http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/bombCivilization.htm" ]

[ [ "http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/US-nuclear-bomber-deployments-1945-1958.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cy3gjnc" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "_URL_0_ try this thread." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/396q0e/did_the_concept_of_italy_endure_even_when_italy/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ck0v15k" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "I have not read the books, but I have read reviews of the Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy books. The basic gist of the reviews were, this is just warmed over versions of the standard stories, probably mostly written by ghost writers. E.g. nothing controversial, or interesting, about them, just an attempt to sell some books by putting O'Reilly's name on the cover and marketing them towards his target demographic (middle-to-old aged, white, Christian American men). They sound dull, but at least devoid of revisionism or controversy. But, again, I haven't read the books personally. Just recycled bits from other popular accounts. Which is at least not terrible." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cggb7eo", "cggbr0r" ], "score": [ 3, 29 ], "text": [ "Although not directly related to RTW2, you will find good answers on some of your questions in this thread: _URL_0_", "It depends a bit of course on the place, the sides involved, the size of the armies and the time.\n\nDifferent sides used different tactics and styles of warfare developed out of their wealth, social system, access to metals, horses and craftsmen and the terrain.\n\nThe general rule is that most casualties happened once one side had started to run. Grossman (his work has been debated though) claims that it is psychologically easier for himans to strike another human in the back, both because of dormant hunting instincts, but also because it is easier to dehumanise and kill someone whose face you cannot see.\n\nThe ancient Greeks used the hoplite phalanx, a tight formation of free men that bought their own equipment. This was the middle class, with well-made weapons and armour paid for individually, but fighting in discplined, close formations with spear and large shields. The men used their large shields to protect themselves and the man to the left of them. Thus there was a tendency to pull right, both because you wanted to be as close to the man on your right to be protected by his shield as well as your own, but also because most people are right-handed and wield their weapon from the right. It was not unheard of for two hoplite formations to completely reverse side by both sides' right flank beating back the opposing left flank. Hoplite warfare could become a inverted tug-of-war where both sides attempted to break the others formation, break their line and roll up on both sides. If a formation broke, the side that broke would most likely soon start runnig, and had then lost.\n\nThe Greek hoplite armies made use of missile troops to harass the enemy formation, recoinnasance, flanking and skirmishing. Javelin throwers (peltasts) and archers and slingers were common. Cavalry were mostly light and only used to harass the enemy troops, with the Thessalians as the sole exception to this rule.\n\nThe lower classes served as skirmishers and lightly armoured and armed troops, the middle class as heavily armoured and armed infantry and the upper class as officers. The Spartans and the Thebans were the masters of this kind of warfare. The Hoplite started to evolve to becoming the Thurepos in the style of Illyrian medium infantry, more lightly armoured, with an oval shield and carrying javelins as well after the long wars over Hegemony over Greece.\n\nThe Macedonians made a change in this by having a strong state that could afford to equip and train the sarissa (pike) phalanx. A Macedonian pikeman had lighter armour (often linen) and less protection than a hoplite. He also had a much smaller shield strapped to his arm, since he needed both hands to hold his pike. With a high degree of discipline and training the pike phalanx was unbeatable from the front and when in formation (terrain and other factors could make the formation less than rigid). It had to be flanked or attacked from behind, or its formation broken up. The Macedonians also introduced heavy cavalry even better than the Thessalians to the Greek world, cavalry that could charge the flank or rear of an enemy infantry formation, in the form of the Companions. The Macedonians probably introduced what was the first complete combined arms army where the state could get all parts of what it needed at any given time. Macedonian slingers were renowned for their skill and had a longer range than bows of the time. The Macedonians were the first to be able to field large armies of poor men equipped and trained to take on any infantry in the world, giving them a distinct adantage. They also fielded a smale contignent of elite medium infantry called the hypaspists, who were equipped and fought similarly to the Roman legionaries.\n\nThe Egyptians were under Persian rule, were conquered by the Macedonians and the Ptolemaic dynasty, founded by one of Alexander's successors, made use of the Macedonian style of warfare. Initially with Greek and Macedonian mercenaries, but eventually with native troops trained in the same style Cleruch cavalry, men who served as heavy cavalry in the style of the Companions and Thessalian cavalry.\n\nThe Carthaganians used native Tunisian and Sicilian Greek infantry in the Greek hoplite style originally. However, since the number of citizens in Carthage dropped, they started making use mostly of mercenaries from North Africa, Sicily, Iberia and Gaul (see below for some mercenaries sought after during the era).\n\nThe Iberians, or Celto-Iberians in Spain and Portugal made use of medium infantry with short swords, javelins and shields which, when serving as mercenaries with the Carthaganians, helped the inspire the Romans to develop the gladius and to adapt their Hastati to their Marian legion. The Celto-Iberians also made use of heavily armoured cataphract cavalry, although in very small numbers.\n\nThe Gauls, or celtish people in Gaul made use of spearmen, good javelin throwers, noble infantry and heavy cavalry as well as archers and other skirmishers. Naked fanatics are mentioned in one source as men with long swords, large shields and no clothes (however, only one source mentions them, and only in one battle, in which they were severely defeated).\n\nThe Germans - little is actually very well known, but the spear seems to have been the focus of their warfare, both on foot and on horse, both thrown and stabbed. Germanic heavy cavalry were popoular mercenaries both for the Romans and the various Gaul tribes fighting them or each other before the Roman takeover.\n\nThe Persians before the Macedonian conquest made extensive use of archers and other missile troops, horse archers, heavy and light cavalry and masses of conscripted light spear infantry with wicker shields. This army came up short in Greek terrain against the hoplite phalanx at Marathon and Plataiai and against the combined arms army of the Macedonians. After the Macedonian conquest, the Persian Empire was divided among his hiers (called the Daidochi) who mixed Macedonian style warfare with the usage of more missile troops. The pike phalanx of these states became heavier and heavier to resist missiles, culminating in the Selucid silver shield phalanx, men who were like medieval knights and Egyptian cleruch cavalry awarded a parcel of land to finance themselves and their expensive equipment.\n\nThe Parthians, a horse people who eventually rose to prominence when the Romans crushed the Selucids and would be the grand power counterweight to Rome for a long time made extensive use of horse archers (using the Parthian shot, ie turning around in the saddle and loosing the arrow over the back of the horse after having turned the horse around) and heavy cataphract armoured cavalry.\n\nThe early Roman army made use of landowners who paid for their own equipment - essentially the middle class, divided into three classes - the hastati, the principes and the triarii. The hastati fought as light infantry, with short swords, large shields and javelins, much like the Iberians. It was probably learned from the Samnites, who made use of mobile swordsmen in their wars against Rome. The earliest Roman armies probably fought in a Greek-style hoplite phalanx. The hastati wore what little armour they could afford, while the wealther principes while armed the same way had heavier armour. The triarii consisted of the most affluent, oldest and most veteran Roman landowners and fought with spears. Poorer people fought as skirmishers, mostly with javelins as velites. The upper classes, the equites, fought on horseback as light cavalry and might have been dragoons, as they in several battles where the conditions became too cramped seem to have dismounted to fight on foot. Generally, the quality of the Roman cavalry was not as good as their infantry, and they were regularly bested by other countries' cavalry. The later Roman army after the Marian reforms is made up of the heavy, well-trained and well-armoured infantry in iron armour (lorica segmenta or chainail), iron helmets, large square shields, javelins (pila) and short swords. The Romans were unique in this era by having a formal system to replace the men in the frontline to allow them to rest and always having fresh troops at the front.\n\nThe Romans also made extensive use of auxulia (semi-permanent mercenaries) and mercenaries as they saw fit. When fighting the Parthians, they brought large amount of cavalry - Saramatians, Germans, Scythians or Gaul - and large amount of foot missile troops such as Syrian and Cretan archers and Macedonian and Rhodian slingers. When fighting Illyrians or Iberians, who made extensive use of light troops and hit-and-run tactics, the Romans hired light infantry and cavalry to fight them. While the Macedonians made a combined arms army, the Romans made a modular army with a core of legionaries to which the needed auxulia could be be added.\n\nAll made extensive use of mercenaries at the time. Illyrian medium infantry, using large oval shields, short swords, some armour and javelins were sought after medium infantry, capable of both skirmishing and fighting in the line.\n\nDacian (from present-day Romania and Bulgaria) swordsmen and falxmen (using a large reverse blade sabre used either with one or with both hands) were also sought after.\n\nGreek hoplites were still good heavy infantry and were extensively used as mercenaries and garrisons by the Romans after they conquered Greece and made up large part of the Roman armies that fought civil wars in the Greek world.\n\nThessalian cavalry continued to be an important part of warfare in the Greek world. Sought after as mercenaries, King Pyrrhuss of Epirus had his cavalry sunk en route to Italy and had to fight pretty much without them, which severely hampered his ability to destroy Roman armies thus the costly Pyrrhic victories.\n\nCretan archers were excellent skirmishers who were said to be able to take on any other archers of the era. Often said to have had a longer range than other archers. These were not restricted to only Crete, as it was more a style of warfare than an ethnic group. Cretan archers seem to have existed over a large part of the Greek world.\n\nSyria procuced very good archers that were also sought after.\n\nArmenia produced horse archers and heavy cavalry that all that had access to liked to hire.\n\nThe central regions of Anatolia were the home of Celts who had settled there after raiding through Greece. These Galatians as they were called were common mercenaries, producing renowned armoured swordsmen and scythed chariots.\n\nMacedonian, Rhodian and Balearic slingers were renowned for their skill and ability, and were often hired as mercenaries. The Romans were fond of using these to counter Parthian horse archers as slingers usually had longer range than archers and foot troops were cheaper and could be had in larger numbers than horse archers.\n\nNumidian javelinmen were highly sought after, and the Carthaganians used them as mercenaries extensively, both on foot and on horseback.\n\nSaramatians were a horse people adapt both as horse archers and medium to heavy cavalry and extensively used by the Romans." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/20x01e/did_soldiers_in_the_sword_and_shield_era_in_big/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eff1ysn" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "# Foreword\n\nThese are all really fascinating questions! The lives of peasants is often overshadowed when looking into the history of Japan, which is often focused on through the frame of ‘samurai history’. Despite this, it is a topic which is very complex, and is very connected with other aspects of Japanese history. Before starting, I think it is important to note the huge scope that is called upon by some of the questions you have brought up. The 12th-17th century is a vast amount of time, spanning (and not exclusively) 3 different shogunates (Kamakura 1180s-1330s, Muromachi 1330s-1570s, and Edo bakufu 1600s-1860s). The condition of peasants varie heavily throughout this time, as well as throughout different regions of Japan in any given time. As a result the answers to the different questions you ask are dependent on several changing factors. As a result, I will try to give a overview of the history and of peasants in the different periods, and along the way will touch on different questions you have proposed.Before diving into the topic directly, it will be helpful to go through some different conditions and phenomenons that had major impact on the lives of peasants throughout the different periods. I will focus on two underlying societal shifts that occurred in the periods:\n\n1.) The economical / administrative systems which were present, the shift being from the shōen system of Kamakura, which deteriorates during the Muromachi, and is replaced (in some regions) with the kandaka system implemented by many Sengoku daimyō, and finally the kokudaka system started by Hideyoshi, and used during the Edo period.\n\n2.)The way in which society was organized, the shift being from centering around the shōen estates, to that of the villages (and sōsons (village communes)).\n\nThese different systems and conditions were currents which in many ways drove the lives of peasants throughout the periods. As stated by Nagahara Keiji in *The Cambridge History of Japan Vol. 3*, “The life of the peasants was defined by the continuities and changes in the authority systems of the medieval period.” (\\[1\\] pg. 303) It is because of this, that it is important to keep in mind these various shifting conditions, and they will be touched upon throughout the response." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cy752os", "cy7a0eo", "cy7axsd" ], "score": [ 2, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "This seems as though it could be a survey question ..\"I still hate Yankees...strongly agree, somewhat agree, don't have an opinion, strongly disagree...\". Not sure how it could be answered.\n\n But there's one good example of them getting along afterwards. Virginian Alexander Boteler was very briefly Speaker of the House, making a futile \"can't we just get along\" speech just before the war broke out. He joined Lee's staff as an officer, and as a result had his farm torched, along with many others in the Shenandoah Valley, by Union General Hunter. Then there was a Confederate response in the burning of Chambersburg, PA. One of the Union soldiers from that area , who must have known people who'd lost property, was a man named George Beltzhoover, who became a lawyer. He and Boteler ended up living in Boteler's home, the same town of Shepherdstown,WV after the war, and became very good friends- even though they'd both ample reason to dislike each other in principle. But this may not be typical. Boteler was quite the Reconstructed Rebel, signing the loyalty oath soon after, and becoming a Federal bureaucrat, and Beltzhoover had moved himself to a Southern town- although one that was right on the border.", "The book, \"Lee: The Last Years\", although IMO a bit of a hagiography, claims that Robert E Lee pushed hard for reconciliation after Appomattox, because he had looked at the Confederacy's defeat as God's judgment, and was a very devout man.\n\nHe told anyone who asked him to go home, accept that the South had lost, and rebuild their homes and communities. The book further claims that because of Lee's status among Confederate veterans, theIr defeat was accepted.\n\nNote: I am not a professional historian, nor am I promoting the Lost Cause narrative. I am an amateur who is interested in the Civil War and RE Lee in particular, despite being from Vermont. If the mods think I should take this down, please delete it.", "This is a topic of some debate to this day, but basically there was a rough trajectory in the opinion of both major sides. Right after the war ended things were very tense, with some retaliatory actions occurring in the years that followed (e.g. I study 19th century WV and we had unionists murdering confederates and vice versa in the first couple of years). There was something of an immediate move by many in the North, especially those who were lukewarm toward the war and especially toward Black civil rights to immediately forgive and to begin reintegrating Southerners into the national polity. This changed, however, when in the late 1860s White Southerners organized campaigns of racial terrorism to resubjugate freedmen. This led the Ulysses Grant administration to send armed forces into the South and use the military to enforce civil rights law. This battle led to some serious anti-Northern opinion in the South and vice versa. It's worth saying that there were always Southerners who were more open to the North, especially those that were anti-secession to begin with. And, of course, much of the South was African-American and they were generally very pro-North. But things are complicated. Harriet Beecher Stowe herself founded a school for freedmen in Florida and by the middle of the 1880s she found herself adopting anti-Black attitudes and sympathizing with Southerners. By the middle of the 1880s a reconciliation philosophy began to emerge where Northerners and Southerners alike warmed to each other and sacrificed black Civil Rights to build sectional unity. This came to full flower in the late 1890s/early 1900s when the idea that, \"they all died honorably,\" became the dominant interregional interpretation of the Civil War. If you really want to know more, you can't go wrong reading \"Race and Reunion\" by David Blight, which is my primary source for this" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dc8wlle" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The testudo formation was never used in pitched battles, it was a tight formation designed for use next to enemy walls during a siege. The strength of the testudo was that the interlocking shields spread out the weight of anything dropped on the formation, such as rocks or pottery. Going into testudo didn't offer much more protection against arrows than simply raising your shield above your head in standard formation, which was always done during a pitched battle in both the ancient and medieval periods. Another thing to consider is that medieval shields weren't uniform, shaped right, or big enough for testudo to be used. \n\nIn short, the testudo couldn't be used by medieval armies, and even if it could it wouldn't serve much of a purpose in most contexts." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dtxnz6h", "dtywlws", "dtz3dzg" ], "score": [ 671, 604, 41 ], "text": [ "Posting links to previous answers is not intended to discourage questions or further discussion.\n\nFrom /u/Elm11's reply the last time this was asked, you might like to see\n\n* [Did paper airplanes exist before the Wright Brothers?](_URL_0_), responses by /u/cthulhushrugged and others in the tree\n* [Did people make paper airplanes before the airplane was invented?](_URL_1_), answer by \n/u/ashkenazeeyankee, and a comment below about recreational use of paper\n", "The answer depends on how we define a paper airplane. Let's first consider the strictest possible definition of a paper airplane: **a toy glider made *only* out of folded paper**. The technology of papermaking has its origins in East Asia, so a good place to start is examine the history of Asian paper folding. However, we run quickly run into the problem that very little research has actually been done on topic of paper folding. \n\nOne of the few detailed accounts of the history of Chinese paper folding is presented in Tsien Tsuen-hsuin's *Paper and Printing*, published in 1985 as part of Joseph Needham's seminal *Science and Civilisation in China* series. According to Tsien, the practice of paper folding (*zhezhi*) emerged in the Tang dynasty at the latest. This is based on decorative folded and cut paper flowers dated to the 9th-10th centuries, which are believed to be among the oldest surviving examples of paper folding as an artform. The paper flowers were discovered by Aurel Stein at the turn of the 20th century in Dunhuang, a city in western China, and are currently held by the [British Museum](_URL_0_). However, there are no mentions made of folded paper gliders. Tsien *does* discuss other paper toys, but we'll come to that later.\n\nThen what about paper folding in Japan? While the Japanese term *origami* has come to encompass all forms of paper folding, it may come as a surprise that research into the history of Japanese paper folding is even more lacking. Most of the research into the origins of origami comes from hobbyists and amateurs. This includes Koshiro Hatori's \"History of Origami in the East and the West before Interfusion\" published in 2011 and Isao Honda's *The World of Origami* published in 1965. Hatori traces the origins of origami to 14th century ceremonial paper folding such as *noshi* or *ocho*-*mecho*. These were used as wrappers; *noshi* derived from *noshi-awabi* containers for abalone meat and the *ocho*-*mecho* paper butterflies were meant to adorn bottles of alcohol. It doesn't take a huge leap to imagine that one of these early origami designs was capable of gliding through the air, even if accidentally, but that was not their intended purpose.\n\nWe've apparently reached dead end. So let's use a looser definition for a paper airplane: **a toy or device made of paper (but not necessarily just paper) that is capable of flight**. There are several military devices that fit this description. /u/cthulhushrugged has already discussed the *[shen huo fei ya](_URL_1_)* (\"magic-fire flying crow\"), which was a bird-shaped bomb with a body made from bamboo that was covered in paper using an adhesive. Placed under the wings of the artificial bird were arrows propelled using gunpowder.\n\nOutside of warfare, there are several pre-modern flying paper toys that are worth mentioning. Flying kites made of paper were used by the Chinese in circa 549 at the latest, when there is an account of a paper kite being used for signalling during a rescue attempt. The first mention of flying a kite as a recreational activity (and not for military or measurement purposes) comes much later in the 10th century, from a passage in the *Xun chu lu* that describes a person attaching a kite to a bamboo to produce music using moving air currents. These kites were designed with the paper covering a bamboo frame. Prior to the invention of paper, materials such as silk would have likely been used instead. There were even kites made large enough to supposedly lift a person.\n\nIn China, there are also paper lanterns that fly by heating the air inside the lantern with a candle, similar to how a hot air balloon works. The history of these flying *tian deng* lanterns is murky at best, but (non-flying) paper lanterns were popular at least by the Tang dynasty. This dating is based on a book discovered in Khotan that references paper being bought for the purpose of making lanterns.\n\nBut why limit ourselves to paper? We might as well adopt an even more flexible definition: **Any toys capable of flight.** /u/AshkenazeeYankee mentioned George Cayley, whose \"rotary waft\" experiments were inspired by the \"Chinese tops\" popular in 18th century Europe. In China, these tops were made from bamboo rather than folded paper. They were \"helicopter tops\" that would fly off after spinning their axis by hand. The origins of this toy are unknown, but the connection of the helicopter top to the Mongol prayer-wheel and Chinese zoetrope has been speculated by Needham.\n\nGoing back to our strict definition of paper airplanes—toy gliders made of folded paper—we don't *really* starting seeing literary references to these types of paper airplanes until the 19th century. /u/AshkenazeeYankee has already cited Charles Matthews' memoirs from 1860. There's also a line about a \"broker [who] cannot... innocently fling a ‘paper dart’ at a neighbour without being amerced ten dollars\" from James Knowles Medbery's *Men and Mysteries of Wall Street* from 1870. These \"paper darts\" predate the invention of airplane. However, this does not necessarily imply that there were no premodern paper airplanes that are even older; that may just be a result of the lack of research done on the history of paper folding.", "A story in [The British Essayists](_URL_0_) published in 1803:\n\n > ...he presented himself to the wondering eyes of Euphorion with a huge black bush wig stuck full of paper darts, and as thickly spiked as the back of a porcupine.\n\n\nAnd for reference, [here is a diagram of paper darts](_URL_1_) from *[Cassell's Complete Book of Sports and Pastimes: Being a Compendium of Out-Door and In-Door Amusements](_URL_2_)*, published in 1896. They are very similar, if not identical to a paper airplane. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4vfpq6/did_paper_airplanes_exist_before_the_wright/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/737jy0/did_people_make_paper_airplanes_before_the/" ], [ "http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1336530&partId=1&images=true&matcult=15573&page=19", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4vfpq6/did_paper_airplanes_exist_before_the_wright/d5yh81f/" ], [ "http://books.google.com/books?dq=%22paper+darts%22&ei=wWRNUOKCG7CUigK444C4BA&hl=en&id=8heLXBepvscC&lpg=PA240&ots=qnn8AD05OV&pg=PA240&sa=X&sig=R-yMMmajzsrGYBF6zHmxWQU4Y9w&source=bl&ved=0CHMQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=%22paper%20darts%22&f=false", "https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3eeb18be5a37fdec5f60fb49b4245a9e", "http://books.google.com/books?dq=fold+paper&ei=vGlNUIHUD-_oiwK-roCADA&hl=en&id=-DkFAAAAYAAJ&ots=0bgTCh9hHl&printsec=frontcover&sa=X&sig=rpUNZK36ZRxbtyk1ey5ZSwojOOY&source=bl&ved=0CD4Q6AEwATgy#v=onepage&q&f=false" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8072da" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "The [Royal Derwent](_URL_8_) is the oldest mental hospital in Australia. It is [situated](_URL_1_) in the town of New Norfolk, about 20 miles from Hobart, the capital of the island colony of Tasmania. \n\nFounded in military barracks in 1827, it went through several role changes throughout it's 170 year history before finally being closed in 2000. \n\nAfter starting as an invalid hospital, it was decided in the early 1830s to repurpose the complex as an insane asylum. Men and women would be housed in separate parts of the complex. The rooms were extremely basic, with shared toilets located outside in the yards.\n\nA local newspaper (the Colonial Times and Tasmanian) [editorialised](_URL_9_) thus on December 10 1857:\n\n > THERE IS perhaps no establishment belonging to the British Crown so shamefully managed as is the New Norfolk Hospital.\n\n...\n\n > As regards the insane, no\nattempt is made to cure--the patient is\nmerely imprisoned there, and many, from\nmental derangement become confirmed ma-\nniacs in consequence of the imprisonment\nand the harsh treatment. The new law\nnow allows any person to be incarcerated\nin that jail upon the certificate of one medi-\ncal man, and among medical practitioners,\nas amongst other professions, are to be\nfound corrupt men, consequently when a\nman wishes to get rid of his wife, or a wife\nto dispose of her husband, he or she has\nnothing to do but to charge madness, ob-\ntain a medical man's certificate, and close\nthe doors of the Hospital for life upon the\nunfortunate object ; for whether the person\ncharged with insanity be insane or not, re-\nlease from the prison is equally out of the\nquestion ; for there is no means of redress\n--no one to whom complaint can be made.\n\n...\n\n > As to the tyranny practised within the\nwalls by the underlings, it is truly dreadful.\nOur readers may recollect that the patient\nwho shot Deadman the keeper, gave in his\naddress to the jury a terrible picture of what\ntook place within the walls, he more parti-\ncularly alluded to the punishment of the hot\nbath and the blanket. He stated, that if a\npatient fancied himself sane, and demanded\nto be released from imprisonment, if in fact\nany offence or trouble were given, the\npunishment was a very hot bath and a\nblanket wrapped round the head. \n\nIt continues on in like fashion, detailing the case of a patient/inmate who appears to have died after this 'hot bath' treatment/torture. The public was not able to go into the hospital, and employees rarely mentioned what went on inside. I cannot find records of patients being released. It's not to say it didn't happen, but as far as I can tell, once you were admitted, you died in there.\n\nThere are a lot of terrible and horrifying stories, but most of those are from later than Victorian era, starting with the use of elecroshock therapy in the 1930s, and another spate of abuses (especially against women) in the 1970s. The site of the hospital has become something of a grim tourist attraction, with paranormal investigators claiming it has one of the highest concentrations of ghost sightings in the world. I'm not into that stuff, but I do know a lot of misery was perpetuated there upon society's most vulnerable.\n\n:-\\\n\n[This](_URL_5_) is what the building looked like after about 8 years as a (more or less regular) hospital.\n\n[This](_URL_4_) is a typical floorplan of the patient wards.\n\n[This](_URL_0_) is a staff photo from 1886. \n\nFor further reading see: \n\n* Susan Piddock *A Space of Their Own: The Archaeology of Nineteenth Century Lunatic Asylums in Britain, South Australia and Tasmania*, Adelaide, 2007. You can find the book in it's entirety [here](_URL_2_). This would be your best bet for more exhaustive detail.\n* R Gowlland, *Troubled asylum*, New Norfolk, 1981; \n* B Burkett, *Royal Derwent Hospital and Millbrook Rise Hospital*, Hobart, 1980.\n* _URL_6_ [note, this site is run by member/s of the Australian Paranormal Institute of Australia. It does contain a lot of useful data though.]\n* The guy who runs the above site has a ton of photos of the hospital on his flickr feed [here](_URL_7_).\n* _URL_3_ [this is an advocacy group, acting on behalf of many former patients held in the hospital] " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://i.imgur.com/E5VLkdI.jpg", "https://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=royal+derwent+hospital+new+norfolk&hl=en&ll=-42.787779,147.072859&spn=0.033951,0.084543&sll=-32.010396,135.119128&sspn=76.256064,173.144531&t=h&hq=royal+derwent+hospital&hnear=New+Norfolk+Tasmania&z=14", "http://www.scribd.com/doc/65996376/Piddock-A-Space-of-Their-Own-the-Archaeology-of-19th-Century-Lunatic-Asylums-in-Britain-Sout", "http://www.willowcourttasmania.org/", "http://i.imgur.com/1lZzwdz.jpg", "http://i.imgur.com/oks2EEz.jpg", "http://royalderwent.com/", "http://www.flickr.com/photos/29924718@N04/", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Derwent_Hospital", "http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/8761916?searchTerm=new%20norfolk&searchLimits=exactPhrase|||anyWords|||notWords|||l-textSearchScope=*ignore*%7C*ignore*|||fromdd=01|||frommm=12|||fromyyyy=1847|||todd=30|||tomm=12|||toyyyy=1847|||l-title=24|||l-word=*ignore*%7C*ignore*|||sortby" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6w1i8f", "c6w1ox7", "c6w2y6v", "c6w3ey7", "c6w3m3b", "c6w68y6" ], "score": [ 25, 10, 3, 16, 9, 9 ], "text": [ "There has never been a communist government in the modern era, aside from those of certain less developed cultures. What we in the West have heralded as the failure of communism is really the failure of 'comunism' modeled in the vein of statist plutocratic totalitarianism . Marx never thought that a communist system would arise in the way the revolutionaries who engendered 'communist' governments worldwide envisioned and developed it. That said, actual widespread and effectively maintainable communism has yet to see it's day. In my opinion, it will be a inevitable development of human society, but one we won't see until we enter a post scarcity economy. In the meantime effectively managed capitalism seems to be the best thing we have, and that is entirely keeping with a Marxist dialectal view of modern history. What we decry as communism just simply was not, and I maintain that my claim is not a instance of a 'No true Scotsman' fallacy.", "Because the way a number of states implemented \"communism\" caused a lot of famines, suffering, purges and deaths. Stalin and Mao are obviously the most notable examples. The Communist Parties were totalitarian regimes and had to protect themselves with totalitarian methods.\n\nIf you want a more cynical answer, it's because communist states nationalised industries and threatened western business interests.\n\nSo why is it considered so bad? Why was \"communist\" or \"commie\" used widely as an insult? Why was wider society so afraid of it? The [Red Scares](_URL_0_) were perpetrated by western governments as a result of their aversion to communism, either for humanitarian or business reasons depending on how much faith you have in humanity.", "There's too much '-ism' in these responses and not enough history.\n\nBut then again, there's also the word \"evil\" in the way the question was phrased. *sigh*", "Well, let's define the terms here. \"Communism\" can, I suppose, refer to a utopic egalitarian economic system. But, in its most common form, it's just a title that the Marxist-Leninist's used to distinguish themselves from democratic socialists. Marxist-Leninist's, of course, believed in doing whatever was necessary in order to establish communism as soon as possible. Fairly soon, however, it became clear that they were effectively a military dictatorship with a curious sort of ideology. At it's worst, these Marxist-Leninist governments were totalitarian (with Stalin, Mao, and North Korea taking the lead here), and at their best they were authoritarian and hard to live under.\n\n\"Planned\" economies (which are generally referred to as \"command\" economies today) were a relatively new idea then, and the Marxist-Leninists were the first to try them out. After around the 60's, I think it became clear to everyone that the experiment had failed (it mostly took that long because Communist governments totally walled themselves off from the outside). The planned economies treated the economy as if it were on a permanent war time footing, they utterly ignored consumer needs to build more and more heavy industry and such, and all of them eventually stagnated in the long run. So, at its core, you had a military dictatorship with a crappy economic system that at one time seemed like it was spreading like wildfire.", "Stalin and Mao were openly antagonistic to western countries, much as Iran and some other Muslim countries are now. However, Stalin and his successors also had a massive number of nuclear weapons and threatened to use them, so the stakes were quite high. \n\nStalin had taken over Eastern Europe after World War II and refused to relinquish that control or allow self-government. There was reason to be concerned that Mao would do the same in Asia, especially after the Korean War. And Stalin and Mao did cause the death of tens of millions of people. So there was much to criticize. \n\nBut it was the Soviet weapons that really heightened the rhetoric about \"evil empires.\" Even when Bush labeled North Korea, Iran, and Iraq an \"axis of evil,\" only North Korea had nuclear weapons and they were very small and distant compared to the threat posed by Soviet Russia.", "I just spent the day at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, so I can comment on his views.\n\nHe said that famine was the product of communism, and bounty the product of capitalism. Communism starved millions of its own citizens to death in the USSR, China, Cambodia, etc. That counts as \"evil\" if anything does. \n\nAt the end of the Soviet Union, they were buying grain from the US.\n\nAlso, Reagan made the point that any country that turned its guns on its own citizens, that walled them in with concrete and barbed wire, that spied on them relentlessly and where even a small bit of protest (in even a poem or song) could get you sent away to a gulag in Siberia... yeah, that country is \"evil\".\n\nIt's not limited to the Soviet Union. China, North Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia, etc. all became brutal dictatorships. It's not a matter of doing communism \"right\" - tyranny is the inevitable result when the state (/cough, sorry, \"the people\") control the economy. You work where they tell you to work, you make what they tell you to make, you buy what they allow you to buy. It's not an accident or a coincidence. Nor is the inevitable poverty that accompanies it.\n\nOne of the great tragedies of modern history is that we've forgotten the horrors of communism, and treat is as a joke, alongside a sort of misguided \"well, they meant well!\" apology. Instead, we talk about \"The Red Scare\" as if there was no basis for it, as if the Soviet leaders hadn't talked openly about subverting the US from within by making us all socialists. Or that the VENONA intercepts let us know how active Soviet spy rings were (though very few had access to this information).\n\nCommunism has killed more people on this planet than any other ideology, but we pretend it almost never existed. " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "craqibm", "crattzj" ], "score": [ 6, 2 ], "text": [ "Just to clarify: are we asking why and when Europeans started moving to the Americas?", "Maybe you could narrow it down to a particular century or country of origin?\n\nOne major factor in choice of immigration destination is the existence of a beachhead community. It's far easier to move someplace where there are at least a few people who speak your language or might have family ties.\n\nFor example, there is a significant Hmong population in Saint Paul Minnesota. They did not move there for the weather, nor even for the funnel cakes. Most chose that city because there was already a Hmong community there.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dwctybn" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "To say *'Sun Yat-Sen supported a Western-style representative republic'* oversimplifies Sun's views on revolution, republicanism, and nationalism. For one, the idea that a stable enlightened democracy would spontaneously emerge from the ashes of imperial China is naive. And furthermore it didn't. The first revolution in 1911 (the Xinhai Revolution) was hijacked by the powerful general Yuan Shikai, to whom Sun ceded the title of provisional president in exchange for forcing the last Qing emperor to abdicate. And because of his military power, Yuan was able to sideline Sun and his party (the GMD) as well as oversee the erosion of the first Republic of China and finally a reversion back to monarchism with himself as Emperor. After Yuan's death in 1916, China was plunged into a era of regional warlords. \n\nNationalism lay at the core of Sun's political philosophy and he was concerned with fundamentally reforming China and its people - not merely carrying out token democratic reforms in a backwards nation. In Sun's Three Principles of the People, the principle of Nationalism makes an appearance before the principle of Democracy (Nationalism, Democracy, Livelihood). From his *A Program for National Reconstruction* (1918) we can see as to why he thought this:\n\n > It is not to be denied that the Chinese people are deficient in knowledge. Moreover, they have been soaked in the poison of absolute monarchy for several thousand years [...] the Chinese people, being for the first time under republican rule, must have a farsighted revolutionary government for their training. This calls for the period of political tutelage, which is a necessary transitional stage from monarchy to republicanism. Without this, disorder will be unavoidable.\n\nThe key word here is \"political tutelage\", which is to be administered by a \"revolutionary government\"; in essence, the people must be prepared for democracy or they won't be ready for it. A revolutionary government isn't an elected constitutional government because that would be putting the cart before the horse. Instead, the existence of an authoritative revolutionary government arises from a military revolution to first consolidate power. This is evident from Sun's division of National Reconstruction into three phases: 1. Destruction, 2. Transition, and 3. Reconstruction. Destruction here isn't a mere metaphor, but an \"extraordinary\" and violent phase to overthrow the existing establishment and oversee the elimination of archaic customs, etc. After a period of successful destruction, the transitional phase begins:\n\n > ... the provisional constitution will be promulgated in the district, defining the rights and duties of citizens and the governing powers of the revolutionary government. [...] When the constitution is promulgated and the president and the National Assembly are elected, the revolutionary government will hand over its governing power to the president, and the period of political tutelage will come to an end. \n\nIn 1918, Sun is overly optimistic by suggesting that a period of 6 years would be sufficient for such a transition. In later writings he will avoid giving any arbitrary time-line. Naturally, the length and exact nature of this transitional phase will be open to interpretation, debate, and much controversy.\n\nThis now brings us to the statement *'the Communists pretty blatantly hijacked and destroyed any hopes of fulfilling Sun's revolution'*. Setting aside Yuan Shikai's usurpation, this statement skips over the twenty-four crucial years of modern Chinese history from Sun's death in 1925 to the 1949 establishment of the PRC. After Sun's death, his vision of a national revolutionary movement uniting China was superficially realized by his party's successor Chiang Kai-shek's successful Northern Expedition against the Warlords. Chiang's model of nationalist reform would at least in theory mirror Sun's. Having conquered China, he was now in the transitionary or tutelage phase with himself as head of Sun's former Nationalist party (GMD or KMT) and therefore the leader of a single-party Chinese state. Although frequently referred to as a fascist dictator or generalissimo, Chiang's de facto power was checked by i) warlords whom he allied with during the Northern Expedition who still retained considerable power; ii) his purge and massacre of communists within the GMD leading to the splinter of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from the GMD and their subsequent civil war; iii) burgeoning influence and agitation in Manchuria by Imperial Japan followed by a 1931 invasion and eventual war (Second Sino-Japanese War - > Second World War).\n\nIt was only in 1947 that a new Chinese constitution was promulgated with Chiang formally elected as President of the Republic of China in 1948. However the years after the end of the Second World War only marked a new phase in China's instability. The civil war had been renewed; the communists had fully taken advantage of the Second World War to ingratiate themselves with the Chinese peasantry and to entrench themselves as a formidable military force. Chiang's political capital as a nationalist leader had been severely drained as a result of [the Xian Incident (u/ScipioAsina)](_URL_1_). Furthermore, marred by widespread government corruption and incompetence corresponding [with hyperinflation taking root from the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War](_URL_0_), Chiang's government had long ceased to be the revolutionary government that Sun had idealized. Within two years of being elected as President, Chiang would escape to Taiwan.\n\nIt should now be clear why the CCP holds Sun as a nationalist hero: 1. He was first and foremost a nationalist who helped overthrow dynastic rule; 2. His conception of republicanism is not inconsistent with single-party rule; under the GMD, China was also administered as a single-party state; 3. the CCP sees itself as the legitimate successor to Sun's revolution as opposed to Chiang's led GMD. \n\n*\"Selections from A Program of National Reconstruction: \"The Three Stages of Revolution\" (1918)\" By Sun Yat-sen, from* Sources of Chinese Tradition: From 1600 Through the Twentieth Century, *compiled by Wm. Theodore de Bary and Richard Lufrano, 2d ed., vol. 2 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 328-330*\n\n*\"The Inflation in China\", Andrew C Huang,* The Quarterly Journal of Economics, *Vol. 62, No. 4 (Aug., 1948), pp. 562-575*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://imgur.com/a/F8VpI", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1i7hpa/how_come_china_didnt_try_to_fight_off_japan_when/cb1zsdk/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dyyiykc", "dyyz8gg", "dyz1rvg", "dyzavtb" ], "score": [ 57, 3, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "I never learned about this until graduate school. We write what is called a précis of the book. It looks like this: \nCitation: self explanatory. \nAuthor information: quick background about where they went to school and their other works. No more than two or three sentences.\nThesis: what is the point of the material\nArgument: how did they make their point\nSummary: I typically try to write one or two sentences per chapter here. If there are a lot of chapters I might break it down to writing a few sentences about the different sections if it’s divided into part 1, part 2, etc.\nEvaluation: write what you thought about the book. Was is useful? Did you like it? Would you recommend it to someone? \n\nYour précis becomes your guide to the material you looked at. Once it’s written you don’t have to reread the material, you can use your précis to go back and find what was important about the material. \n\nAs for how to “gut” a book, speed reading becomes your best friend. I had to read two books per week for a single class my last semester and I was taking other classes. So you really have to learn how to speed read in graduate school. My technique is to read the introduction all the way through because that typically summarizes the book for you. When you’re lucky some authors tell you in the introduction “in chapter one I will argue this then in chapter two I will explain this etc.” Then I would typically read the first paragraph of a chapter, skim through the rest of the chapter, but always read the bold and look at any diagrams, graphs, or pictures because they are normally important. Then I would read the end of the chapter because they typically summarize the highlights of the chapter. Typically when going through the chapters I write a summary of each one, no more than 5 or 6 sentences that can be reduced when writing the summary portion of your précis. Finally I always read the conclusions of books. That’s typically where the authors reenforce and explain thesis. If you do this you can write a decently thorough précis. \nAlso don’t forget someone else has probably read the books you are preparing to read. There are always plenty of reviews out there on the internet you can check out. If you have access to databases like jstor you can find some pretty good reviews to help you get through your material. \nHopefully this helps. Good luck! ", "So my experience as a grad school student who was studying straight history and has now transitioned into a more media-studies-type role(with a heavy concentration on US History) is as follows: Historian's don't really meticulously read books unless they're specifically searching for certain pieces of information. Academic history books are usually structured such that the author's thesis and main supporting arguments are stated at the beginning and the end. Most of a 600+ page book is showing one's work, citing other sources, documenting topical minutiae and research methods. That is not to say that this is unimportant(as this sub's rigorous rules for documentation indicate, historians rightly value substantiated claims), merely that in an academic context, being able to prove your pedigree is of secondary interest to a surface level reader than one's main argument. There are other factors that have to do with learning strong research skills, but in my (reasonably) informed opinion that's basically what's going on there. ", "Without wanting to disagree with the other fine responses, I'd like to highlight the importance of dealing methodically with primary source information too. This is much more of a mixed bag - depending on your period, approach and archives you'll likely end up with a hodgepodge of digital and physical copies of things. It's vital that you store them logically (ideally preserving the archives' own system to allow for better referencing) but also allowing for searching. I was (un)lucky that several of my key archives didn't allow photos or made photocopying a pain - transcribing was hell at the time, but made ctrl-f my best friend later on. For digital images (I ended up with tens of thousands), renaming them as a series of keywords based on subject, author, contents etc also made finding material easier, and I regretted not doing this across all my collections. Lastly, get familiar with database software and don't be afraid to use it. I never realised how useful it was until I started writing a thesis chapter not covered by my main database...", "In pulp studies, it usually depends on knowing what you're looking for and what's available. A lot of basic facts as far as publication dates of various stories are readily available online, or through databases or specialist indices, but the actual stories and issues might be much more difficult to source, given the self-destructive nature of the material—and fanzines and other contemporary periodicals tend to be scarce and expensive. There *are* published biographies and collections of letters and essays by various pulp fictioneers, editors, etc., the quality and utility of which varies. The most complete correspondence yet published is that of H. P. Lovecraft and his circle, which is at 20+ volumes and counting. For others, your best hope is that their letters and/or papers survive and have been deposited at a friendly library or archive—I myself have had to make several requests of Bowling Green's exceptional Popular Culture Library and the Wisconsin Historical Society's Derleth archive (August Derleth was co-founder and primary editor/publisher of Arkham House, and a prominent pulp writer, fictioneer, and poet in his own right).\n\nBut as far as the mass of journals, scholarly and not-so-scholarly go...you're kind of on your own, there's a few indices out there, but there's still a lot of voyage of discovery where you run across a citation to an article or letter buried in an old 'zine and have to track it down. I'm rather fortunate in that regard in that I've accumulated a fairly extensive library of reference and source materials over the years, and can cross-reference a lot of stuff on my own through carefully poring through half a dozen books over a few hours, but if I didn't have that I'd be down to making interlibrary loan requests and sending emails requesting scans of letters and old pulp 'zines and the like. Fortunately, most of the fellow travelers in pulp studies are gracious pack-rats who share some of their own materials, if you know who to ask." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "d70l4le" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "British 18th & 19th century industry used alot of cheap labour to begin with. Yes we had Indian labour but we also had prison labour, child labour and also cheap poverty. Irish workers would come from poverty stricken Ireland and would be cheaper to hire than English. Poor children were illiterate as they never went to school and we're put to work in factories for long hours a day. Child labour was very cheap. Most factories would also hire orphans and pay the orphanage the child's wages.\n\nWe had alot of ways to get cheap labour that didn't require slaves since slavery was abolished - we improvised alright if you ask me.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9sny80", "c9sq9g4" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Of course it could have. All you'd need is for the Axis nations to screw up and lose, which is of course always possible. \n\nYou'd probably get a better answer for this question in r/HistoricalWhatIf where people are more free to answer such questions. ", "The U.S. was involved though, and therefore any answer to the question as phrased would be speculation, which [we don't do here](_URL_0_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_is_this_the_right_place_for_your_question.3F" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8nx2b5" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The \"Militia\" as originally termed is all adult males who are neither boys nor very old, the men who would be expected to defend the nation whether they are a part of a federal or state organization or not. \n\nSo yes, adult males did abuse their power during the reconstruction to terrorize and to assassinate black voters and black politicians and to prevent the political empowerment of African-Americans." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d5ktz60" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "We can distinguish between a number of ways in which modern technology can help historians:\n\n1) **information technology** helps historians analyse millions of documents with much greater ease. This reduces the amount of bias in which documents we find important, because it is easier to step outside of the known and well-studied documents which previous historians have highlighted. The most obvious application of IT are digital databases and digitized records, preferably with the possibility of computationally searching through them for keywords.\n\nSome people do something more complicated, using computer algorithms to analyse thousands of records to find patterns and relationships that are nearly impossible to find manually.\n\n2) **forensics and archaeology** make it possible to analyse DNA to determine migration, heritage and family relationships. It also helps with determining how people lived and why they died. It happens quite often that people excavate some historical figure to run some tests on them, in the hope that modern science will answer some century old questions: did Tycho Brahe get poisoned? Where did Richard III get buried? How did Tutankhamun die?\n\n3) **Physics and Chemistry** There are several techniques to measure the age of documents, artefacts or biological material. Also, we can accurately determine the composition of materials which can help us understand where they came from and how they were produced. We are also able to put stuff in scanners to look inside them and understand their structure without breaking things, and we even have ground scanners to see what's buried somewhere without having to dig. Furthermore, there are very nice methods to analyse damaged documents to figure out what was written on it, using special multi-spectrum lights and cameras that reveal otherwise invisible markings on the documents. This is also used to study pieces of art, to look underneath the paint and see what was drawn beneath it.\n\nPerhaps as a questionable fourth category, we can add **computational simulations** and real-life experiments. These are used to test the validity of historical claims, as it allows you to see what some person hundreds of years ago might have seen. It's not always possible to replicate an experiment in real life (costs, impossible to reproduce situations, etc.), so computers can help a lot. For example, we can simulate how bright a supernova would have been for observers in 1572, or the position of Jupiter's moons at the time of Galileo's observations." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmqj04e" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Following World War I, Germany was forced to take the blame and basically left on their own to survive, or not. Following World War II, Germany was split into four zones, occupied by the victorious Allied powers: The United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. The first three essentially merged their zones into what became West Germany, allowing industry to recovery without as many reparations as the first war. With the onset of the Cold War and the grip the Soviet Union had over Eastern Europe, there was little any dictator who wasn't \"friendly\" toward the Soviets could do. Plus, you have the international backing of the United States, Britain, and many others with the creation of the United Nations. All of this was done to make sure Germans did not resort to extremism as they had after World War I. Hope I helped!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cf629xu", "cf65af6", "cf6a5vz", "cf6ayay" ], "score": [ 7, 4, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Bloodline was certainly important - a marriage of families could well end one house's power over a kingdom.\n\nAlso, consider the laws of succession differed greatly between countries. In England, a female could inherit the throne - in France, a female could not. Thus a female could become Queen of England but her male cousin might be the one who inherits the Kingdom of France. \n\nKeep in mind that the modern nation state is a much more recent idea, and that we are talking about titles being inherited more than entire empires. Charles V was Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire as well as King of Spain (and the colonial Spanish Empire) - but he voluntarily abdicated in favor of his younger brother who became Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and his son who became King of Spain. The idea that they could become a unified superpower simply didn't exist given the disparity/difference in how the two entities were run or simply existed.\n\nUltimately though, I don't think it's all that different from why modern countries don't get together and just unite. Even within the EU, there is major dissent between the various countries about the level of integration. It could be pride, an issue of practicality, economic/social differences, etc.", "The Habsburg family actually created an empire - mostly by means of marriages. They could have united Europe, but the foreign policy of Richelieu stopped them during the thirty year war.", " > > My question though is aimed at isolating the reasons why kingdoms such as France and England didn't simply arrange a marriage to unify their empires, or when they did, this union didn't continue on to the next generation to bring in others such as Spain, Austria, and Denmark.\n\nThis was basically what the Hundreds Year War was about, the English house of Plantagenet had a better claim on the French throne than the French House of Valois did. The reason why there was a war was because the French nobility refuse to accept Edward III's claim to the throne and instead nominated the Valois branch of house of Capet onto the throne. One of the reasons is that there's too many regional interest groups against the an incoming foreign ruler in a large percentage of the cases. For something as powerful as a throne there were simply too many other claimants to it for one house to hold it for a long time. Even in England itself, the Plantagenets would destroy themselves fighting for the throne. \n\nThere was also the fact that even personal unions didn't have to be unifying, the Hapsburgs under Charles V for instance, theoritically ruled Portugal, Castille, Aragon, and Austria and the Netherlands at one point in time. Yet the governments of each of those places remained independent and not integrated with each other. This is especially striking of Portugal and Spain, even though they are right next to each other and had the same king, they were not integrated with each and Portugal would eventually gain independence. The means by which pre-modern monarchs could rule over vast territories was simply too limited for a pan-European monarch to be viable on the long run.", "That is a good question, actually. An important aspect of this dynamic is the fact that each kingship or lordship is a distinct legal entity. James I of England, for example, was also James VI of Scotland but the two remained separate realms who happened to have the same sovereign. It wasn't until the 1707 Act of Union that they became a single political entity. So even where a single person had amassed a huge stretch of territory, they often were not a single cohesive unit which makes them subject to instability. It is difficult to be a king in absentia and hold on to your rule, but with a large empire it is impossible to be present everywhere, especially in an era in which travel was so difficult and lengthy.\n\nIt is also important to consider the sentiments of the leading lords within a country as well. A King can't rule effectively if he spends all of his time fighting his own lords. And the lords' aren't going to be pleased at the idea of a stranger staking a claim to the throne. Jealousies and grudges between countries are a powerful deterrent to this kind of thing.\n \nThat is part of the reason why Mary I of England, for example, forced her husband Phillip II of Spain to sign a pre-nup saying that he could not claim title to the English throne. The English leading citizens were not about to allow a foreign born Catholic of all people to come usurp the English throne just by marrying Mary.\n \nBasically long story short, administering and ruling a country was hard work. Ruling an empire was even harder. Ruling an empire that spanned the entirety of Europe - with all the cultural, religious, ethnic and linguistic diversity therein - is nigh on impossible. Other countries will see the weakness inherent in trying to control all that and use the opportunity to snap up your stuff. " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cdw6u8n" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "[A similar question](_URL_0_) came up a few weeks ago, and I gave a long answer there. To summarize, we don't know for sure if they did or didn't, but most scholars today seem to think they didn't. If there is truth to the claim that they did think the Europeans were 'gods,' it wasn't a belief that they held for very long, and the issue is still complicated by different understandings of divinity." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rgsfl/is_there_any_truth_to_the_commonly_cited_fact/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "etm9zkb", "eu46emr" ], "score": [ 8, 3 ], "text": [ "Depending a bit on what \"non-western\" means...and with the permission of mods I'm gonna answer this about history-adjacent academia more broadly...\n\nA lot of non-western historians write in western languages (which nowadays usually, but not always, means English) frequently, so their work can be read by the widest possible pool of scholars. Additionally options for publication are much more plentiful in English. When writing in English, dating is generally BC(E)/AD/CE.\n\nHowever, Jewish academic fields sometimes also write in Hebrew. Besides the fact that a large share of Jewish-focused academic fields are Israeli, Hebrew is extremely important if not essential for a lot of Judaism-adjacent specialties (though the level needed to read a text is generally lower than being able to write an academic paper). But perhaps more importantly, there is an extremely long literary tradition of the language of Jewish scholarship being in Hebrew, even when it was not anybody's first language.\n\nThis is particularly evident in Rabbinic-adjacent fields, where the writers may be discussing the history of a subject in Rabbinic texts. They may tend to write in Hebrew and use features of Rabbinic literary Hebrew (*tons* of specific acronyms, occasional Aramaic phrases, technical jargon). In such a case, they'll tend to use the Jewish dating system, in called \"AM\" (anno mundi), which counts years from biblical creation using a particular calendar arithmetic as calculated in the *Seder Olam Rabba*, a text which works out the age of the earth from the bible. Prior to that, years from the Seleucid era was the main way to reckon years, which continued through the Middle Ages in pockets, and sometimes much later (especially in Yemenite texts). In Hebrew the millenium is usually dropped, so this year is תשע\"ט (which is the way to write 779 in Hebrew letters, but the year is 5779).\n\nBut here the border between religious text and academic text is often not really clear. There are journals that publish Jewish scholarship that might affect religious practice, and where most pieces are written by Rabbi-academics, where their bio will mention both their Rabbinic ordination and their degrees. Some publish pieces in both Hebrew and English. Both are intended for the audience of a combination of academics (who are mostly Jewish), Jewish clergy, and educated laymen. While both are written for slightly different audiences (the Hebrew being more for Israelis, the English for Americans) in reality the audience can mostly read both, it's a question of who'll have an easier time (and decide to pick it as what they'll read from a variety of articles).\n\nAnyway, in these sorts of articles you can find all sorts of stylistic oddities which arise from the mixture of styles. One of my favorites is Haym Soloveitchik's essay *Rupture and Reconstruction* about the evolution of post-enlightenment Judaism, where he has mostly academic footnotes, but one footnote where he notes that he mentioned a particular observation to his father, who agreed with him--his father was an extremely prominent Rabbi, and that sort of \"my prominent Rabbinic father/grandfather/uncle agreed with me\" is common in Rabbinic writing (both as a way to give your words additional weight, but also brag a bit about your lineage), but unusual in academic writing. You get phrases from one language in a text written in the other, which means switching both direction and language, and figuring out how to punctuate that. In referencing page numbers there are interesting interplays of using Hindu-Arabic numerals or using Hebrew letters.\n\nSometimes the genres are more distinct, but authors will write in one style or the other. R Shaul Lieberman (or should I say Professor Saul Liberman? Or perhaps call him by his Rabbinic acronym title, the Gra\"sh? In names just as in academic writing there's a lot of code switching here) was a professor *and* the dean of a major seminary. This English-language *Hellenism in Jewish Palestine* is clearly academic in style, but the identification of particular Greek concepts in the Talmud are of use to Rabbis. But his Hebrew-language commentaries to the Tosefta and Palestinian Talmud are clearly Rabbinic texts from the tradition of commentaries (with scattered English-language citations and numbers), though they may be of great use to people using those sources in academic writing, either the Rabbi-academic or the non-Jewish scholar of Jewish studies.\n\nAnyway, enough context--to answer your question. I decided to get some real data by looking at the journal *Ḥakirah*. It is an interesting journal, which definitely is somewhere in between an academic journal and traditional Rabbinic text. Its format is a peer-reviewed journal, and it has a style guide, both of which are clearly from the world of academic writing. And its own name is transliterated from Hebrew in an academic-style transcription system. It is mostly in English, with a few articles in each issue in Hebrew. But, it has several components that place it within the Jewish world. Publication is virtually only by Jews. They frequently publish pieces from laymen, or Rabbis without higher-level academic training. The pieces often assume a traditional Jewish worldview. They sometimes publish pieces by Rabbis using academic style that argue a particular position in Jewish law, or even pieces that are in English but have more in common with responsa literature (a genre which is usually, but not always, in Hebrew). It calls itself \"an Orthodox Jewish journal\". Its style guide assumes a willingness to interact with academia, but also assumes that writers may not be familiar with academic writing (which makes sense, as many have more traditional Jewish educations). They published PDFs of Ashkenazi afternoon and evening prayers as a freebie. This makes it probably the best fit with your question about academic writing for internal Jewish consumption, because in format and genre it's definitely academic, but it also is aimed at and by a traditional Jewish audience.\n\nWithout doing a detailed survey, just looking through the articles in the last few issues, the English-language work virtually always uses dates in Arabic numerals in CE. Hebrew is more mixed. There is a clear tendency to use either CE dates with Arabic numerals *or* Hebrew dates in Hebrew letters (Hebrew dates in Arabic numerals pop up sometimes too, but not here). Even within a particular piece, there's variation. Citations to English-language secular tend to use CE dates, but narratives and dates of traditional-format text tend to use Hebrew dates (but not always). Some articles have a tendency to use one in the main text and a different in the footnotes, but with little consistency between articles.\n\nThe main conclusion seems to be that in the case of academic writing by and for a traditional Jewish audience, BCE/CE dates in Arabic numerals are used in English, and a mixture of BCE/CE in Arabic numerals and Hebrew dates in Hebrew letters in Hebrew-language writing.", "I saw this on the r/AH twitter, and I'm not sure if I need to cite sources because it would just be... most Tibetan histories that I'm not sure if anyone here would even be able to read, so I guess you'll just have to trust me? \n\nTibetan historians usually use a combination of \"rab byung,\" Buddhist Era, and more recently the \"Outsider Calendar\" (i.e. the Gregorian). \n\nThe \"rab byung\" cycle is a more complicated version that anyone who's ever been to an American Chinese Buffet would be familair with. It's a sixty year cycle with a combination of one of the five elements and twelve animals. So the year of the Fire Dragon in the Tenth Rabjung Cycle would be 1616, the year that Bhutan marks its independence from Tibet. This system was also at work in Korea (among other countries where the Kalacakra Tantra reached, This is why the Japanese invasion of Korea is called \"the Black Water Dragon War,\" because it began in 1592, the year of the Water Dragon). You can check the rab byung cycle and its associated years [here](_URL_0_). Worth noting that this is why 60 is considered an auspicious age in Buddhist cultures, because it's the age one completes a full rabjung cycle. \n\nThe Buddhist Era, or \"sangs rgyas lo,\" also called the Nirvana Era, \"mya ngan lo,\" which I suppose is also refers to the \"Era of Suffering,\" but compared to other calendars refers to the era after the Buddha's Parinirvana, the traditional date starts from 545 B.C.E. Modern scholars are debating this year, but the ball's been rolling for 2500 years and Buddhist sources, even when writing today, will reference the Buddha's Parinirvana when dating treatises though it's less common for traditional histories who will prefer the Rabjung. \n\nFinally there's \"phyi lo,\" which literally means \"the Outer Year\" but specifically always refers to the Gregorian Calendar. Tibetan histories will usually say the Rabjung first, the Buddhist second (if applicable) and then say \"which is phyi lo 1946.\" \n\nThere are other Tibetan year styles. One starts from 146 B.C.E. dating to the alleged origin of the Tibetan Royal House with Nyatri Tsenpo. Who was allegedly a contemporary of Ashoka. Who... *ahem* lived in the 200s B.C.E. It's funny, Karma Phuntsho usually says that the Bhutanese and Tibetans were actually traditionally *terrible* historians, unable to critically associate the years and ages of things in front of them, or just more willing to promote the idea without too much critical thinking that certain figures are contemporaries, or that they were living in the apocalypse 5,000 years after the start of Buddhism (in reality, we've only *just* reached the half way point to the alleged Buddhist apocalypse). \n\nThere's also a Tibetan Year 0 that starts with a successor of Nyatri Tsenpo's called Lhathothori Nyantsen who was given a book called \"The Ferocious Secret\" which no Tibetan could read (because writing hadn't been introduced to Tibet yet), and dates Year 0 from 255 C.E. Another calendar starts from the year the Rabjung was introduced to Tibet (1027 C.E.) and counts up from there. Neither of these three systems is in current use and takes a bit of context. (I.e. the Tibetan Currency issued 1912-1950 uses the 146 B.C.E. numbers, probably to draw a level of continuity from the first Tibetan sovereign to the Independent Tibetan State.) \n\nThat's probably why modern Tibetans are eager to tack on a \"phyi lo\" and four digits at the end of a sentence dating the listed events. There's so many systems native to their history, and it's easy just to use one that's commonly known and accepted around the world." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.tactus.dk/tacom/calendar5.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cyrosbq" ], "score": [ 35 ], "text": [ "I am hoping for someone who can answer this question with greater expertise than my own but [here](_URL_1_) is a link to a recent discussion I had about this with u/Subs-man and on a [question of my own](_URL_0_) u/The_Manchurian recommended \"Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia: The Regulation of Sexual and Gender Dissent\" and \"Bolshevik Sexual Forensics: Diagnosing Sexual Disorder in Clinic and Courtroom, 1917-1939\", both by Dan Healey.\n\nAs far as I am aware Marx says very little about the subject. But as I said, I am hoping someone more knowledgeable will provide an answer here." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3zp5k2/homosexuality_and_trans_individuals_in_the_early/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3zcqpb/minorities_what_was_the_experience_of_homosexuals/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dhujpqi" ], "score": [ 15 ], "text": [ "Before we start talking about warhammers and maces we should define what we mean. In this answer I will be talking about single-handed, short-hafted weapons with either hammer heads or more symetrical, weighted heads (most often flanged). Most warhammers had wooden hafts, many maces had metal halfts from the 15th century on. In particular, I will be talking about them in the later middle ages and early modern period in Europe - the age of plate armour. It is important to be specific because maces of various types have been used for thousands of years, with stone, cast bronze and forged iron heads. Both of these are primarily cavalry weapons - I have not seen evidence for the use of single-handed warhammers on foot in Western Europe in the middle ages or Early Modern period. Not to say it didn't happen, but it was not the primary use of these weapons. For instance, maces and warhammers are not included in late medieval and early modern fencing manuals, and I have not seen illustrations of them used in combat (you do see illustrations of Eastern Europeans and Ottomans carrying long-hafted maces, but these may have been used in two hands; I have studied these less than Western European weapons). I think a simple thought experiment shows why this is the case - imagine dueling with framing hammers - these are not weapons designed for anything other than simple attacks. \n\nInstead, the illustration that you link from Uccello's Battle of San Romano shows the core use of both of these weapons - their use by mounted, generally armoured soldiers to attack other armoured soldiers. Both maces and warhammers would be hung from the saddle and then used once lances were broken or discarded (swords would also be used as secondary weapons). On horseback, fencing as such isn't as important (not that it is a major factor in an infantry melee, necessarily) and the extra height, supportive saddle and near-standing position of the stirrups gives mounted men at arms a good platform to maximize the power of their swing. I should also mention that wrestling, one of the most effective ways to defeat armoured opponents, isn't possible from horseback, which may have made attacking with brute force using armour-piecing weapons even more important than it was on foot (not that foot soldiers didn't use armour piercing weapons, but their typical secondary weapons were swords, not hammers or maces). Both of these are wapons for attacking men in armour. However, there is an important difference. Maces don't have a point, which means while they can smash armour they're not necessarily as good at piecing it straight through. Warhammers, by contrast, have a sharp point opposite the hammer face, and this is exactly how that Italian man at arms is using his hammer in the Uccelo painting. While I know of no details analysis of the force exerted by maces, experiments conducted against armour as well as simple mechanics demonstrate that the best way to penetrate armour is to concentrate a massive amount of force in a single point. The beak of a warhammer can do this better than any other single-handed weapon. However both weapons can hurt people in armour (albeit with difficulty).\n\nBoth of these weapons can be highly decorated, or fairly plain, depending upon the individual piece. The wallace collection in London has both this [fairly plain](_URL_4_) warhammer, and this [etched and gilt example](_URL_3_) example. Both of these could be used in warfare - the etching and gilding of the latter would not make it any less lethal. Maces [could also be plain](_URL_2_) or [more decorative](_URL_1_). However, unlike warhammers maces were used in a purely ceremonial way from a fairly early period - these [15th century maces](_URL_0_) of the Holy Roman Emperors Frederick and Maximilian look more like contemorary bishop's croziers or even cathedrals than they look like weapons. They even include game boards in their hollow handles! This ceremonial use continues with the ceremonial maces used by royalty, civic institutions and even colleges.\n\nBased on the above, I don't see evidence for a social division in the use of maces versus warhammers. Both are the weapons of cavalry and so, while they are not necessarily 'noble' weapons (most mounted soldiers in the later middle ages had no title, let alone a peerage), they are the weapons of those soldiers wealthy enough to afford a horse and some armour, or socially connected enough to be given these. As to the costs, I have not seen a comparative cost for a 'plain' mace and a 'plain' warhammer. I suspect that you are right that a wooden-hafted hammer would be less expensive than a contemporary 'gothic' mace, but both weapons had a wide variety of 'trim levels' if I can use a modern term. This illustrates an important point about the social history of weapons - the class associations of a weapon are determined not just by the cost of the weapon itself, but also by the context in which the weapon is used. To use another example lances are the weapons of mounted men at arms, and therefor their use is associated with the military aristocracy (and those in lower social orders with pretensions of -joining- the military aristocracy). Never mind that lances themselves are simple weapons - not cheap, necessarily, but not expensive or complex. But economically their use is bound up with the costs of armour, a horse (multiple horses) and the servants required to assist with these. Socially their use is associated with the warrior aristocracy - hence the high status of fighting with lances, as seen in jousting.\n\nNow, there were two-handed weapons used with hammer heads, and other used with spikes, flanges and other mace-like features. The social context and cost of these weapons varied a great deal. Many hammer-headed polearms were pollaxes of one kind or another - weapons often used by dismounted men at arms in both war and sport/judicial combats on foot. These were correspondingly well made and sometimes quite beautifully decorated. On the other hand we see references to English Archers using 'becs de faucon' at Agincourt, and these may have had hammer-heads (they certainly had beaks, hence the name). Two-handed weapons with mace-like heads are less well made and more associated with common soldiers with less money. Both of these types of weapon have wooden hafts unlike many maces and some warhammers from the later middle ages. " ] }

[]

[ "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/San_Romano_Battle_%28Paolo_Uccello%2C_London%29_01.jpg" ]

[ [ "https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/05/32/f1/0532f1932110abdff2100f398d3f82f8.jpg", "https://collections.royalarmouries.org/object/rac-object-40736.html", "http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=61475&viewType=detailView", "http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=61473&viewType=detailView", "http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=61472&viewType=detailView" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdrcfiw", "cdred5a" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "I suggest you look at the [Commonwealth War Graves Commission](_URL_1_), which is a great resource to locate war dead from various parts of the former British empire. You might also check the German equivalent, [Volksbund Deutsche Kriegsgräberfürsorge](_URL_0_). Although both resources have their issues, this should provide a good foundation on which future inquiries build. You can always get in touch with representatives from these types of institutions or archives and I'm sure they would be happy to point you towards other resources. I'm not sure if these were the types of databases to which you are referring?", "The In Flanders Fields museum is working on a database of all military and civilian casualties (of any nationality) in Belgium, [have a look](_URL_0_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.volksbund.de/home.html", "http://www.cwgc.org/" ], [ "http://www.inflandersfields.be/en/knowledge-center/casualty-database/introduction" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "covlone", "cow2fe8" ], "score": [ 15, 12 ], "text": [ "This is a really good question, and I'm kinda eager to hear an answer.\n\nAs a somewhat related question, was it common for mercenary armies to stick together as a cohesive force for so long?", "Nothing that I have read indicates that a lingua franca developed for the entire army (and I have read quite a bit on the Second Punic War). \n\nThe Carthaginian army was organised along 'ethnic' lines, with each sub-group of the army (Numidians, Libyans, Iberians, Gauls, etc) being organised into units in their own way. There is some evidence to suggest that the Gauls during the campaign did start to copy the organisation of the Iberians (into smaller well-organised and well-drilled sub-units) as they were alternated in the battle line during the battle at Cannae. Still, the Gauls and Iberians each had their own units.\n\nSo all the men in a unit were from the same region. The lower unit commanders had the same background as the men in their respective units. Only the higher commanders of the army were all Carthaginian. Between the lower and the higher commanders a common language must have existed (who learned whose language we don't know).\n\nIt is conceivable that there will have been some form of communication between ordinary men of different backgrounds; communicating with gestures is always possible and learning some basic words in another language is not too hard. No doubt this will have happened. We don't have a record of it though, and we certainly don't have a record of a lingua franca developing.\n\nAnd remember it is also entirely possible for someone in the army to just stick to his own group and never become involved with men from the other regions. After all, everything from camping to marching to fighting happened in the context of the unit, which was just men with the same background." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dcjunup" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I would recommend it for a general audience. Miles put together a pretty breezy history of Carthage but it lacks discussion of contrary views and scholarly research. That makes it a good introduction and general history but insufficient for a serious scholar. If you want something more scholarly, I would recommend The Phoenicians and the West by Maria Aubet. Aubet is translated (and from what I recall the translation was not uniform) and isn't a good of a read for the general audience but she covers much more details about how Phoenician colonies actually worked.\n\nIt's very hard to make a good scholarly book about Carthage because we have so few primary sources on the city and the modern city makes archeology difficult. Miles gets around this issue mostly by expanding on the primary sources without being too self-reflective about it. An academic book on the same topic would have to be very reflective, in contrast." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eq24yj9" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Well who says they didn't know of sailing? I mean that literally, I've not seen it suggested. \n\nScandinavia and north Germany enter the 'Roman Iron Age' around the first century BCE. This is marked by a cultural shift due to contact with the Romans, with Germanic peoples serving in the Roman armies and trading with the Romans. Roman artifacts start turning up in Scandinavia. Roman style agricultural tools are introduced, such as long curved scythes like we have today (in the pre-Roman Iron Age, they'd had short broad-bladed ones). The runic writing system is created after influence/inspiration from Latin, Italic and/or Greek alphabets (in about that order of plausibility). And so on. The Roman author Tacitus also writes (c 100 CE) in _Germania_ about the _Suiones_ (probably Swedes) symmetrical ships that they rowed rather than sailed. So it seems implausible that people from all over Scandinavia wouldn't have at least _seen_ Roman and other sailing vessels by that point in time.\n\nSo the question is rather: Why did they stick with rowing as long as they did? \n\nNo definite answer can be given to that (yet at least). We have no written sources until a good 5-600 years after the switch. No inscriptions saying anything about it. What we do have, is picture stones from Gotland from the 7th and 8th centuries and later which consistently depict ships with sails (and for the record; with square or rhombic patterns on the sails, not the striped sails that are a trope of Viking fiction). Preserved ships are even rarer; we're talking about essentially a half-dozen ships from the entire Nordic Iron Age that are whole enough to say much at all. The Kvalsund ship is a rowing vessel though and dated to 690 (give or take a half century) while the oldest ship with traces of rigging is the Oseberg ship from the start of the Viking Age (first third of the 800s).\n\nThe 1980s was very much the decade of the reconstructed Viking Age ship, as a number of them were made then, and experimental archaeology on sailing them lead to a lot of new knowledge and books being published about it in that time. [This article](_URL_0_) (in Swedish) is a bit old but still relevant as it asks some of the main experts on the topic what their guesses are.\n\nProfessor of Archaeology and (at the time) head of the Viking Ship Museum in Oslo, Arne Emil Christensen, puts it bluntly: \"Real men row.\" and opines that cultural conservatism could've been the reason; sailing was perhaps seen as something lazy and weak. (Until the taboo was broken, after which everyone scrambled in an arms race to build the best sailing ships they could)\n\nBjörn Varenius (head of the naval museum in Gothenburg) agrees there's something to that, but he and Ole Crumlin-Pedersen (founder of the Viking Ship Museum and Centre for Maritime Archaeology in Roskilde) point to another form of conservatism; namely that there'd be a sense that sails weren't needed and in any case difficult to implement. As the ships being built had been refined over the centuries to very fast and capable rowing vessels. And the fast rowing vessels with light keels could not just be modified to add a mast and sail; it required changes to the fundamental design of the ships. \n\nI'd add that they were not necessarily slower than sailing vessels. On the contrary; they could travel upwind by three times as fast by rowing compared to tacking against the wind with sails. (and once they did convert to sails, the sagas seem to indicate a not-insignificant amount of time was spent waiting for the right winds) The main benefit of sails is conserving effort and allowing you to go futher.\n\nIn place-names you have the Roden/Roslagen, a coastal area of Sweden from which many Vikings hailed. That region is literally named for 'rowers', which in turn likely gave its name to the Rus'. So that gives an indication that rowing was very much part of their self-identity, for at least some.\n\nAs that article and others also point out, there's not exactly a straightforward progression to better and better boats; there were changes in fashion and priorities. The Medieval cog was in many respects a worse ship than the Viking Age longship or knarr. But it was more defensible and could take more cargo. \n\nCould you name these sources that speak of a sudden arrival of sails? It seems like a strange assertion. Even if you assume the Kvalsund and Oseberg ships are representative for their time periods (a pretty big assumption off a single data point!) it still leaves a full century for the transition to occur. There's just not enough preserved ships to say when the transition occurred, much less if it was gradual or sudden. In any case it's not likely it was due to the sudden realization sails existed." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://fof.se/tidning/1999/5/artikel/vikingatidens-hightech" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "es7uk8v" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "Whilst you are waiting for an answer to your question please have a look at [this](_URL_0_) answer from u/Eirebmac to a very similar question" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8atfng/how_did_the_ira_get_access_to_firearms_and/dx21s4o/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "drnldex", "drob27p" ], "score": [ 45, 28 ], "text": [ "I actually asked a very similar question over at r/AskAnthropology\n\nHere is link to it with some wonderful answers with sources provided\n\n_URL_0_", "The first place to begin is probably a bit in the way of disclaimer. Even Medieval Europe (Which is my primary focus) is too big and too diverse of a place to speak of generally with much confidence. Cultures deal with death in many ways, and there is simply too much variance to speak without glossing over a lot.\n\nThe second disclaimer is much like the first: Grief is an intensely personal emotion. As anyone who has attended a funeral will know, different people deal with death in radically different ways, even within the same society. \n\nWith that out of the way, let's begin with a quote from Augustine's *Confessions.*\n\n > My heart was utterly darkened by this sorrow and everywhere I looked I\nsaw death. My native place was a torture room to me and my father’s house a\nstrange unhappiness. And all the things I had done with him--now that he was\ngone--became a frightful torment. My eyes sought him everywhere, but they did not\nsee him; and I hated all places because he was not in them, because they could not\nsay to me, “Look, he is coming,” as they did when he was alive and absent. \n\nAugustine, here, is reflecting on the loss of a close friend, and I think the patterns of expression here are not ones to which we moderns are unfamiliar. Shared things becoming painful, a constant state of sadness, looking for the person you lost and not finding them, these are feelings that to us, seem normal. Augustine, further, sees these as part of a common pattern of human emotion. He goes on to think about why people *in general* have these feelings and act in these ways, clearly operating under the assumption that these are normal patterns of emotion.\n\nHowever, for Augustine, this presents something of a difficulty, because he sees this sort of excessive grief as possibly separating people from God. Since death is part of the natural order, and indeed death is how people return to God, excessive grief, for Augustine, can be seen as a kind of rebellion against the social and religious order, and is therefore potentially dangerous. On the other hand, he himself recognizes that he is only aware of this because time has healed the wound and given him time to grow and reflect. In short, there is a tension between the natural, human reaction to grief and the potential excess of grief as life denying.\n\nI start with Augustine, despite the fact that he is outside my period by some centuries (He is late Roman), because he stands at an important intellectual crossroads, that cause him to be a useful guide to later thought across a broad range of European and Mediterranean societies. As probably the most important Christian Theologian after Paul, Augustine's thought would be tremendously influential in Medieval and later Christianity. However, as someone seriously informed by the classical tradition (One can hear echoes of Aristotle's call for moderation in all things in Augustine's concerns about excessive emotion), Augustine's sources if not his own work would continue to be influential in the Muslim world as well. (Though I'm not sure at all how much, if at all, Augustine was read in the Islamic world through the middle ages, I would not be shocked if he was read, and other classical authors in similar veins certainly were.)\n\nThis tension, between the religious and personal implications of excessive grief, and the natural human reaction to loss are well attested in many other sources. Though I only have access to the first bit of it on Google Books, Carol Lansing's *Passion and Order: Restraint of Grief in the Medieval Italian Communes* goes into detail on a particularly interesting case. In some Medieval Italian cities, particularly in the fourteenth century, wailing and other such displays were banned, often either without reference to gender, or specifically in references to displays from women, however, when we look at enforcement, we find more than 200 cases, almost all prosecuted against men. Mourning is particularly gendered, here, with men expected to restrain emotion because of their place in the public sphere of law, justice, and so on. There is a clear worry that this sort of extremity of emotion is a danger to the social order.\n\nOn the other hand, there *were* more than 200 recorded violations (And presumably a much larger number of unprosecuted violators) and these laws were far from universal. Indeed, there is also clearly a space for extreme grief, even among men. Lansing refers particularly to Charlemagne in the *Song of Roland,* who faints upon seeing the dead Roland, and upon waking, laments for the lost knight. Indeed, Lansing points out that this would have likely been expected, and for Charlemagne to *not* react in such a was would be seen a dishonorable, and disrespectful to the great deeds Roland had done.\n\nThis tension is recorded in Islamic sources as well. Several authors of consolation books warn that grief over loss can lead to rage and blasphemy against God, and some extreme examples of proper behavior show stoic acceptance or even happiness at the loss of a child, because those who lose a child will supposedly be rewarded by God. However, there is also clearly wide understanding that these are extremes, and many of those consolation books are attempts to channel mourning into what are seen as healthy religious patterns.\n\nSome Italian Humanists, like Petrarch, would frame this tension as being between reason and emotion. He writes:\n > Shall I indulge in tears and sighs and in place of my lost friend, shall I embrace\nmy sorrow incessanty? Or shall I strive to appease my mind and to escape\nfrom the echoing threats of fortune into the stronghold of reason? The latter\nappears preferable, the former more pleasing; virtue drives me to one; feeling\nbends me to the other\n\nVirtue, here, particularly because of the Classical impulses of writers like Petrarch, has a strong philosophical bent in particular. There are a lot of different traditions coming out of Greco-Roman Philosophy, but many, if not most, are somewhat hostile to emotional displays of grief. Platonist, because they believe that the soul survives, and grief is therefore irrational, Stoics, for fairly obvious reasons, Aristotelian for the aforementioned moderation based reasons. So here the tensions are placed in a more secular framework that we moderns may find more recognizable, between rational acceptance and the emotion of the moment. For Petrarch, in the end, at least in this work, emotion wins out, which I think illustrates well the limits of this kind of normative philosophy or theology. Grief and loss are no respecters of persons \n\nSo I think it's fair to say that while behaviors toward grief, and expectations toward mourners could vary depending on the circumstances, the emotion, the intensity of pain, the personal experience of losing someone you cared about was very much the same as it is now. There is also a widespread recognition, then as now, that whatever we may normatively expect, theoretically ideal behavior, cannot be fairly expected of people who have suffered a recent loss.\n\nI'll leave off from the childhood debate. I have my thoughts, but it's not my field, and it's such a rich area of debate that I'd want to spend a fair bit more time with the sources and evidence before I rendered an opinion publicly.\n\nWorks used:\n\n* Augustine. Confessions. Translated by Albert Outler, Southern Methodist University, 1955.\n \n* Gilʿadi, Avner. “‘The Child Was Small... Not So the Grief for Him’: Sources, Structure, and Content of Al-Sakhawi’s Consolation Treatise for Bereaved Parents.” Poetics Today, vol. 14, no. 2, 1993, pp. 367–86. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/1773124.\n \n* Lansing, Carol. Passion and Order: Restraint of Grief in the Medieval Italian Communes. Cornell University Press, 2008.\n* McClure, George W. Sorrow and Consolation in Italian Humanism. Princeton University Press, 2014. Project MUSE, _URL_0_.\n \n* Murphy, Eileen M. “Children’s Burial Grounds in Ireland *Cilliní* and Parental Emotions Toward Infant Death.” International Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 15, no. 3, Sept. 2011, p. 409. _URL_1_, doi:10.1007/s10761-011-0148-8.\n \n" ] }

[]

[ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6qhi98/in_the_past_it_was_far_more_likely_that_children/?st=jbit87lb&sh=ee6f4d00" ]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/6xcwkb/did_parents_before_modern_medicine_deal_with_the/?st=JBJ4BQHE&sh=c17fed22" ], [ "https://muse.jhu.edu/book/34484", "link.springer.com" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cnqqu6f" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "One aspect was that anarchist and socialist terrorism focuses on destroying the state and the current order of power. Therefore they mostly targeted heads of states, high military personnel or the nobility, as well as industry leaders etc. The ideology behind this being that the people were oppressed by the capitalist order. There were instances where terrorists did not go through with a plan, cause it would include the killing of innocent civilians. \n\nFor a modern day islamist the target is the west - very generally speaking. Or rather anyone not subscribing to their interpretation of faith. (which often includes other Muslims as well, who outnumber western casualties by far) This leads to these acts that try to get the most shock value possible, often trying to raise the civilian death count. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ehwh3xy", "ehxpan8" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "I am working on a large essay right now, and my best method for arranging raw data so far has been a legal pad array with one pad per category, each a different colour, and several different colours of pen. ", "I’m not a historian, but I am writing something that requires extensive historical research. You should consider Scrivener software. There’s a bit of a learning curve, but it has a number of categorization and compilation options that are very useful. It relies heavily on metadata for all its sorting, so if you’re detail-oriented, that might be the way to go." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cysfgw7" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "In terms of raw numbers, it's as follows for battle deaths\n\nInfantry: 8,778 officers, 134,174 enlisted\nAir Force 22,022 officers, 28,999 enlisted\nArtillery 1,330 officers, 8,255 enlisted\nEngineers 601 officers, 7,090 enlisted\nArmored Force 1,581 enlisted (AF did not have officers)\nCavalry, 610 officers, 4,525 enlisted\n\nThe other branches are less likely to have suffered as much.\n\nYou can get all sorts of drill-downs at _URL_0_\n\nIn terms of -proportions-, I don't have the original figures to hand. I do recall that infantry is about 18% casualties (dead), armor about 3%. I would think that only cavalry, Air Forces and Engineers might come close, but even at that, one would have to drill down to combat engineers vs construction engineers, or flight crews vs non-flight crews." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e4z083t" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "[This older answer](_URL_0_) by /u/dandan_noodles will be a reasonable starting point.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7lalnf/what_specific_battle_tactics_did_napoleon_employ/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d04x3x1" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Sorry, we don't allow [\"trivia seeking\" questions](_URL_0_). These tend to produce threads which are collections of disjointed, partial responses, and not the in-depth discussions about a particular topic we're looking for. If you have a specific question about an historical event, period, or person, please feel free to re-compose your question and submit it again. Alternatively, questions of this type can be directed to more appropriate subreddits, such as /r/history /r/askhistory, or /r/tellmeafact. For further explanation of the rule, feel free to consult [this META thread](_URL_1_)." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "fho1yw1" ], "score": [ 75 ], "text": [ "A really interesting question. There are two preliminary questions here, I think. First, and not entirely germane, what were things carried *in*? Second, who carried what?\n\nRegarding the first, sewn-in pockets appear to be an innovation of the 17th century. Before then, by around the 1200s there were pocket slits made in the sides of outer garments that allowed access to a pouch or purse hung inside on a belt (or girdle) around the waist. Alternately, the purse simply hung on a belt worn outside the garment, as in the little purse called an almoner hanging low at [the side of an effigy of Queen Berengaria]( _URL_1_), Richard I’s wife. Or it could be worn on the belt in front, like a Scottish sporran (needed for pocketless kilts) or a modern fanny pack. (Apologies if I made Brit Redditors giggle just now.) See this early 14th-century drawing of [two men wearing their purses in front]( _URL_7_) from the Luttrell Psalter (BL Add MS 42130, 198r) for an example. There were no pickpockets in the modern sense because there were no pockets to pick. Instead, there were “cut-purses” who cut the strings that held the purse or pouch to the belt. A 16th-century play called *Hycke-Scorner* has the victim of a cut-purse say “From my girdle [i.e., belt] he plucked my pouch; / By your leave, he left me never a penny; / Lo, nought have I but a buckle.” \n\nThe belt itself could hold other “things to carry,” especially daggers, carried by men and women alike. No well-turned-out man seemed dressed without a dagger at his side (note the one on the belt of the man on the left in the above illustration from the Luttrell Psalter). In his “Canterbury Tales,” Chaucer says the Franklin had “a dagger (*anlaas*) and a silk purse (*gipser*) hanging from his belt. Women as well as men could carry daggers, as is sometimes depicted on brass funeral effigies. An old Welsh ballad called \"Glasgarion\" from at least the time of Chaucer, who knew it, has a maiden pull “forth a little pen-knife that hang by her knee,” which she uses to kill herself after being raped. \n\nPurses and pouches were known by several names: gipsers (gipcieres), almoners (aulmonieres), haumudeys (a corruption of aulmonier), pokes, etc. And they could be made of materials as humble as cloth or as sturdy as leather, especially boiled leather, or “cuir bouilli,” which stiffened the leather and made it suitable for stamping with designs. A 13th-century French poem has a merchant say: “I have store of stamped purses, red and green, white and black, that I sell readily at fairs.” The carpenter’s wife in Chaucer’s “Miller’s Tale” has “a purse of leather tasseled with silk and decorated with metal pearls (“purled with latoun”) hanging from her belt. \n\nThere were, of course, other ways to carry things such as in baskets or sacks, both good for taking barter to market or toting purchases back home. A specialized version of the carry-all was what was known as a pilgrim’s “scrip,” basically a satchel. Along with a pilgrim’s staff, these were what distinguished you as an “official” pilgrim. These items were often blessed in church, as in this [illustration of a bishop blessing them]( _URL_5_). The scrip would contain basic items needed on a pilgrimage: food, utensils, spare clothing, money, travel documents, probably some charms for safe travel, and, especially for pilgrims seeking healing or already healed by invoking a saint, an “ex voto,” a small effigy of a cured arm, leg, eye, etc., made of wax, tin, lead, silver, or even gold to be left as a thanks offering at a shrine. Here’s [a 15th-century pilgrim with his blind son]( _URL_3_) at a shrine seeking a cure. Note the scrip, which the father has hanging around his neck. Note also that both the father and his son wear hats with pilgrim badges on them. These were collected from other famous shrines, holy souvenirs of a sort, which here suggest they have been to other saints’ shrines unsuccessfully. \n\nSo, finally—and what’s above is probably TLDR—what did medieval people carry? Well, obviously money—coins—if they were on their way to market for food. From the Luttrell Psalter again, here is a well-to-do [man opening his purse filled with coins to give alms](_URL_0_) to a handicapped boy. (Alms, of course, is why one word for a purse was “almoner.”) I’ve already mentioned the daggers or knives that men and women alike could carry. But social status would also determine what got carried. For instance, chapter 55 of the late 5th-century Benedictine Rule specified that monks were to eschew private property, but were allowed to own: “cowl, tunic, stockings, shoes, belt, knife, pen, needle, towel, writing tablet.” The knife was an all-purpose utensil, needed for eating (no forks yet!) and for doing things like sharpening the nib of a stylus—thus, “pen knife.” That monks were expected to wear their knife regularly is suggested by chapter 22 of the Rule, where Benedict tells his monks to take the knife off before bed, “lest they accidentally cut themselves in their sleep.” Here’s an illustration from 1470-80 (from BL Royal 14 E IV f. 10) [showing a monk wearing a purse on his belt, a small case for a stylus, and an inkwell](_URL_2_), the tools that a writer would need. Benedict’s Rule expected monks to be readers and writers (though this latter skill was later for monks trained to write skillfully). \n\nPeople of the lower classes would carry the things they needed for daily work: knives, of course, but also gloves tucked into belts, hand scythes, flails, buckets, and other farm implements. People of the upper classes and, by the later 14th century onward, middle classes, especially women, might also carry small prayer books—called Books of Hours—attached to their belts. These were called \"girdle books,\" as [seen at the waist of the young Elizabeth Tudor](_URL_6_). Women who headed a household [would carry keys](_URL_4_). For instance, images of St. Zita of Lucca, patroness of maids and servants, often show her with a ring of keys on her belt. Another popular devotional item that middle and upper class people of the later Middle Ages might wear is a set of rosary beads, called “paternosters.” By the 14th century, people with poor eyesight might carry around newly-invented spectacles. (Over 1,000 pairs were imported to England during a 3-month stretch of 1384).\n\nSources: I’m relying on manuscript images to a great degree here but trying to keep in mind Michael Camille’s caution about taking what we see in manuscript illustrations, especially the Luttrell Psalter, as accurate representations of reality. See his *Mirror in Parchment: The Luttrell Psalter and the Making of Medieval England* (1998). For purses, pouches, and pockets, etc. I’m drawing on older studies of the evolution of medieval English fashion, such as Frederick W. Fairholt’s *Costume in England* from 1896 but still a useful compendium, and Herbert Norris' *Medieval Costume and Fashion* (1927), but also Rebecca Unsworth’s “Hands Deep in History: Pockets in Men and Women’s Dress in Western Europe, c. 1480–1630” (2017)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://imgur.com/9XyrxQt", "https://imgur.com/PiVYUar", "https://imgur.com/PXGmIQo", "https://imgur.com/NdM6Ncz", "https://www.pinterest.com/pin/464715255293073941/", "https://imgur.com/4Wul0Tx", "https://www.ibookbinding.com/history/medieval-bookbinding/tutorials/", "https://imgur.com/H2u4nrE" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpefu13", "cpeuubo" ], "score": [ 73, 9 ], "text": [ "In about 483 B.C. the Athenians found new reserves of silver at the mines of Laurion. The Athenian general Themistocles persuded the Athenian assembly to allocate the expected income from the new mines to expanding the Athenian fleet. The fleet was expanded to 200 ships which served as the base for their Naval hegemony in the years to come. Their navy served a vital role during the second Greco-Persian War at both the Artemisium Straits and at Salamis. Following the Greek victory over the Persians, Athens convinced other Greek city-states to join the Delian League as an Alliance to guard against another Persian attack. Members of this league would offer either ships or money to Athens who oversaw the defense of the Aegean. The money that most of the city-states offered (the vast majority of the ships in the league were Athenian) was sent to a treasury at Delos which is where the name of the league comes from. The Athenians used this money to further build up their navy and to attack and take over Persian territory along the eastern Aegean and the coast of Asia Minor. This navy allowed them to secure trade routes from Egypt all the way to the Black Sea as well which enhanced their economic strength beyond the extent that of the tribute went.", "The other answers here are useful but ultimately don't go back far enough. Laurion and the Delian League were both important parts of Athenian power, but it had been a major power and uniquely large city well before that. The reason probably comes down to political institutions--very early on Athens developed a very strong sense of local identity that encompassed the whole of Attica. This meant it had a much larger and more unified citizenry than other poleis. As importantly, it was well situated commercially and became an important port early on (and indeed, Athens is *still* the busiest port in the Mediterranean)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6mrsqy", "c6mrvs6", "c6mull2" ], "score": [ 3, 8, 2 ], "text": [ "The US is the best piece of land on the planet. Two oceans to both sides, desert to the south, forests to the north. Lots of resources. The mississippi basin has more navigatable waterways than the rest of the world combined. That is extremely important for transport and wealth (basically all important and wealthy cities are close to rivers). It also means that the mississippi basin is the most productive farmland on the planet. Not only the earth is good, there is actually better earth in europe or russia, but because of all the rivers making the transport of large quantities of resources cheap, effective and fast.", "Someone will answer this better than I can, but Spanish and Portuguese colonialism in the rest of the Americas was based around producing only one or two plantation crops or mining a couple of mineral resources. In British North America, the economy was more centered on production and trade and didn't suffer from the mono-crop production that happened in most of the rest of the Americas.\n\nCome independence, these regions still had their economies geared towards producing one or just a few cash crops like sugar, fruit, silver etc. which meant they became mere suppliers of produce for other states. This created a system of economic dependency in Latin American countries where they had to supply their cash crops in exchange for industrial goods from places like the US and Britain, which further delayed industrialization in most of these countries (Argentina being a notable exception). ", "Until a century ago, the majority of the population in tropical and subtropical Americas were infested with [Hookworm](_URL_0_). (Infestation rates of 50-60% are commonly seen in untreated regions - both urban and rural). The primary symptoms of hookworm infestation are anemia and lethargy. At the time, this \"shiftless\" disposition was seen as a cultural malaise, rather than a result of parasitic infestation. \n\nRockefeller pioneered a hookworm eradication campaign in the US south in the early 20th century. This was probably one of the most cost-effective public health campaigns in history, and led to widespread improvements in just about any health indicator you could name - from infant mortality to birth weight, up to life expectancy. \n\nOthers have made points about the poor economic substrate in these regions, but this can be seen as a symptom of a population in crisis, rather than the cause. \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookworm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clmvh08", "clnakx6" ], "score": [ 19, 4 ], "text": [ "Teddy Roosevelt, with his Bull Moose Part in 1912 was probably the closest - I believe he garnered almost 30% of the vote as a third party.\nGeorge Washington certainly could have stayed if he had wanted, but he was reluctant to serve his second term, and definitely declined to go for a third. An Americanist should have a more detailed answer for you.", "There are a couple of close calls, but no one other than FDR has ever served more than 8 years. Probably the closest, and the only two people other than FDR to win the popular vote 3 times, were Andrew Jackson and Grover Cleveland.\n\nDuring the [election of 1824](_URL_0_), different factions of the Democratic-Republican party, who had basically eliminated their rivals, the Federalists, put forward four different candidates. The end result was a bit of a mess and no candidate had a majority of electoral votes needed to win the election, despite Jackson winning the popular and electoral vote by a good margin. This was the only time the US Presidential Election was decided by the House of Representatives. When the election went before the House, only the top 3 candidates were considered, so Henry Clay's supporters threw their support behind John Quincy Adams to help him win the election. Understandably, people were not happy that a guy who lost by about 11% of the popular vote got the office. Jackson went on to win the following two elections outright.\n\nThe other case is Grover Cleveland who won the popular vote three times in a row in 1884, 1888, and 1892. In 1888, he won the popular vote but lost the electoral college to Benjamin Harrison because he lost New York and Indiana by a 1% margin. Reportedly, Grover's wife, Francis, upon leaving for the last time in 1889, told the White House staff to take care of the place because they would be back in 4 years. She turned out to be correct, as Grover won again in 1892.\n\nAs /u/suggestshistorybooks mentioned, Teddy Roosevelt did run for another term, however, it would have really only been his 2nd time elected, since the first was just serving out the remainder of McKinley's term. No one who took over for a previous president has ever won two terms after that, so 8 has been the most other than FDR. And as you mentioned, Grant made an attempt at a 3rd term in 1880, but the Republican convention was split between Grant and Blaine's supporters, known as the Stalwarts and Half-breeds (a contemporary term similar to when people call someone a \"RINO\" or \"Republican-in-Name-Only\" these days). They couldn't be reconciled but after 36 votes settled on picking Garfield as a compromise." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fmmbg5l" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "While you wait for an answer to your specific question, you may be interested in these prior answers, especially the first:\n\n* [What are the main differences between the colonization styles of European colonial powers](_URL_0_), answer by /u/drylaw \n* [What defines a colony](_URL_1_), answer by /u/b1uepenguin\n* [This section in the FAQ](_URL_2_) about the differences in colonialism between northern and Latin America, particularly with regards to settlement & race." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://redd.it/91qfvn", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bto2kb/what_defines_a_colony/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/southamerica#wiki_racial_differences_between_north_america_and_latin_america" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cc24wbv", "cc279vx" ], "score": [ 6, 21 ], "text": [ "This question can be relayed back to the Military Revolution Theory, which states that the Western powers were able to become superior in other parts of the world thanks to their trained troops, star forts and battleships. If viewed through the European viewpoint: yes, there was no warrior class in China and several historians have used it as an argument why Europe developed these military advantages, while the Chinese hadn't. However, the Chinese invented most of these technologies (like gunpowder, guns and cannons) which slowly seeped through to Europe where it was improved upon and reintroduced in the Far East.\n\nTaking this back to the question: there was no warrior class because it's a concept alien to the Chinese. The European view counts this as a shortcoming, a reason why the Chinese were 'inferior' to the European powers (with the Boxer Rebellion and Opium Wars as prime examples).\nHowever, martial knowledge and training was considered an important part of Confucian tradition (but emphasis lay on peace and governing): this made most rulers capable of leading an army. The true virtue was to be found in governing though: people took more pride in being a good scholar or ruler, than in being a warrior. Which didn't stop people from becoming really good at being a general. Enemy generals and even pirates (as was the case with Zheng Zhilong) were given important positions in the Chinese government. Granted, mostly to get them to stop fighting, but also because they were capable of governing.\n\nIn short: Confucian tradition valued good rulers more than good warriors. Military knowledge was a part of a ruler's *curriculum vitae*, instead of its core (which was the case in Japan and Europe).\n\nA good read on a clash between an European power and China, showing the two different military traditions clashing, is Tonio Andrade's *Lost Colony*, detailing the Sino-Dutch War of 1661.\n\nMore on Military Revolution: _URL_0_ (I suggest reading Simon's *Tactics or Politics?* and anything by Geoffrey Parker about the subject).", "Why do you expect there to be? Is there any reason having a \"warrior class\" is the norm, and deviations need to be explained?\n\nThat aside, comparing China to Medieval Europe and Japan, which were both fractured into non centralized polities, isn't very helpful. When Japan centralized during the Edo period, for example, the samurai essentially became analogous to the Chinese *shi* scholar-officials, and (say) sixteenth century European warfare isn't exactly known for its heavy reliance on feudal, martial aristocracies. Likewise, you don't really have \"knights\" in Rome, or even the Carolingian period. Martial aristocracies are largely the product of fragmented political conditions." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "dkrjsvo", "dks3o7s" ], "score": [ 15, 10 ], "text": [ "There are many different ways historical films 'manipulate' events for entertainment value. Some of these are ostentatious, while others are so subtle you might not immediately understand WHY the manipulations are considered important/problematic.\n\nOne very recent example from my area has to do with two made for television films about Bloody Sunday. In 1972 British First Para opened fire on a civil rights march and killed 14 people (well, 13, though one more died due to complications some time later). If you're not familiar with the event, it's worth doing some quick reading online, but I'll try to cover salient points which speak to your question.\n\nAbout the movies: the more well known is *Bloody Sunday* (2002), a production which aired on ITV but was also featured at Sundance. It stars James Nesbitt (a rather well known Northern Irish actor) as Ivan Cooper, an SDLP member. The SDLP are a social democratic party with sympathy for the nationalist cause in NI. The film focuses primarily on the role of the organizers and political campaigners involved with the civil rights march.\n\nThe other film is *Sunday* (2002), a Channel 4 production which aired about a week after *Bloody Sunday*. *Sunday* was written by Jimmy McGovern, who [had a few things to say](_URL_0_) about the difference in perspectives between the films. He felt that *Bloody Sunday*'s focus on the march leaders hurt the films ability to accurately portray the most important moments of the day.\n\nNow here's why it matters: *Bloody Sunday* was an adaptation of the book *Eye Witness Bloody Sunday*, a recollection by Don Mullan. I recommend the book if you find yourself intrigued by the subject matter, but the important thing is the historical impact of the work. As you can imagine, the original inquiry into the shootings is widely considered a whitewash. No soldiers were charged and many of the murdered civilians were accused of PIRA sympathy. Mullan's novel came out in 1997, during a renewed effort by the families of the victims for justice. It's hard to find a lot of official sourcing on what pressures forced Tony Blair to open another inquiry, but the BBC and other news sources cite the public reception of Mullan's novel. However, as this isn't an academic source, obviously take it with some salt. In any event the second inquiry led to a formal apology, a clearing of the victims' names, and the possibility of legal action against the soldiers responsible (though this last point is still ongoing).\n\nThe point here is that Mullan's book has a heavy focus on the events of the day as they pertained to the victims. Now, Mullan co-produced the adaptation, so it's not like the creators were being unfair to the material. It's more that McGovern feels that Bloody Sunday's focus on the higher ups allowed Greengrass to avoid doing serious, indepth interviews with people affected by the day. \n\nNote: this doesn't necessarily mean the film is less \"true\", though it does raise an interesting question about how something as simple as perspective can skew a viewers understanding of historical subject matter. In order to tell his story to the best of his abilities, McGovern conducted local interviews for a period of several months leading up to filming, and the focus of his film reflects the data he collected. Greengrass utilized source material and official accounts, and a fair amount of screen-time is spent documenting the march itself, including its organization and the different conflicting personalities of the people involved. Ultimately, we get two films with a high level of accuracy - the on-location filming, the great care taken to portray events in the actual sequence, etc - and without a doubt both are making their respective political points. I just find it interesting that the controversy between the filmmakers isn't about changing events or misrepresenting characters to strengthen whatever thematic or political point the film makes. Instead, the controversy is over HOW the points are made, and whether or not the best way to cover the events is through an everyman's eyes or a political leader.\n\nIn terms of sources, I recommend seeing the films themselves, as this answer reads more like a film critique than a highly academic answer. However, for the more important historical context (including the claims about the inquiries, the shootings themselves, and the events of the day) I can recommend several things. The aforementioned Mullan book *Eye Witness Bloody Sunday*; Douglas Murray's *Bloody Sunday* (or if you're a real masochist, you can order and read the actual transcript from the original Saville Inquiry); David McKittrick's *Lost Lives*; and finally, read throughs of the BBC's critical response to both films is quite enlightening, in terms of directly addressing your question.", "I don't mean to be obtuse or anything, but who cares? The purpose of art is not to provide a precise mirror to life, that's what we have life for. I could hardly give less of a shit about whether *Gladiator* has much to do with the \"real\" Roman world. The *Iliad*, literally the first piece of \"western\" literature, presents a fantasy world of mixed setting and made-up setting that corresponded to no reality, but who in his right mind cares, when the themes and messages--to say nothing of the beauty of the *verse itself*--are what's important? No one would say the *Iliad* isn't a great poem because it's not realistic. Filmmakers, like any artists, are not in the business of being pedantically \"accurate,\" a tern that gets thrown around without very much meaning. I would go so far as to say that to forget what art is is an especially cardinal sin for a historian. It's bad enough in an ordinary person, but in a historian it means he's lost sight of his humanism, a foundational concept in the discipline." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.theguardian.com/film/2004/jun/10/features.features11" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dqxrguh" ], "score": [ 16 ], "text": [ "I'm not sure I understand the premise of your question. The present population of Iran, which is not (and has never been) under particular threat of famine is 80 million people. Nor was it under such threat before the discovery of oil.\n\nThere are credible reasons to believe that Persia underwent permanent desertification during the Mongol conquests, but in terms of the overall size of the population and amount of available land, I don't see any reason to be skeptical that even under present environmental conditions the country of Iran would have been able to field enormous armies.\n\nWe can also see an example of this from pure deserts. In their conquests in the 7th century, the Arabs were able to field armies that numbered into the tens of thousands despite emerging from far harsher conditions." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cj9mnrt", "cj9y7wd", "cjaf6x3" ], "score": [ 6, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "I suppose the last question I have is what happened to the Romans manpower over time that prevented them from responding to the tribes?\n\nFor example, in the Punic Wars, Rome lost tens of thousands of men, but could field more and keep up the fight, all mainly from Italy. Was the economic decline of the West over the centuries really so bad that they simply couldn't field more men no matter how bad the crisis?", "They effectively did. The end of the Western Roman Empire, left a gothic controlled, but more or less Roman rump state in Italy, that lasted until it was conquered and dismembered by the Eastern Roman Empire and the Lombards a lost a century later.\n\nWhen Flavius Odoace (a Goth) deposed the Emperor Romulus Augustus in 476. The act which signifies the end of the Western Roman Empire. He did so in order to become \"King\" of Italy. The Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy lasted for a little less than 100 years, when it was invaded and dismantled by the Eastern Roman Empire under Justinian. The ERE one again lost control of the hinterland of Italy to the Lombards, in part due to over extension and plaque.", "I want to make a general response to the basic question/assumption: \n\nThe Romans did indeed pull out several times over the course of their long existance. They were not stupid. In Britain, they retreated from the Antonine Wall in about 162 AD; they eventually more or less left Britain about 410 AD. There was some sort of gradual process; the last I time I read about it they were not too sure of the details and exactly how it came about. But most likely left because of general unrest/invasions in the empire. \n\nThe Romans did not stay long in Parthia (NE part of Iran); they left at some point but I cannot recollect the actual dates. \n\nThe Romans had to pull out of Germany in light of the defeat of Armius, about 9 AD. Recent research puts this battle further north than prevoiusly believed. (I think near Koln) but in any event the research of just a few years ago seems to have been part of a general pull out that was taking place from certain German cities. THis extent of Roman empire into Germany is often not shown on maps, but it also represents a pull out for sure. \n\nTHe emperor Diocletian changed the capital from Rome to Milan in 286 AD. They later made Ravenna the capital about 402 AD. Most historians agree partly for defensive purposes owing to the marshes. Leaving your capital has to be considered a pull back. \n\nThe Romans may have pulled out of Noricum (Austria/Slovenia/e.Bavaria) by the end of the 4th cent. The knowledge on this area seems to be spotty. The border along the Danube is hard to figure on the history. It may have been overrun by the barbarians, and the Romans may have decided to defend it. \n\nYou may also want to research the confused history of Dacia, where the Romans pulled out several times. Notably in 275 AD and 336 AD but there were other times as well. \n\nSo the basic question assumes that Romans did not pull out. The Romans were NOT stupid they pulled out at certain times, and much of it is not clear. The barbarian invasions were part of giant cataclysm involving, economics, society, biology etc. and even the Romans could not avoid it.\n\nThis is a general answer, I dont have time for references, but will come back later if you wish to continue. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ctu7lf9" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ " > 1) Cold steel must have been common enough to justify arming a chunk of your men with weapons to stand around and get shot at. I do know that this eventually led to the development of the bayonet and early bayonet fencing was based on pike drill.\n\nI don't mean to be rude, but is there a question in here?\n\n > 2) Guns must have been terrible! Yet somehow better than a crossbow.\n\nGuns are easier and more straightforward to produce. If a part on a gun breaks it can be easily replaced. Guns can have a generic cast and produced en masse in a proto-industrial manner. Even early muskets have magnitudes more kinetic energy and projectile speed than bows or crossbows which allow armor to be negated. Bullets are also far more reliable at killing things -- they're not like a bolt or an arrow which have to hit at a specific angle, thus aren't easily deflected. Guns also have a massive psychological factor, especially early ones -- big booms and huge smoke clouds firing in sync cause panic in enemy ranks.\n\nUltimately guns served an ancillary role until the 1600's when matchlocks came common and were far more reliable. At that point the ratio of pikes to musketmen was roughly 1:1. This idea that guns were invented though and became instantly overwhelmingly common is not true however. It would take over 150 years for them to be integrated and over 200 before they became the primary weapons of armies. \n\n > 3) That whole thing sounds like a static immobile formation. How did it maneuver?\n\nIt wasn't intended to be highly maneuverable. It was intended to be incredibly beefy. It all but completely negated the usefulness of cavalry and made it impossible to flank effectively due to its depth and production of force on all corners. It would generally have a deep square in the center with 4 more smaller squares on the corner with a higher concentration of light musketeers. \n\n □□ □□\n □□□□□□\n □□□□□□\n □□ □□\n\nThus it didn't matter if they were slow. It would be the artillery innovations of Gustav et. al in the 30 years' war (1618-1648) that really spelled the death of this formation -- ultimately its speed became a liability in the face of long ranged, fast moving light artillery pieces dominating the battlefield. However this formation still dominated the European landscape for over a hundred years at this point and had sufficiently left its mark.\n\nH.W. Koch, *The Rise of Modern Warfare: 1618-1815*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5ro2n3" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "La Amistad is a great film about the slave ship of the same name that landed on America's eastern seaboard. It is based on the true story and while sporting some historical exaggerations is very entertaining." ] }

[]

[ "http://cf.mp-cdn.net/ca/e9/e05c080023af376dbe7c1da019fd.jpg" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eycazxy", "eycbaoi", "eycc60l", "eyceum9", "eycfa4s", "eycggl8", "eycglwy", "eycgolj", "eychqhe", "eycjnb9", "eyck5kf", "eycm0or", "eycmblw", "eycn10w", "eycokz5", "eycq9qw", "eycqfnh", "eycqi3m", "eycqm88", "eycqubk", "eycrj96", "eycrnjo", "eycs11u", "eycsl51", "eycsq7x", "eycswcq", "eyct6sb", "eycu1bw", "eycumw8", "eycuxl2", "eycv0lg", "eycvm67", "eycvq7e", "eycwlwe", "eycxhzz", "eycxog0", "eycxot9", "eycxpz3", "eycyb2o", "eycyi4e", "eycyngo", "eycypst", "eyczgjf", "eyczixq", "eyd0qm6", "eyd1m28", "eyd3hqt", "eyd3zqa", "eyd4578", "eyd46ij", "eyd4jnp", "eyd57he", "eyd5mb3", "eyd5wwh", "eyd5xp1", "eyd6kf0", "eyd6lxu", "eyd763f", "eyd7b45", "eyd7lca", "eyd87rj", "eyd8c04", "eyd8dmk", "eyd8gf3", "eyd8hu7", "eyd8klp", "eyd95sn", "eyd99aa", "eyd9j46", "eyd9k34", "eyd9lfh", "eydan72", "eydb2xf", "eydbeuf", "eydbosv", "eydbq3v", "eydbxoj", "eydd241", "eyddyim", "eydebs7", "eydes1g", "eydgthz", "eydh4j4", "eydhvof", "eydj8h4", "eydjt4b", "eydjudh", "eydjyrq", "eydl0nw", "eydl2m2", "eydmdvv", "eydmtvp", "eydo3bl", "eydo879", "eydou1d", "eydp0ph", "eydp6pa", "eydp6q5", "eydp8ah", "eydpo4g", "eydpzwy", "eydqcst", "eydqrmu", "eydrgaq", "eyds2t8", "eydt25z", "eydtpx2", "eydu4yn", "eydv7j0", "eydwpoe", "eydyfzr", "eydzups", "eye009t", "eye0zke", "eye4uk8", "eye6jm9", "eye6vqb", "eye8onq", "eyeaic3", "eyecx45", "eyedryv", "eyef54v", "eyefo5u", "eyegfh4", "eyehnfs", "eyehs85", "eyej5i2", "eyejql7", "eyel4hf", "eyell26", "eyen60h", "eyenkp7", "eyeotl6", "eyep3vn", "eyeq0rl", "eyeqwvu", "eyerpvv", "eyes72b", "eyeupuv", "eyev36k", "eyevyho", "eyewdh9", "eyewzk8", "eyexkqh", "eyezkmk", "eyf1pld", "eyf21p6", "eyf3a2r", "eyf4azl", "eyf4qzl", "eyf6jsv", "eyf6zs3", "eyf81p0", "eyfabx4", "eyfam5s", "eyfhct7", "eyfidcl", "eyfkbmr", "eyfmb53", "eyfu5m0", "eyfxube", "eyg11hq", "eyg1cx5", "eygdkol", "eyge8gq", "eyghqk5", "eygi1sy", "eyh8g0v", "eyha3mu", "eyhidp1" ], "score": [ 17, 33, 49, 122, 510, 657, 71, 307, 31, 16, 72, 15, 22, 320, 15, 18, 6, 47, 15, 22, 36, 31, 217, 20, 17, 10, 19, 49, 4, 70, 16, 89, 15, 22, 3, 36, 12, 10, 6, 12, 32, 10, 25, 64, 14, 15, 2, 15, 3, 13, 4, 4, 5, 25, 9, 7, 4, 3, 8, 14, 10, 4, 4, 4, 11, 3, 20, 16, 8, 7, 9, 18, 8, 10, 7, 2, 3, 3, 8, 15, 5, 5, 10, 3, 3, 3, 9, 2, 15, 5, 5, 9, 20, 8, 5, 4, 2, 11, 3, 3, 3, 6, 7, 5, 4, 12, 3, 6, 5, 3, 9, 7, 8, 8, 2, 8, 2, 3, 11, 3, 3, 2, 6, 3, 4, 3, 4, 2, 8, 5, 5, 8, 5, 2, 7, 3, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 3, 2, 4, 8, 6, 4, 3, 5, 5, 3, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 7, 2, 7, 4, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "[Well now...](_URL_1_)[this calls for a celebration](_URL_0_)", "Thank you to all the contributors and mods here, it has been a lot of fun learning about the nitty gritty bits of history that I would not have otherwise thought to learn about. You guys rock and Happy birthday!", "This sub has made me interested in things I had never known existed. Thank you so much to the contributors who seem to know everything about everything, and to the mods for maintaining the platform!", "Happy Birthday to the best community!\n\nI want to hear from all our lurkers, posters and community members! What got you into history? What's so interesting about this old stuff? \n\nGet hyped for a another year of great posts.", "This is IMHO the best thing on Reddit. Although it can be intimidating to post to, the knowledge I have gained and the topics that have been discussed have opened up new areas of interest for further learning for me. Happy cake/birthday!", "Once I posted here. It got two upvotes (including mine). But it was not deleted. And I felt like such a badass.", "This is the only place I know where I can go FULL HISTORY without folks starting to yawn or getting slightly annoyed. Hey, they sometimes even give me upvotes here. Even though I do not work in academia or anything remotely related to history, the passion I got for the subject in my high school and university years studying it will never die! Next to that, I continue to learn something new here every day, reading those well-written and well-sourced answers to questions about all kinds of periods and cultures in human history. Keep it up, interesting inquirers and analytic answerers!", "Happy birthday history buffs and thank you historians for all of your knowledge! I'm a longtime lurker, but have learned a lot from your responses.\n\nI'm going to take advantage of this celebratory thread to tell some bad history jokes. \n\n\nWhy was WWI so short? > !Because they were Russian! < \n\nWhy was WWII so long? > !Because they were Stalin! < \n\nA Roman walks into a bar. He holds up two fingers and says, \" > !five beers please!! < \"\n\nA Frenchman walks into a library and asks for a book on warfare. The librarian replies, \" > !You'll only lose it.! < \"\n\nWhat did Richard III say when a planning proposal was submitted for the building's parking lot? > !Over my dead body!! < \n\nWhy did Karl Marx dislike Earl Grey tea? > !Because proper tea is theft.! < ", "Yay meta thread!\n\nI'll take the opportunity to ask a meta question of this thread's amazing historians: after 8 years, do you ever get tired of seeing specific types of posts? Disingenuous questions or ones based on unsound or thoroughly refuted premises? The perception that military history is disproportionately represented in the types of questions being asked? What about the influence of video games with a historical focus (Paradox strategy games, WW2 shooters, Civilization, etc.)?\n\nAnd maybe more interestingly: over the 8 years of this subreddit's existence, have the types of questions being asked changed over time or remained relatively consistent?", "Woot! [Here to party!](_URL_1_) And now [back to work...](_URL_0_)", "I didn't have the historical perspective to realize that it was a little over seven years ago that my son told me to start participating in /r/AskHistorians. My son recognized that this was a happening place - before it was only 1 years old! I hadn't realized how young the sub was when I started participating.\n\nThe insights one can gain from history - they're never ending!", "This is where I go to realize I don't know nearly as much about history as I thought I did.", "Well i'm just a lurker but thank you for the quality content. Commuting has become a productive time !", "I just want to give a shout-out to the mod team. Without them so much misinformation or information lacking sources would be spread on this sub. Their dedication is unbelievable and I always want to thank them on threads I read, but I know it would be off topic and get removed!", "Thank you so much for providing such interesting bits of information that I never would have thought to ask before. I’ve learned so much just by browsing. I do have a question for the historians: if you were forced to go back in time and be stuck in your respective areas of expertise, how well prepared do you think you would be?", "Now, my story begins in nineteen-dickety-two. We had to say \"dickety\" cause that Kaiser had stolen our word \"twenty\"...", "Thanks to all of the historians answering all the questions here! Someday I hope to answer a question that I've got the relevant knowledge for, but since I'm an engineering student it might take a while for that day to roll around.", "I'm writing a set of essays on the legal history of the Holy Roman Empire, and I wanted to meme my chapter titles a bit after a reader found my writing to be \"too dull\".\n\nHere are some excerpts:\n\n* Why Charles needed a Bull\n\n* Why Max Hated Diets\n\n* Why Charles *really* Hated Diets\n\n* The Best Way to Run a Government is to Never End it\n\n* The Privilege of Avoiding the Law\n\nAnd my favorite chapter of all,\n\n* Napoleon Ends it All, in Style\n\nEDIT: Also big thank to the mods and contributors for making such a flourishing community of historians!", "I love this sub! Also I am starting my uni studies in History soon! \nHopefully a bachelor in 3 years!", "/u/Georgy_K_Zhukov if you don't expand your dog family with those pups, I will be severely disappointed", "The British should adopt the word 'zucchini' so that 'courgettes' can be used as a term for Corgi puppies.", "It is my fervent hope to be gilded by a fellow redditor when I answer a question about the historical origins of /r/AskHistorians. I just hope I don't accidently ressurect an old Pepperidge Farms meme at the same time.", "Reported: This topic has 12 years to go before it can be addressed in this forum.", "Lurker here! Thank you all for giving me a chance to learn about things that I always wondered, or even better never even thought about. Great questions and great answers....thank you!", "Happy cake day to the sub that made me get a handle 7 years ago (cake day was last week). I don't contribute often, but I am proud that my top rated all time comment came out of this sub.", "Happy birthday to all of us! 8 years. Can't believe that this sub has been around so long already. Almost 6 years ago I discovered this place. So much has changed since then, almost all of it for the better. I was in a very different place then, too. Here's to 8 more years!", "Happy Birthday to the sub, and thank you for all participants, with a *very* special thank you to our dear Mods! Thanks for making this place truly unique and high quality, and frankly very anomalous for Reddit, which is why I so rarely venture from these safe confines into the blasted heath beyond.", "The ultimate poll question; Istanbul or Constantinople?", "I really love this sub! I wanna thank all the people here for taking a portion of their time to answer questions here, really appreciated!", "In the spirit of this subreddit, all comments should be removed", "So, in 12 years we can ask about the early years of AskHistorians, right?", "Can I give a shout-out to the real unsung hero of r/askhistorians?\n\n🍻\n\nThis one's for you, everyone who sees a question that they could kind of answer, or Google, and doesn't post anything because they know it can't meet the r/askhistorians standards.", "Neither here nor there, but saw a lecture on youtube a while back, either Penn or Oriental institute.\n\nThey mentioned being on a dig in the levant where a a very early expedition of the same organisation had been over a hundred years earlier.\n\nThey were surprised to find archeological evidence of that expedition, including a note by the expedition leader containing instructions for a colleague to get to the site. \n\nNeedless to say after they had a chuckle, they cataloged the finds, and left it for further generations.\n\nI thought that was funny.", "love the moderation here. keep it up. [MFW](_URL_0_) people complain about low-content comment deletion.", "What do you guys think of Graham Hancock and people like him?", "What is your plan for the 9/11 apocalypse in 16 months?", "Not a proper question. Delete!", "This sub has led me to many late night Wikipedia binges. I still don't answer questions on here, because I don't usually read primary sources, but I've definitely learned a lot. So, thank you to everyone that makes this sub what it is, and here's to another 8 years!", "What are some interesting threads to read in r/Askhistorians? I’m pretty much hooked but I would like to know everyone’s opinion. Thanks", "I thank the excellent contributors for their well-written and interesting answers\n\nI'm also happy that the mods sometimes let me bend the rules. I'm an engineer with years of experience. Sometimes I see a question posted here that's within my field of engineering expertise, and I answer as an engineer, not a historian", "this is the only top-level comment I will ever be able to make in this sub without having it deleted", "Happy birthday to the sub, contributors, readers and mods. Personally it's the best sub on this site by far and i can say that following it for the 5 years i've been doing it has actually expanded my horizons and knowledge. Especially changing the way i understand history and giving me more tools to filter out bogus or reductive claims. \n\nAlso, i saw somebody else post a meta question here and there's one that i've been wanting to ask everybody who studies/studied history as a profession but been hesitant about it cause it feels kinda outside the rules tho true to the name of the sub( since i'm asking historians :D). There was an answer i read here a few months ago about Nazi Germany, and it had a quote about wehrmacht soldiers going into nurseries and killing infants. And that knocked me out emotionally...logged off for the night and went to sleep with a knot in my stomach. Does it ever get to you? Reading about the most horrible stuff and having to do it as a job? Do you ever have day where you reach a particularly horrible event in history and just put it off til the last moment or just skip it/skim as fast as possible?\n\nsorry if it's not the proper place to ask. i won't mind removing it if that's the case", "How does it feel to be the best moderated part of the internet, and how do y'all maintain the incredible quality and consistency of the subreddit?", "I’ve spent 10 years studying as a historian, and one thing that struck me was how lonely being an academic historian is. Maybe it’s just the personality type that’s usually attracted to studying history, but I found the discipline very insular. I decided last year that I would branch out and start working with the public more and try to bring the research being done in academia to the people, as much of it is very interesting and very important to our understanding of global history. \n\nPart of that was starting my own blog, writing for magazines, doing public talks and podcasts etc, but a very large part was lurking on this very sub and seeing what people are interested in and how we talk to each other. Just recently I tried my hand at answering some questions based on my own knowledge, and the response has been wonderful. \n\nThis community is fantastic and the knowledge being generated here is so important. Thank you for all your hard work and for giving us this space to talk. For the first time since becoming a historian, I am genuinely feeling like there’s a community around me :)", "This sub is perhaps one of the best academically rigorous subs on Reddit, thanks in no small part due to the moderators and contributors here.\n\nHere’s to a even better next year!", "Real historians won't celebrate until the 20th birthday.", "Happy Birthday! Wish I had more time to actually post these days but I am always awed and impressed by the hard work mods and posters put in!", "*deleted*\n\nJust kidding. Thanks for all you do, guys.", "Happy birthday for us all! 🥨🥨🍻🍻", "[Here's my history pupper](_URL_0_). His name is Lyndon and he has his own autographed copy of one of the Robert Caro biographies of LBJ (\"to the real LBJ\").", "What question have you been waiting for that you're desperate to answer?", "Why do Americans keep thinking the French only lose wars or surrender?", "More importantly, it's almost the 7th birthday of /r/askahistorian!\n\nI still get requests to become an approved poster on a regular basis.", "Hey there all you wonderful people! I just wanted to take a moment and offer some suggestions for how you (YES YOU!) can contribute and join this wonderful community. You don't even need to study up and write awesome answers. Heck, it's certainly not how I got here.\n\nDo you come across brilliant answers that you really enjoyed? Or perhaps found an interesting question that sadly lacks an answer? Save them! Then you can post them in the [Sunday Digest](_URL_0_) to draw more attention to them. I am but one man, and I'd *love* to see what other people come across during the week. Don't even be bothered if someone has already posted a link to the same thing. Show your support for the author/writer/asker and post it up again!\n\nAnother great way you can help the community is as a [FAQ Finder](_URL_2_). It even comes with a spiffy flair and mad respect! As you browse through the subreddit and you find a question that's been answered before, you can drop a link and a ping to the original author. Help connect people to the answers their looking for. *And you'll get flaired for it!*\n\nFinally you can do the simplest, most helpful things. Upvote sweet questions so more people see them, upvote and thank the writers so they know someone appreciates the time and effort they put into all that work, and if you come across something that you know breaks the rules, then report it for us. Despite our [*power overwhelming*](_URL_3_) the moderators can't be everywhere at once. Reporting comments helps us keep things neat and tidy, and is a HUGE help that we always appreciate.\n\nI also, personally, want more AskHistorians themed memes. Please for the love of all that's moderation keep them to the Friday Free For All or celebratory META threads, but I want to see that creativity and have more things to send to my friends at 3AM that they wont understand.\n\nSo don't be afraid to join in and participate in the greatest, most glorious subreddit on the net! We have a fantastic community here, and so much of it is because of people like you.\n\nAlso before I forget, we have our next special feature of the summer campaign coming on the 31st! The History of Science and Technology! Bring your STEM powered history and tell me all about!\n\nOn Tuesday there was also a [special thread](_URL_1_) about sports history, and I'd love to learn more. Next Tuesday will be all about FIRE! So get all fired up, cook up some good history, and bring the heat!", "Some friends and I do a series in which we recreate historical events using video games. Poorly. Very poorly.\n\nWe use the /r/AskHistorians rule about nothing more recent than 20 years (my suggestion to help avoid \"too-soon\") .\n\nWould any of you like to [give it a look?](_URL_0_) \n\n\nPlease give us feedback. We're looking to improve. October is going to be an interesting season, and I'm starting to look at January possibilities.", "Big time lurker, massive thank you to the amazing contributors and mods. You all encourage me to read into topics I normally wouldn't and who doesn't love reading more history! \n\nHappy Birthday!", "Are these your corgs?", "Happy Cakeday!\n\nWhen I write my Magnum Opus I'll be sure to credit you guys :p", "What's your favorite civ/other group from a turn-based or real-time strategy game? (AOE II Britons represent)", "Whostory is it, anyways?\n\nMuch love from /r/IndianCountry! \n\nYour mod team and community are one of the bright, shining, and AWESOME parts of Reddit.", "My dream in life is to someday have enough knowledge to post here.", "Best resource on reddit right here", "OK, the question that everyone wants answered….\n\n**WHO KILLED JOHNBENET RAMSEY?!?!**\n\nBy the way it was the dad.", "I really love this sub. An absolutely treasure. Thanks guys!!!", "Thanks for all the hardcore modding. It is nice to be able to come here and find an answer that has some authority and isn’t just the top voted one. Keep up the good work. \n\nIs the podcast dead? I’ve enjoyed the work y’all did there as well.", "This has by far been my go-to sub for spending 5-30 minutes of time on the toilet to learn about a niche or unique historical question. I have this sub to blame for my legs losing sensation so many times while pooping.", "I love that the only comment I was ever qualified to give regarded the availability of ice to saloons in the 1800s.", "Instead of blowing out the candles. They will just be removed...", "I just want to say that I really enjoy reading the knowledgeable comments here and the high-quality moderation, cheers!\n\nDoes anyone have some history youtube channels to recommend?", "This sub is great and I love it.\n\nOh whoops, forgot to attach my bibliography, here it is:\n\n1. Beardman, Sadface. *Dope Subs*. Dank Knowledge University Press, 1999.\n2. :3", "I kinda just like corgis a lot", "Two years ago I removed all of the default subs from my account and only subscribed to subs that would enrich my life and knowledge. This is one of them, and I must say the knowledge I have gained from this sub has been spectacular. Thank you to all of the professional historians in here, I can say that you have made a positive impact on at least one person's life!", "There is something to be said for authentic historians. Once took a \"walking ghost tour\" in Savannah GA. The guide proclaimed himself somewhat of an expert in Georgia history and all things paranormal. Tried to strike up a conversation on some experiences I had while visiting the [Andersonville National Historic Sight](_URL_0_) (a short three hour drive from Savannah and certainly well known in Georgia)\n\n & #x200B;\n\nHe had never heard of it.", "I was a history major in college, but I changed because it got old.\n\nThanks to all of you who stuck with it!", "Omg I can actually make a comment on an ask historians thread!", "Relatively short term lurker, this forum certainly shows the power of great moderation!", "Love this sub!", "What's the best way to get in touch with a relevant historian when a post doesn't get any answers, or when a curiosity may be too broad for a format conforming post?", "The mods here are just the best. A shining example of what communities like this should be.", "This subreddit is the best thing to exist on the internet. From the historians to the mod team to us plebs, this is the most magical community out there. Thank you all for indulging my love for history in such a professional, earnest, and genuine fashion.", "How old does a joke have to be to not be deleted by the mods?", "Just dropping in to say thanks to everyone who has put in time and effort into answering questions.", "Happy birthday to us, awesome nerds.", "I'm a 21st century internet user. How would I celebrate the birthday of a subreddit?", "Happy birthday to our most wonderful subreddit. The community and the people here are fantastic.\n\nThis place is an awesome place of learning, there is always something interesting to read. I cannot count all the hours that I have spent reading wonderful posts about so many topics both popular and niche, and the few were I could try to write an answer.\n\nI hope that you can continue the great and hard work, it seriously is formidable.", "Happy Birthday, r/AskHistorians! It's been such a pleasure to read questions and excellent answers of all kinds over the years. Here's to another wonderful either years!", "Thank you to the moderators here who do an excellent job.", "Congrats to the sub! \nMy question is, I love history documentaries, so I would like to ask for some nice recommendations that you might have.\n\nThings that I've already seen and appreciated:\n\n* Apocalypse, the 1st and 2nd world war\n* The Death of Yugoslavia\n* The Vietnam War by Ken Burns\n* The World at War\n\nI would love if you could suggest something about Korean War, Napolean Wars, amongst others. Thank you!", "I just came here to say JFK was killed by the Freemasons, Julius Caesar was a shitty general and Abraham Lincoln plagiarized the Gettysburg Address. \n\nSource: a guy I met at a party once. \n\nSeriously, though, thanks for maintaining a quality sub.", "The first /r/AskHistorians thread I've seen that actually has comments that aren't deleted.", "Starting the 5th year of undergrad for my History BA...please god let it end soon, I'm so ready to move on", "Many are the times I have believed that the mods were too strict - and everytime I have ended up concluding that their decision improved the quality of this sub. \nCongratulations! \nAnd may you have success for years to come! \n \nPS: I always believed that this sub was moderated by elderly academics - seing the above group photo of the mod team makes your achievements even more impressive! \nYou have been VERY good boys, and girls!", "thank God, finally I can post here without it being deleted like 5 seconds later.\nThat said, I just wanted you guys, the historians as well as the mods to know that I really appreciate what you are doing. I've learned so much from this sub, it beats all history classes I ever took. I tip my hat to the historians who actually take the time to post here. I can't believe how anyone can just sacrifice so much of their time to share their knowledge with the world, especially considering you are not getting a single cent for it.\nThank you thank you thank you from the bottom of my history loving heart. I'm very much looking forward to continue reading your explanations and [post deleted] comments on this sub for the next 8 years to come and beyond.\n\n**you are the ones who make this the best place in the internet**", "Okay, now that I've got the shitposting out of my system, here's my actual meta question:\n\nFlaired users of /r/AskHistorians, what's your fringe historical idea? What are you pretty sure everyone else here is wrong about? What are you really set on that everyone else here thinks is nutty? Do you have proof Toussaint L'Ouverture built the Pyramids? Have you seen Jurchen grave goods that clearly depict Jin Taizu with a robot arm and laser eyes? Does modern historiography dramatically underestimate the size of James Buchanan's ass?", "At first I was kind of upset that people took pop history books for their word, and I wondered why they didn't read more serious stuff.\n\nThen I read a book written by an *archivist* about the voodoo queen Marie Laveau. 1) It's the cure for insomnia. 2) Louisiana may or may not exist based upon existing historical documents.", "Does anyone other than me find it offensive there are no dog history experts in this group. Dogs did history too", "Yo, was Frederick II of the Holy Roman Empire as cool as my professor made him out to be?", "Answering an unasked question: during the Paleolithic period the most common form of transportation used by Cro-Magnon man was the foot-powered automobile. This previously untestable hypothesis was proven true in 1960 when renowned scientists William Hanna and Joseph Barbera unearthed actual footage of these vehicles in use.\n\nAnd since this is /r/askhistorians I must, of course, include my source, and I will link the primary source, the actual footage discovered: _URL_0_", "Happy Birthday! \nThis sub is probably the subreddit I spent the most time on even though I haven't posted a single comment here. \n\nBig thank you to all historians on here for their amazing posts", "You know, my obscure question on Hitler's love of French Pastries has STILL NOT BEEN ANSWERED!!! /s\n\nHappy Birthday!!!", "Do you guys ever wonder if there was a specific event or thing that sparked your lifelong interest in history? I still remember reading these old historical graphic novels/comics when I was a child and wonder if that's the reason I was always fascinated with history.\n\nOh, and happy birthday r/askhistorians", "Happy Birthday! I found AH over 2 years ago now, and got flair last year. It's really hard to believe, I never thought I'd have a flair when I started reading the sub, but here we are!\n\nAnd without this place, I frankly wouldn't be using Reddit at all!", "I love it when I stumble upon a post from r/AskHistorians on my front page. I always end up learning something new.", "Bad history joke:\n\nIf Germany is the fatherland and Russia is the motherland, WWII was just a really messy divorce.", "I approve wholeheartedly to the choice of image that was used. Happy Birthday!!!!!!", "I'm just here to make a comment on this sub. I love this sub so much because of its ridiculously strong stance on quality content. I'm perfectly happy to get the occasional wasteland graveyard of comments on the front page in exchange for really well thought out content the other times. \n\nThanks for the work you guys do to keep idiots like me informed and entertained.", "Happy birthday everyone!\n\nI realised that a life in academic history wasn't for me when I was at grad school. I'm a loner by nature but working alone for long periods weirdly gets me qute down, and I just would not be cut out for it. I work in a non-historical office where socialisation is forced on me, leaving me with enough free time to browse this sub after a getting paid to have my social needs fulfilled.\n\n I have never asked a question, and have yet to see one which I feel qualified to answer adequately, but it's something which keeps me in touch, on my own terms, with a subject which has been a life-long passion. I get genuinely excited when I see an interesting question and am very thankful for the time and effort you all put in to providing in-depth, entertaining answers.", "Next April Fool's can we become /r/fakehistoryporn for a day?", "Happy birthday to this amazing community and thank you to all the historians for their time.", "Damn I've waited for this moment. I always think of my best jokes when I'm not allowed to post them. So, ummm.\n\nShit.\n\nHow do you know the Romans were always high?\n\n > !Because Roman sites always have loads of pot.! < \n\nThat's awful. I swear I thought of some good ones too.", "This sub shows the best of what reddit could be. So many other subreddits have lost their way as they grew subscribers, but /r/AskHistorians has continued to provide high-quality, focused discussion. \n\nThanks to the mods and contributors to creating a place where a consumer like me can get the history I crave!", "Birthday related short question:\n\nWho had the most over the top birthday party?\n\nI shall accept rankings based on any of the following: Deaths, Births, People, Cost, Food, Drink and Religion.", "What a wonderful sub.\n\nYears, decades ago, I read a James Thurber story that sometimes comes to mind with some of the questions posed here: how difficult it can be to escape the strictures of your time and culture when looking at historical events.\n\nThurber loved reading French pulp-novel versions of American Westerns, and he described one of them in his story *Wild Bird Hickcock and His Friends*:\n\n > There were, in my lost and lamented collection, a hundred other fine things, which I have forgotten, but there is one that will forever remain with me. It occured in a book in which, as I remember it, Billy the Kid, alias Billy the Boy, was the central figure. At any rate, two strangers had turned up in a small Western town and their actions had aroused the suspicions of a group of respectable citizens, who forthwith called on the sheriff to complain about the newcomers. The sheriff listened gravely for a while, got up and buckled on his gun belt, and said, \"*Alors, je vais demander ses cartes d'identité!*''", "Are you all secretly dogs what’s with the photo", "Cool, I share my birthday with r/AskHistorians", "Sorry to break up the party, but I had a real question that I have been afraid to post: Did anyone ever actually expect the Spanish Inquisition?", "Best sub ever!", "One of the best thing online. Not only on Reddit.\n\nI will be happy to give a small donation to this community to celebrate. Can I do it? Any no-profit you want to suggest?", "This is like the only sub on reddit that takes no shit from anyone. Mad props", "This quite possibly the only time there are no removed comments in this sub", "To the best sub on Reddit, I'd like to raise a glass. Cheers", "tfw comment actually posted in AskHistorians", "Reported for 20-year rule.", "A big thanks to all the contributors and the mods!\n\nThis is the best, most educative and informative thread on reddit for me.", "Commenting just to have a comment here that won't be deleted due to off topicness nor due to not being an expert. \n\nAt least until someone asks about ejection seats, then it'll be my time to shine!", "This has been the hardest sub to practice restraint in, simply because of how great the questions and answers can be. \nI'd like to say thank you to all of the mods and contributors. Your brilliant, thoughtful, comprehensive and objective responses really bring the stories of the past to life and usually into modern relevance. \nI have had to curtail my own speculation so many times, but can't think of an example where the eventual answer wasn't worth the wait. \nSo, on the one day it's appropriate to post non-history specific comments, thank you, thank you, thank you. :)", "Yeah the higher than average standards keep this sub great. I've learned alot about the topics I'm interested in and I thank all of the contributors and mods for your hard work.", "Mods should start deleting random comments. Just to throw it back.", "Kind of intimidated to post but here goes...\n\nShould note I’m not a historian. \n\nNo sources either. Sorry", "This may be the only opportunity I have to post here. I've been a long time subsciber and thank all of you for making this one of the most informative subs on Reddit.", "Something I'd like to know and can maybe ask here in the less regimented environment is...where the hell did the army (u.s. army) stash all its case files on recovered unidentified soldiers from ww1? Some researcher friends suspect they're at the DPAA but now that they're basically beholden to the Vietnam era nothing's moving on earlier conflicts as it appears researchers are banned from accessing that facility. I don't have a missing/unidentified soldier in the fight but I do have a great grand uncle whose burial sketch I'd love to see one day and may be thrown in with all the other missing case files.", "Happy [removed] !!", "Happy Birthday!\n\nWhile the rules have been loosened and I have you all here... do any of you know any good stories about Jazz (or really any genre) musicians? \n\nI'm a music teacher who occasionally likes to share stories of funny, badass, or otherwise really out-there moments in music history and would love to add to my repertoire!", "I’m not gonna lie, this has always been one of my favorite subreddits, I love learning something new here every day! Happy birthday!", "Personal anecdote:\nBeing despised for writing a thesis on early Heideggerean ontology. Being called a nazi because of that, while my great-grandfather was put in a forced labour camp by the NS military ‘regime’ (‘bewind’) for two years during WWII and while I vehemently despise fascism without exceptions. Keep teaching everyone about the ‘past’, because people in the present are often horribly informed about* it. \nYou guys do a great job. Keep at it.", "This thread is making history. All comments legal. Most living. It's like the opposite of The Purge. HBD /r/AskHistorians [deleted]", "Everyone is here is great, I love this sub.\n\nI'm also thrilled I can make a Top Level comment for once!", "Marvel as I make a top-level comment that is COMPLETELY DEVOID OF QUALITY OR SUBSTANCE!! MWUAHAHAHAHA!!!", "So in 12 more years we can start asking questions about the origins of the sub?", "Just commenting to say how much I love this sub. Best place on Reddit by far.", "I have to say I love this sub, I never post because I'm only have an undergrad in history. I love coming here for the detailed answers that get me going down the next rabbit hole. Thanks to the mods and contributors happy cake day!", "Thanks to all for this subreddit - its brought me much enjoyment and made me interested in books that I wouldn't have found otherwise. \n\nReally educational and enriching to be able to read about history from dedicated professionals.", "Thanks to each of you for creating, growing and lovingly pruning this community! It is consistently both fascinating and high effort.", "The mods of this sub are truly a great example of how mods should be. Congratulations!!", "High school history teacher here. I can genuinely say this sub has enhanced my knowledge of the subject and bettered my student's education. I often find myself referencing information that I learned through this sub. Thank you!", "Happy Birthday!\n\nThank you Mods for the great work you do keeping this sub the most honest on Reddit.\n\nThank you to all contributors, both those that have asked interesting questions and those that have answered the questions with insightful and informative responses.", "Love this sub. Thanks so much for all the work put into it!", "This is it. My one chance to comment here safely.\n\n\nAhhhhhhhhhhhh.....\n\n*Falls back into a random perfectly sized pool*", "Came here expecting nothing but deleted comments!", "The mod team do an excellent job with /askhistorians.\n\nWhenever I visit the sub I have confidence I’ll find something in depth, interesting, and well sourced, to read. Something that is neither hearsay (unless it’s accounts of hearsay from say 5th century Egypt), built on some self agenda (unless it’s say the agendas of Crassus in the Triumvirate), or pushing misinformation (unless it’s say explaining the themes behind Joseph Goebbels 1943 film Titanic).\n\nIt’s great. Keep up the good work!", "Flaired users and moderators:\n\nWhat's the story behind your username?", "\"Professionally published\" contributors - has answering a question on here ever lead to a breakthrough in your professional work?", "I have followed and read and loved this sub since day 1. As an avid casual history buff, I am forever grateful for and impressed by the rigorous standards here; therefore I can't resist an opportunity to shitpost today. Happy Cake Day to r/askhistorians!!!!!", "So only 12 more years and a day before we finally can ask a historian about askhistorians!", "T-minus 12 years until I ask about the origins of /r/askhistorians.", "I know I'm late to the party, but I've always wanted to ask the generalized question to all the historians here:\n\nWhat is an interesting fact you'd love to (or have wanted to) share but typically requires a nuanced background explanation to fully show why it's so interesting?", "Wonderful for the mod team and people who are active in the community", "I love this sub and the dedication to keep a high bar for responses. \n\nThank you.", "I listen to smart people... or, at least to people who know how little they know, but who are willing to share thoughts about what they do know with internet strangers.\n\nThank you all. I continue to listen and learn.", "Everyone involved with this community (including us scrubs who can never make top level comments) is amazing. I love you all and I'm so happy this exists. \n\nI hope someday our ancestors will ask about the origins and early history of r/askhistorians and be answered by a wall of [deleted]. (Get it? Cause it answers the question perfectly 😝)", "Congratulations on staying active so long! Here's to many more years of reading thoughtful questions (hopefully with interesting answers).\n\nWhat are some topics that flaired answerers wish could come up more often?", "We miss you, /u/The_Alaskan.", "Gimmie top ten US presidents, the more controversial the better.", "EVERYTIME I SEE A POST ON THIS SUB, I BUCKLE MY SEATBELTS BECAUSE I KNOW I'M GON BE TAKEN ON A WILD ASS EDUCATIONAL RIDE THAT I WILL NEVER COME ACROSS AGAIN. I AM JUST AN UNEDUCATED PLEB WHO GAINS SO MUCH HAPPINESS FROM THIS SUB.", "Long time reader. I just wanted to express my thanks to all those dedicated people out there who have the expertise to contribute and willingly do so.\n\nThank you!", "Will there be cake?", "I am grateful to /r/AskHistorians and all the amazing mods. I come here to remind myself that the internet is not just trolls and death threats. And the history is awesome too! May you live for ever!", "I'm just posting here so that I can say that I once posted in /r/askhistorians and it wasn't immediately deleted. \n\nBut seriously, this sub is a gem. Probably the most consistently interesting and valuable community on this site. Thanks to everyone, mods and experts for keeping this place the highest quality.", "As readers, is there anything we can do to help /r/AskHistorians thrive? It’s such a unique and fascinating corner of Reddit, and I want to help it flourish, but I’m no historian. Can I do anything? Want some brownies?", "Yay. One of my top subreddits. Grateful to you guys." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roRQ2mNwMMQ", "https://i.imgur.com/Js4kjtW.jpg" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://media.giphy.com/media/OR9y0z0vS0b3q/giphy.gif", "https://media.giphy.com/media/3KC2jD2QcBOSc/giphy.gif" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://i.imgur.com/qIPEepN.gif" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://imgur.com/AcGqlyo" ], [], [], [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cv8w4j/sunday_digest_interesting_overlooked_posts_august/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cw5fd4/tuesday_trivia_sports_this_thread_has_relaxed/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7sqnu1/meta_become_a_faq_finder_details_on_our_new_faq/", "https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-06-2015/ce3JZC.gif" ], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDDNXj6h1Po" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.nps.gov/ande/index.htm" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skeg3Y6sptg" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7kwgsc", "c7kwzjp", "c7kze9b" ], "score": [ 2, 12, 2 ], "text": [ "In order to imagine a German victory against the Soviet Union in WWII, there is no simple turning point you can look to and say, \"If the Germans had done X at this time, they would have won.\" You really have to change so many things that it becomes abject fantasy.\n\nFundamentally, the German's only hope of winning lay in compelling the Soviet leadership, and Stalin in particular, to admit defeat and sue for peace. Stalin's near catatonia in the days and weeks following the invasion in 1941 is probably as close as they ever really got to victory. Had he and the entire Soviet system broken down under the shock - much as France did in 1940 - they might have won. But that meant essentially that the Soviets had to agree to be defeated, and despite the shock and massive losses of 1941, there was no reason for them to do so.\n\nThe only other option was a fight a war of attrition to see which nation would wear out it resources - people and oil primarily - first. Germany had little chance of winning such a war, though it could and did fight a losing battle for a long time.\n", "This is a complicated question that will probably never be answered since it goes too much into \"what-if\" history. In my view, Germany's biggest mistake wasn't in any operational decision (attack city X instead of attacking city Y, etc) but their incorrect assessment of the Soviet Union and its capabilities. Hitler believed that the USSR was fundamentally weak and that after a few initial defeats its regime would quickly crumble. Consequently, Germany didn't prepare for a protracted campaign, didn't ramp up its arms industry to the extent that they could have (as evidenced by their increased output in 1943-44, despite the allied bombing campaign), didn't press into service as many men as they could have. German leadership tried to shield the population from the hardships of war as much as possible and didn't ask for the necessary sacrifices until it was too late. Had they done all of that in 1940 and 1941, there was a chance that they could have overwhelmed the Soviet Union quickly enough. However because they initially underestimated the Soviet Union and didn't allocate the sufficient resources for war, they missed their chance. Once the Operation Barbarossa had failed, Germany's eventual defeat was a matter of time.\n\nHowever, as with all what-if scenarios, it isn't so simple because if the German leadership HAD assessed the strength of the Soviet Union correctly, they probably wouldn't have launched the invasion in the first place. \n\nPS - in terms of reading, David Glantz and Anthony Beevor are probably the best two authors on the subject of the eastern front of WWII. For other theaters, I hear Max Hastings is highly recommended.", "The invasion was doomed from the start for the same reason as Napoleon`s invasion. It was left until too late in the year. IIRC, they invaded in June, leaving only a few.months before the winter. Had they left in March/April, they would have had more time. \n\nAdditionally, the invasion was not pragmatic enough. Hitler was a master politician but a poor military tactician. His decisions, such as the invasion of Stalingrad, were unnecessary. Hitler should have done what his generals wanted to do - seize Moscow as fast as possible." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cg80das", "cg8jovz", "cg8oqkr" ], "score": [ 6, 2, 8 ], "text": [ "Take something you like\n > fish populations\n\nTake a people group that interacts with said interest.\nObviously whales are mammals, but marine life.\n\n* Native populations, like the [Makah people](_URL_0_) in Washington State are still allowed to kill a single whale each year. The meat is still divided amongst the families.\n\nWhat is their history and tradition? What government organisations and legislations have affected them? How have the national parks and reservations historically been divided? How has the allowance for hunting had a positive or negative effect on the population of the tribe and the whale population?\n\n > landscapes, consumption, knowing, identity, transnational\n\nNational parks and reservations, how meat is divided and traditionally consumed, how have they retained cultural identity but also assimilated, seeing as they are closely related to other tribes in Canada, how do they nationally identify and what have the historical boundaries been?\n\nSo yes, it is about food and culture, but you also can include the \"historical\" scientific data of marine life, preservation status, migration patterns etc.\n\nAnd all of this just a few hours from Simon Fraser and Vancouver.\n\nObviously you do not have to do this topic, but hopefully you saw the method. I knew very little about the Makah people before writing this, but I asked myself some questions about what your interest were and what in your area could provide an interdisciplinary overlap between your interest in science and your historical assignment. I thought native peoples, whaling, and then did some brief searching and narrowed things down.\n\nSo again, what is something that interest you? What time period are you looking to work in? A time period could be anything from the \"Roman Republic\" to London on Christmas day in 1975. What people were involved? Who and what were affected by these events? What can a description of these specifics of time and figures do to further help to bring understanding to your initial subject of interest? Always ask a question that you would want to know the answer to and go from there\n\n > I hate most of the things we read.\n\n university life is a privilege, don't forget that. \n\nall the best on your essay.", "That is such an awesome reading list. Who's teaching this course?", "I have virtually no knowledge about your class, so my post probably won't help you find a specific topic. But as an undergraduate, I always thought finding a topic was the hardest part of writing! So don't feel discouraged! It can be a real challenge, especially when the topics are broad and open-ended! \n\nI found that there are two keys to writing a good history paper. The first is that you MUST make an argument (You have to provide an interpretation of the past/theme). And the second is that you MUST synthesize as many sources together as you can to support that argument (Professors do not want you to just summarize sources). So when I would go to write a paper, I would try to pick the topic based on how effectively I could accomplish these goals.\n\nMaybe start by identifying several broad topics that you're curious about. Just something you're interested in delving a little bit deeper with. From here, maybe ask yourself: \n\n* Is there something that these sources have talked a lot about? Is there a controversy on which you can put several of these sources together to make my own argument? Can you support your topic with many of these sources? \n* Is there a misconception in popular culture that you could absolutely destroy based on what you've read in these sources? \n* Are there positive/negative consequences for people that you can clearly show by putting many sources together? \n* Can you prove a source wrong/biased/incomplete based on other sources you've read in this class?\n\nMaybe one of these questions might give you the spark you need. The important part isn't the topic so much as is your argument/interpretation and your support of that argument. Good luck!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Indian_Whalers_Stripping_Their_Prey_at_Neah_Bay_-_1910.jpg" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbqkvlr", "cbqmgak" ], "score": [ 6, 5 ], "text": [ "It is hard to give some specific evidence for you, but it would seem that the wealth of Emperors was passed on to the next emperor, in that the finances of the emperor was de facto the same as the wealth of the empire. However, we must remember the circumstances - only 2 emperors (Diocletian in 305 CE and Romulus Augustus in 476 CE) retired, so there was no normal reason to worry about the wealth of the emperor after they reigned.\n\nAs an example, [Pertinax](_URL_0_) was able to sell the slaves and personal possessions of Commodus, the previous emperor, and on becoming emperor himself gave away his own money to his family because he knew that he did not need any personal wealth (and actually, was aware that the loss of his life would mean the next leader would claim any of his personal holdings).\n", "Well, remember that there are two different ways an old emperor leads to a new emperor: inheritance and usurpation. In the first case, the way the new emperor becomes the new emperor is by being named primary benefactor of the old emperor's estate, which included the offices the emperor held as part of the package. It wasn't really analogous to royal succession, and trying to find the line between the public aspects of inheritance and the private is really tricky. This eventually changed in the Late Empire (I suspect after Gordianus) and emperors were formally crowned in coronation ceremonies, but I am not familiar enough with that aspect of the period.\n\nAnd if the succession occurred through usurpation, naturally the old emperor's property would be forfeit and become property of the state, ie, the new emperor." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c9td6dp" ], "score": [ 44 ], "text": [ "Because it is a natural feature. Conspiracy theorists and pseudo-archaeologists seem to be really fond of it though." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbead28", "cbeaodj", "cbebjva", "cbeh3no", "cbehfy5" ], "score": [ 3, 22, 10, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Don't forget Nepal.", "In the case of Thailand, European powers such as the British and the French jockeyed for power around Thailand. For instance, the British conquered Burma and the French conquered Indochina (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) but decided to keep a \"balance of power\" in the region required an independent Thailand free from European powers. Nevertheless, the French and British were able to draw concessions from the Thais and the Thai Kingdom was forced to focus on its lands primarily peopled by Thais (with some Malays in the south).\n\nIn the case of Ethiopia, the Ethiopian state was placed in a mountainous plateau (like Tibet, Persia) making it difficult to control from the sea. Also, European powers used Ethiopia to pursue various interests. The British armed Ethiopian nobles and Kings to fight the Mahdists of Sudan and other lords in the Horn of Africa. The state that came the closest to conquering Ethiopia was Italy, but the Ethiopians defeated them in the Battle of Adowa using weapons purchased from the French, Russians and the Italians themselves!", "Slightly off-topic, but there's another one you forgot about: Liberia.\n\nLiberia got lucky for two reasons: first, as a settlement of former slaves from the United States, they had fairly amicable relationships with the West until about 1880. Second, the Liberians didn't get through exactly unscathed. Between 1880 and 1914, portions of their territory were cut off bit by bit by the advancing British and French. (At least the British and French paid them for their territory, which is a lot better than most other African states did.)\n\nSource: Boahen, Africa Under Colonial Domination.", "It depends on what you mean by \"traditional imperial powers\": in this case would you exclude Japan? (I don't mean to go off topic, but just wish to make you aware of other nation-states that remained independent of European colonialism).\n\nIf you exclude Japanese colonialism, the majority of the Far East becomes a huge notable exception.\n\n1) Centralization: China had a distinct advantage in the early sixteenth century in that the Manchu Dynasty was highly centralized and would not be parceled out to foreigners. Japan and eventually China in the Opium Wars were eventually forced to trade openly, but Japan used westernization as an advantage to become a colonizer in their own right. Neither conceded huge tracts of land to Europeans.\n\n2) Trade advantage: in the Manchu Dynasty foreigners were often forced to pay in heavy metals in order to enter the tea and silk trade. They were conceded trade ports but ultimately never succeeded in totally subjugating the country. Following the Opium Wars ports were parceled to Europeans, but the countryside remained independent until forcefully conquered by Japanese forces in the twentieth century.\n\n3) I'm not familiar with Korean history but I understand it was in the Japanese and Chinese orbit for centuries, and independent of European powers as far as I know.\n\nI think much of their independence has to do with distance from European powers, and traditional power structures that kept them from being parceled.", "The question of why Ethiopia avoided colonization (barring 1935-41) gets asked not infrequently. \n\n[this](_URL_1_) thread from a year ago contains an explanation of geographic factors, as well as my own thoughts on the importance of the unifying efforts of king Menelik II and his predecessors.\n\nI am unfamiliar with the history of Thailand in the 18th and 19th centuries, so I am unable to draw much of a comparison with Ethiopia.\n\nEdit:Khosikulu gives a good explanation (as always) [here](_URL_0_)\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12gn2u/how_did_ethiopia_remain_independant_for_so_long/c6ux31b", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qnjq9/how_did_ethiopia_successfully_avoid_colonization/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "do58j3k" ], "score": [ 35 ], "text": [ "I assume you are talking about whether or not the Buddha was a real person. While I'm not a scholar, historian, or Buddhist. I am keenly interested in this subject and can, at the very least, give some context.\n\nThe traditional Buddhist narrative tells us that the Buddha (which means something like Enlightened or Awakened One) was born in the mid 6th century BCE in modern day Nepal to a king and his main wife of the Sakya clan (we now know them to have been an oligarchic republic so the Buddha's father was probably an elected head chief) and given the name Siddhartha Gotama. At age 29 he fled his family home in search of enlightenment, abandoning his title, family (including a young son), and wealth. He joined a group of wandering ascetics but became disillusioned with them and sought his own path to enlightenment, which he achieved after 49 days of fasting underneath a tree at the age of 35. He spent the next 45 years of his life as a wandering preacher throughout Northern India and died at age 80 after falling ill. OR at least that is how it is traditionally told.\n\nAs far as primary sources from that period and archeological evidence, we have little to nothing that we can definitely associate with the Buddha or the *sangha* during his life or shortly after. Most people during the Buddha's time were entirely illiterate and what writing *DID* exist was far out of the reach of most of their audience, writing in India wouldn't come into prominence for 2 or 3 centuries after the Buddha. That said, not to long after the death of the Buddha, we begin to see *Stupas* (buildings meant for Buddhist relics) built and pictographs of *Jataka tales* (tales of the Buddha's past lives, many of which were adapted from and into fables) appear. \n\nOur most important sources are contained in the early canonical texts of Buddhism, namely the Pali canon and the other early sectarian Buddhist canons preserved in fragments and translations. While these texts were written down during the final century B.C.E., the dialect and consistency between the suggests that they were in fact composed much earlier, perhaps only a few decades after the death of the Buddha. \n\nIt may seem strange then, given that all we have are oral records from the era of the Buddha (from his own followers no less!), that the Buddha is generally agreed to have been a real person. But it isn't just the Buddhist records that mention him, Buddha also appears in Hindu and Jain sources as well, often in debate or for Mahavira to refute him (though never so directly as Gosala, the founder of Ajivikism). \n\nThe Buddha was a *Samana* (lit. Seeker), one of many wandering mendicants who taught new philosophies and founded religious movements, many of them were quite important and often encountered and mentioned one another. The Pali canon mentions at least six others, some of which had long since disappeared by the time it was committed to writing. Had one of these Samanas not existed, refuting them would be considerably easier by casting doubt onto their existence, especially since a healthy degree of skepticism is part of many of these traditions yet they all, well Jainism and a few Vedic traditions are all that survive aside from Buddhism so we can't say that with absolute certainty, accept that their founders were real and interacted with each other. \n\nEarlier, I mentioned that we can say with at least some certainty that the Pali Canon is certainly older than the first century B.C.E. when it was written down, though certain books are probably later editions (the abidhama in particular appears to have been composed later), but neglected to mention specifics. Essentially, language experts have analyzed the language in the Pali Canon and compared it both internally and externally to other documents and found that the language used in the Sutta Pitaka and Vinya Pitaka (the first two \"baskets\" of the Tipitaka in pali) is far older than its written form (the final book, the Abidhamma Pitaka, appears to be an addition to help explain the Suttas more complicated teachings and to expand upon those as well). Additionally, comparisons with the Tibetan, Chinese, and fragmentary bits of what is left from the other Indian sects of Buddhism gives us some clear similarities that we wouldn't expect from works that didn't have an origin before the major splits in Buddhism (Buddhism divided into several (at least 18) schools following the reign of Ashoka in the third century BCE; the Pali Canon, Chinese Canon, and Tibetan Canon are all descendants of different sects though the Tibetan and Chinese canon broadly fall under the same lineage). We also have a few scattered quotations and lines in tombs, stupas, rocks, and caves dating back to at least Ashoka showing the general teachings. From all this, we can assume that at least some of the Suttas appear to date back to shortly after the Buddha's death, at most a century, and came from a small group of people, perhaps interpreting or trying to remember exactly the teachings of one person, due to their internally consistent logic, language, and teachings.\n\nSo we really do only have the scriptures of the various canons to confirm the Buddha's existence, along with maybe a few other references in other religions works, but there is verifiable information in that canon and indicates a very real person behind it all. Wrapped in layers of mystique and exaggeration, yes, but at the end of the day, it seems likely that there is at least some truth behind the person we now know as Sakyamuni Gotama Buddha.\n\nSources:\n\n* Bikkhu Bodhi *In the Buddha's Words*; *The Connected Discourses of the Buddha*; *The Sunnipatta*; *The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha*\n* Walsh, Maurice *The Long Discourses of the Buddha*\n* Bikkhu Nanamali, Bikkhu Bodhi *The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha* **(All the previous are translations and essays on the Pali Canon, in particular the Sutta Pitaka)**\n* Fronsdal, Gil *Buddhism Before Buddha* **(Not ideal, some revisionist bias)**\n* Cowell, E.B. *The Buddha Karita* **(Neither a Historic text nor an academic one, but a poetic retelling of the legend of Buddha's life composed in the first century C.E. in Sri Lanka)**\n* Rahula, Walpola *What The Buddha Taught* **(moderately outdated, but still useful)**\n* Bhikkhu Sujato, Bhikkhu Brahmali *Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts* **(This is a good source for more in depth reading, surprisingly little bias considering it was written by members of the Sangha)**\n* Patrick, Kit \"The History of India Podcast\" **(A good introduction to Indian history, Buddha and Mahavira feature prominently in the 2-4 episodes and of course their respective religions would shape India afterwards.)**\n\nEdited for clarity and consistantly Pali spelling as opposed to the slapdash mixture of Pali and Sanskrit transliteration. I speak no Sanskrit and very, very limited Pali so if there arr errors in my translation or transcription feel free to correct." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9ffz8z" ], "score": [ 11 ], "text": [ "It's a bogus claim; the psuedoscience documentary *What the bleep do we know?* popularized it in recent years. There are several websites and videos debunking that movie, but for quick refenence, [here](_URL_1_)'s a short video discussing the relevant clips.\n\nI've heard that the story is a misrepresentation of a Cook's expedition to Australia, where the native Australians ignored Cook's ship but responded when the smaller rowboats came ashore. This wasn't because they couldn't see the larger ship, but because it was too far away to be of any concern to them as anything other than a passing curiosity. Smaller boats coming ashore represented a more immediate concern and a potential threat so that warranted their attention. Unfortunately, I've having trouble finding the source of that story at the moment so if anyone else has it, hopefully they can fill in the gap for us.\n\n > If not, do you have any sources for what this encounter was like? Thanks!\n\nAlmost forgot this part. You can read about Columbus' first encounters with Native Americans [here](_URL_0_) starting on the bottom of page 36. There's friendly interaction on shore on October 12th and on October 13th mention that the natives were coming *to* Columbus' ships in their own canoes (some large enough to hold 40+ people). All in all, despite Columbus' paternalistic and imperialistic opinions of those he met, first contact went rather well. No evidence of mysterious invisible ships." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://books.google.com/books?id=2mvK60VAdCcC&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q=Oct&amp;f=false", "http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=rlPiXNlhKFo#t=300s" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cqgpeau" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "So, perhaps I'm just blind, but I can't find the passage that Stevenson is refering to here. According to the essay, Tacitus would have been the one who described this event, which in itself is suspicious, but I can't even find a reference to Baiae in Tacitus. Suetonius does mention the mention the bridge itself and how Caligula rode across it in order to prove that he indeed could be emperor. A soothsayer employed by Tiberius had claimed that:\n\n > Caius would no more be emperor, than he would ride on horseback across the gulf of Baiae.\n\nHowever, I did find a reference to the claim that Stevenson refers to in Cassius Dio. The issue here is evident. Suetonius is writing in the 1st century AD and is hardly positive to Caligula as emperor (or other emperors for that matter!) and yet he does not mention this incident. Cassius Dio is writing as late as the 3rd century AD, which is more than 200 years after the reign of Caligula. Thus it's rather safe to say that this throwing-of-guests-into-the-sea event never actually took place, but is a story that's been constructed afterwards to further emphasize how bad of an emperor Caligula was. If you're interested in reading the rest of what Suetonius has to say about this event, you can read about it [here](_URL_0_). Flavius Josephus (a Roman-Jewish author writing in the 1st century AD) also mentions this bridge, but neither he doesn't mention the special undertaking that Stevenson brings up, [just the bridge itself](_URL_1_).\n\nAs a last note I also feel obliged to comment on the claim that Caligula was deified. He actually wasn't properly deified, but decided himself that he ought to be revered as if he were a god while still alive. *Ie.*, he deified himself, but no one else took it seriously, and stricly speaking it was the senate's right to issue state deifications and thus Caligula's deification wasn't a proper one, neither by process nor by time (deifications took place after the death of a person, not during their lifetime)." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.online-literature.com/stevenson/essays-of-stevenson/3/" ]

[ [ "http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:phi,1348,014:19", "http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146%3Abook%3D19%3Awhiston+chapter%3D1%3Awhiston+section%3D1" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ce33kr3", "ce39jti" ], "score": [ 14, 2 ], "text": [ "This is a difficult question to answer, because once you go back far enough distinguishing between dreams that actually happened and dreams that were just added into the story for dramatic effect is quite difficult. Herodotus has Xerxes dreaming of a 'tall and goodly man' standing over him and telling him not to invade Greece. Did that happen? Probably not - but Herodotus says it does. Similarly, in a lot of Plato's dialogues Socrates relates various of his dreams - are these recollections of real conversations Plato had with Socrates or just illustrations of Plato's own philosophical ideas? I don't really know how you could ever determine that one way or another. Even when writers write about dreams that they claim really happened, they often seem a little too symbolic, and a little too convenient, to be fully trusted.\n\nThe best thing I can find for you is *Oneirocritica* or 'The Interpretation of Dreams', written by Artemidorus in the 2nd century CE. This is an academic treatise on the meaning of dreams by a man who was a professional fortune-teller. He doesn't particularly relate whole dreams, but rather gives a kind of symbolic toolkit for using dreams to tell the future - usually like: \"dreaming of storks means this will happen, dreaming of herons means that will happen.\" However he does often say \"I know of one man who had such a dream\" to back up his points. Here's an extract:\n\n > If a man dreams that he is masturbating privately, he will posess either a male or female slave, because the hands that are embracing his penis are like attendants. But if he has no servants, he will suffer a loss, because of the useless elimination of seed. I know of a slave who dreamt that he stroked his master's penis, and he became the companion and attendant of his children, for in his hands he held his master's penis, which is the symbol of his children. Then again, I know of a slave who dreamt that his penis was stroked and aroused by his master's hands. He was bound to a pillar and received many strokes and was, in this way, extended by his master.\n\nSo did those dreams really happen? The second one seems pretty implausible to me as it's basically just a joke. But given that the guy's job was to have people tell him their dreams, I would imagine that at least some of his examples are based on real anecdotes. Still, it's pretty hard to say.\n\nAnyway, because it's all good stuff, here are some more choice quotations:\n\n > To have sexual intercourse with one's son, if he is already a grown man and is living abroad, is auspicious. For the dream signifies that they will be reunited and live with one another because of the word 'intercourse'. But if the son is not far away and is living with his father, it is inauspicious. For they must separate because intercourse generally takes place between men when they are not face to face. But to be forcibly possessed by one's son signifies that the dreamer will be injured by his son but also that his son will regret the injury.\n\n...\n\n > In my experience, however, the worst dream by far is one in which the dreamer practises fellatio with his mother. For this signifies to the dreamer the death of children, the loss of property, and grave illness. I know of a man who, after this dream, lost his penis. For it was understandable that he was punished in the part of the body with which he had sinned. \n\n...\n\n > If a person dreams that he is having sexual intercourse with any animal whatsoever and that he himself is doing the mounting, he will derive benefits from a person or thing that corresponds to the animal. We shall give an account of these in the sections on hunting and animals. But if a man dreams that he has been mounted by the animal, he will endure terrible acts of violence. Many men, moreover, have died after this dream. So much, then, for sexual intercourse.\n\n\n--------\n**Source:** *Theatre of Sleep: An Anthology of Literary Dreams*, ed. Guido Almansi and Claude Beguin which is a great book to have beside your bed for those insomniac nights. Apologies for the NSFW nature of the extracts above, but the only chapter of Oneirocritica they include is the sex one!", "Would the Bible count as a legitimate source? The earliest dream I can think of would be the one Jacob had in [Genesis 28:10-19](_URL_0_), in which he dreamt of a ladder leading to heaven. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+28%3A10-19&amp;version=NIV" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c4mav6t" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Sport is one of my main interests although unfortunately I lean towards soccer. However, I remembered that I had read two articles about baseball and Japan a few years ago. The first was about Japanese-American relations through baseball and the second was about baseball in Taiwan under Japanese occupation.\n\nThe author of the first article, Sayuri Guthrie-Shimizu just released a book on this exact topic titled \"Transpacific Field of Dreams: Baseball in U.S.-Japanese Relations, 1872-1952\" which looks wonderful. \n\nThe citations for the two articles are:\n\nGuthrie-Shimizu, Sayuri. \"For Love of the Game: Baseball in Early U.S.-Japanese Encounters and the Rise of a Transnational Sporting Fraternity.\" Diplomatic History 28, No. 5 (2004):637-662.\n\nLin, Chien-Yu and Ping-Chao Lee. \"Sport as a Medium of National Resistance: Politics and Baseball in Taiwan during Japanese Colonialism, 1895–1945.\" The International Journal of the History of Sport 24, No. 3 (2007):319 –337\n\nIf you don't have access to either journal I will be happy to find a way to upload them as PDFs for you. \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e2w0gmu" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I've written about Nelson here a few times before, and about the British navy more generally several more times besides that. \n\nI would say that a short answer to your question is that Nelson's example was important to the British navy during the Napoleonic period -- after all, the war dragged on for 10 more years after Nelson's great victory and his death at Trafalgar -- but that he was, though unquestionably gifted, the product of a system in which it was possible for a Norfolk parson's son to become the most celebrated admiral of his age. \n\nI wrote [here](_URL_5_) about how Nelson's tactics worked at Trafalgar, and [here](_URL_3_) about his victory at the Nile. (No one ever asks about Copenhagen, for some reason.) \n\nI'll excerpt and re-edit from those a bit down below, but I want also to make the point that Nelson's fleet succeeded in both those battles because the captains subordinate to him understood his battle plan, and had the ability to use their own initiative rather than sticking to a rigid tactical plan imposed from above. At the Nile, for example, Thomas Foley, captain of *HMS Goliath*, noticed that there was room between the anchored French ships and the shoal water to the west, and passed down the west side of the French line *on his own initiative*, without waiting for orders. That allowed the French to be doubled up and beaten in conformance to Nelson's stated wish to engage the enemy at 2:1 or 3:1 odds whenever possible. Foley and his crew were also products of a British naval tradition that hearkened back to the Armada and the Anglo-Dutch wars, but had undergone a major transformation starting in the late 1750s, spurred in part by the [trial and execution of John Byng for cowardice](_URL_2_). \n\nAnyhow, to get to the question about Nelson's personal contribution to the RN, [this answer](_URL_5_) I think does a good job of explaining some of the differences between the RN and his command style, versus the French and Spanish navies of the time. To quote from that a bit, with some light editing: \n\n > * Nelson's crews and officers were far more experienced than the allied crews and officers, having spent most of their time at sea rather than under blockade. The officers and men had drilled endlessly and used their time on blockade or other duty to perfect sailing evolutions and, to an extent, gunnery, and they were used to working as teams. Conversely, the allied fleet was made up generally of inexperienced sailors, and morale was low. \n\n > * Nelson's tactics assumed that a single British ship could hold its own for a period of time even under enemy fire until other ships could come to its aid. This proved to be true during the battle, as swarms of smaller British ships overpowered enormous French and Spanish first-rates (that is, ships with more than 100 guns) even after the first ship to get there had been damaged.\n\n > * Nelson knew that his captains could be trusted to use their own initiative, while the French and Spanish would hesitate to take the initiative. In a later period of military history, we'd call this getting inside their command and control loop — while the allied captains were thinking, the British captains were doing. \n\n > * British ships tended to fire faster than French and Spanish ships, and would, after an initial broadside or two, essentially let divisions or gunners fire at their own speeds, as quickly as guns could be reloaded, rather than relying on the entire side of the ship to reload before firing a broadside. That let them get more iron on the target more quickly, rather than having their firing cycle constrained by the slowest guns. \n\n > * British doctrine, over the course of the Napoleonic period, had evolved to emphasize the goal of firing directly into the hulls of enemy ships, rather than firing at the rigging or masts of enemy ships. (In video games this is the difference between round-shot and chain-shot, although that oversimplifies things a bit.) This is sometimes summed up as “kill the men, kill the ship.” \n\n > * Conversely, the French were used to firing at rigging. This reflects to an extent the different war aims of each fleet; the French were generally attempting to avoid battle (not because they were cowards — let’s be clear on this) because their fleet was often being used to escort troops or convoys for other missions. The British, on the other hand, reasoned that the enemy fleet actually functioned as its strategic center of gravity, and destroying the enemy fleet meant that the transports, grain ships, etc. could be snapped up at leisure.\n\nI also want to quote a bit from [this answer](_URL_3_): \n\n > Nelson was not a great seaman (he was often seasick, and had questionable skills as a sailor). Nor was he modest or self-effacing; on the contrary, he actively worked to cultivate a cult of personality around himself. He could be quite trivial and often rude to people he thought didn't matter. \n\n > On the other hand, he was a superb leader of men and a decent judge of character; he seems to have made it a point to get to know his captains not only to impress upon them his goals and desires but also to take the measure of the men and to know whom he could trust and not trust. He managed some difficult campaigns with skill (particularly the siege and eventual conquest of Malta, with the aid of allies) and had an uncanny skill at what today we'd call \"situational awareness,\" which he displayed both at St. Vincent and at Copenhagen. \n\n > He also seems to have had that spark of charisma that is hard to define no matter how many leadership seminars one attends; he could be utterly charming and laser-focused on a person in a moment, and seemed to inspire intense personal loyalty. This is an account of Arthur Wellesley meeting Nelson before Trafalgar: \n\n > > \"Why,\" said the Duke, \"I am not surprised at such instances, for Lord Nelson was, in different circumstances, two quite different men, as I myself can vouch, though I only saw him once in my life, and for, perhaps, an hour.\n\n > > \"It was soon after I returned from India. I went to the Colonial Office in Downing Street, and there I was shown into a little waiting-room on the right hand, where I found, also waiting to see the Secretary of State, a gentleman whom, from his likeness to his pictures and the loss of an arm, I immediately recognized as Lord Nelson.\n\n > > \"He could not know who I was, but he entered at once into conversation with me, if I can call it conversation, for it was almost all on his side, and all about himself, and in really a style so vain and so silly as to surprise and almost disgust me. I suppose something that I happened to say may have made him guess that I was somebody, and he went out of the room for a moment, I have no doubt to ask the office-keeper who I was, for when he came back he was altogether a different man, both in manner and matter. All that I had thought a charlatan style had vanished, and he talked of the state of this country and of the aspect and probabilities of affairs on the Continent with a good sense, and a knowledge of subjects both at home and abroad that surprised me equally and more agreeably than the first part of our interview had done; in fact, he talked like an officer and a stateman.\n\n > > \"The Secretary of State kept us long waiting, and certainly for the last half or three quarters of an hour I don't know that I ever had a conversation that interested me more. Now, if the Secretary of State had been punctual, and admitted Lord Nelson in the first quarter of an hour, I should have had the same impression of a light and trivial character that other people have had, but luckily I saw enough to be satisfied that he was really a very superior man; but certainly a more sudden and complete metamorphosis I never saw.\"\n\nI'm bumping up on the comment limit here, but I do want to drop in two other answers that I wrote about the officers (commissioned and warrant) in the RN and their promotion: \n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_4_\n\nHopefully that will get you started with some good information. Please let me know if you have follow up questions!\n\n**Edit**: also, my flair profile has a lot more Royal Navy stuff in it: _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/profiles/jschooltiger", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2b42u0/during_the_napoleonic_wars_how_young_were_naval/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2tynsx/how_much_of_an_effect_did_john_byngs_execution/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3jh7og/why_was_horatio_nelson_able_to_succeed_so/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/29f3s7/how_does_the_royal_navys_organisation_command/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ebdk5/how_did_nelsons_tactics_work_at_trafalgar/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dln88t2" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "John Dickie's *Cosa Nostra* is a good, accessible, reliable history of the Mafia from its earliest days which nonetheless has a strong focus on the period you are interested in. \n\nDickie is Professor of Italian Studies at University College London and so has a firm grasp of the Italian sources and their contexts, unlike many writers on the Mafia in English. The book has a strong narrative and is an easy and compelling read." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ch74ig1", "ch7fkme", "ch7sn6a" ], "score": [ 308, 13, 6 ], "text": [ "Yes they did! Japanese propaganda didn't focus nearly as much (at least not as much as the Americans) on as portraying their enemies as subhuman animals. Rather Japanese propaganda focused heavily on talking up the Japanese soldiers' role as a liberator who would free Asia from the clutches of Imperialists. Pamphlets handed out by the Japanese high command talked up the Japanese \"warrior spirit\" and contrasted them sharply with Western soldiers who were portrayed as \"weak and decadent\". \n\nThat figures heavily into the Japanese caricature of the West. The Western people were thought of as misled puppets, who were corrupt and decadent, who's goal was to oppress the various peoples of Asia. Buzzwords like \"Imperialism\" and \"Liberator\" figured heavily into Japanese propaganda. \n\nThey did have propaganda that made fun of the Americans appearance (they were said to look like Apes), for example [here](_URL_3_roosevelt/) is a caricature of Roosevelt. Notice the exaggerated hair and mongoloid look. [Here](_URL_2_) is another poster poking fun at Churchill, again with the same features as Roosevelt. \n\nThe Japanese also employed propaganda that targeted the minor nations fighting with the Americans. Usually this propaganda depicted the Americans and British as taking advantage of the nations in question and using them to fight an Imperialist war of aggression. It also tried to make the soldiers long for home, which referenced the Japanese belief that the Western nations had no stomach for a fight and that their soldiers would eventually give up fighting the \"Morally superior Japanese\".\n\nFor example [here](_URL_3_that-american-war-mongers-may-indulge-in-this/) is a post targeting Australia; [here](_URL_3_japanese-propaganda-for-australian-troops-06/) is another one. \n\nThe ones targeting British Indian troops, were a bit different and tried to emphasize a common brother hood between India and Japan.\n\n[Example](_URL_1_), [another one](_URL_0_) making reference to the Bengal Famine.\n\nSo as you can see the Japanese propaganda focused on portraying their enemies as weak willed, decadent, misled imperialists. Compared with the American posters which focused more on dehumanizing the Japanese. \n\nThis [site](_URL_3_) has a collection of posters from various nations.\n\nAnd [this](_URL_4_) essay on propaganda is really well done. ", "For a much more uncommon form of Japanese propaganda, watch *Momotaro's Divine Sea Warriors*. The [first full-length Japanese animated movie](_URL_0_) does the whole \"Liberator from White Imperalism\" thing, particularly during the battle scenes towards the end.", "There is an excellent book on this subject called [War Without Mercy](_URL_3_), that is a widely used text on the subject. \n\nThe Japanese widely tried to portray Europeans and the Americans as exploitative, fat (lazy), and cowardly.\n\n[Here's a good illustration that shows the Allies trying to force their subjects to fight for them](_URL_1_).\n\n[Here's a picture showing American whites exploiting black soldiers](_URL_2_). The Japanese strongly tried to focus on the racial treatment and history of the Americans to divide the black service members from their white fellows.\n\n[They tried to portray American's as rapists and oversexed](_URL_0_).\n\nI distinctly recall one from the book, where it shows a boxing match where white American's are watching Japan fight Chaing Kai-Shek who is being beaten. Churchill and Roosevelt step in to save him and are easily beaten by the Japanese boxer, while the white stare on in shock in horror, while black audience members cheer.\n\nWhen I get home for lunch, I'll try to get some photos of the illustrations inside the book I listed above.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://digitalpostercollection.com/propaganda/1939-1945-world-war-ii/japan/japanese-propaganda-targeting-indian-troops-09/", "http://digitalpostercollection.com/propaganda/1939-1945-world-war-ii/japan/japanese-propaganda-targeting-indian-troops-05/", "http://digitalpostercollection.com/propaganda/1939-1945-world-war-ii/japan/japanese-propaganda-targeting-indian-troops-32/", "http://digitalpostercollection.com/propaganda/1939-1945-world-war-ii/japan/", "https://www.msu.edu/~navarro6/srop.html", "http://digitalpostercollection.com/propaganda/1939-1945-world-war-ii/japan/that-american-war-mongers-may-indulge-in-this/", "http://digitalpostercollection.com/propaganda/1939-1945-world-war-ii/japan/roosevelt/", "http://digitalpostercollection.com/propaganda/1939-1945-world-war-ii/japan/japanese-propaganda-for-australian-troops-06/" ], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ne-0e6P4jo" ], [ "http://www.psywarrior.com/JapanPSYOPWW2b.html", "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Japanese_propaganda_leaflet_India.jpg", "http://www.psywarrior.com/JapanPSYOPWW2a.html", "http://www.amazon.com/War-Without-Mercy-Power-Pacific/dp/0394751728" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dy914pe", "dy916j5", "dy91u0m" ], "score": [ 11, 4, 80 ], "text": [ "I've written a post [here](_URL_1_) ([this](_URL_2_) and [this](_URL_0_) get into some of the economics of it) attempting to explain how the so called \"Golden Age of Piracy\" ended in the Caribbean in the early 18th century and Caribbean piracy virtually ceased after that for the rest of the 18th century. However, Caribbean piracy did once again see a resurgence in the early 19th century from about the 1810s to early 1830s following the end of the Napoleonic Wars and various Latin American wars of independence, but this was never quite as big and grandiose it was in the early 18th century following the Spanish War of Succession. This wave of piracy came to an end for similar reasons as it had a century before when government navies aggressively hunted them down but I don't know as much about that. So I hope my link at least partially answers this question. ", "This is my first time responding, but also the first time I have seen a topic I am knowledgeable about. I hope this gives some insight into the situation, and please feel free to ask questions!\n\n \nThe golden age of piracy occurred around 1690-1760. This period of time made the West Indies (the Caribbean) the most profitable yet still distant from Europe. Spain controlled Central America, France had the Louisiana Area (think Louisiana Purchase), Denmark was in South America as was Portugal. England control the eastern seaboard and some of the various Caribbean islands (Herman Moll Map of Indies).\n\n\nDuring this period land itself meant wealth, so every portion of land that could be seized and held was of importance. Add into this all the unsullied forests and you have a treasure trove sitting across the ocean that any county in Europe would kill for, literally (Hattendorf Maritime history Vol 1 & 2).\n\n\nThe knowledge of reaching the Indies was mostly just a sea captain using the currents and “dead reckoning” to cross the Atlantic and try to get to the Caribbean to trade the lumber, slaves, tools, colony provision etc. The more that the countries began to invest into these colonies and the more they received home, the greater value of these investments. This obviously led to the need to protect them better from Pirates, or privateers of other nations. \n\n\nThe English crown offered a bounty in 1714 to the person would go devise an accurate sea clock to keep the time while at sea, and thus make traveling across the Atlantic safer, and swifter for naval ships. When this finally did occur (though not to the satisfaction of the bounty’s keeper yet) Large naval forces crossed the sea for more frequently and were able to begin enforcing the Laws of the sea. (Sobel’s Longitude)\n\n\nWith all the extra security, increase military presence, and the ability to simply execute pirates granted by the Admiralty courts, Piracy was dealt with quickly and efficiently. Many of the more famous pirates were captured and executed by the 1720s’. \n\nI strongly recommend A General History of Pyrates written in 1724 (found free here: _URL_0_)\n", "I assume you’re referring to the Golden Age of Piracy, since worldwide piracy never really ended, only changed. The Golden Age lasted approximately from the mid-1600s to about the 1720s, during which time piracy was so common that many of its most prominent figures became celebrities, and still are to some degree—Blackbeard, Calico Jack, Mary Read, Anne Bonny, Sam Bellamy...\n\nThe decline of piracy is closely linked to factors of its rise, namely, a cocktail of European politics, colonial wealth, and geographic isolation. There was no other place and time in world history like the Caribbean in the mid-seventeenth to mid-eighteenth centuries. At the start of the period, practically the entire New World was under the complete authority of the Spanish crown, to whom it had been granted after the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494. Since then, the Spanish had conquered two great indigenous empires and pressed the populations into service extracting precious metals like silver at the Incan mine at Potosi, and transporting the bullion back across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to enrich the empire in hulking treasure galleons. Because their primary goal was maximum extraction at the lowest possible cost, and because they were essentially the only game in town, the Spanish didn’t really bother to fortify the towns that punctuated the overland routes or patrol the thousands of islands and keys in the Caribbean. On top of that, the galleons sailing in and and out of these ports followed established routes on regular schedules. The routes were so well-traveled by the Spanish that it gave rise to the term the Spanish Main. These factors--enormous wealth traveling largely unprotected over great distances across isolated routes--made the Caribbean ideal hunting grounds.\n\nAs Spain started to flaunt this new wealth (and by “flaunt” I should probably say “hemorrhage,” because they were also basically constantly at war with the other European powers), the French and English governments wanted to deal a blow to their rival and also maybe get a piece of the action. The respective crowns begin issuing the infamous “letters of marque” to enterprising sailors authorizing them to attack merchant and navy ships sailing under the banner of hostile nations with the condition that a portion of captured plunder be shared with the authorizing country. These privateers, as they were known, were basically state-sponsored pirates, and included the likes of William Kidd (who mostly operated in the Indian Ocean) and, especially, Woodes Rogers (remember that name) and Henry Morgan. As a young man, Morgan was part of the British expedition that captured Jamaica, which provided a foothold for the privateers smack in the middle of the Caribbean, within striking distance of the primary treasure routes. Over the course of his career, Morgan lead several successful raids on Spanish treasure ports in Central America, in particular Portobelo in Panama. His exploits earned him a lieutenant-governorship in Jamaica. During his tenure, the capital city in Jamaica, Port Royal, played host to privateers and pirates alike, blurring the line between licit and illicit sea raids in the Caribbean.\n\nAll during this time, the Spanish complained of the privateers, not only because they were picking Spanish pockets but, operating in such a remote part of the world with essentially no oversight by their authorizing countries, things turned dark. One French privateer named L’Olonnais, for example, was known for his cruelty, and at least once sliced a captured Spaniard’s stomach, nailed his guts to the deck of his ship, and forced him to dance until he eviscerated himself. As barbaric as the time was, all “civilized” authorities generally agreed on certain rules of military engagement, and the privateers existed wholly outside those rules. The French and British usually just paid lip service to the Spanish, though, making nominal concessions. Morgan, for example, was ordered back to London for his raid on Portobelo, during which his men committed atrocities in the course of razing the town, but there he caroused and schmoozed his way through a sham hearing before returning to the West Indies with, of all things, his royal appointment in Jamaica.\n\nThis was the state of things until about the end of the War of the Spanish Succession in the early eighteenth century, when the major European powers generally agreed to conclude hostilities with one another. As a result, their governments stopped issuing letters of marque and started treating those privateers as true pirates, men outside the law. By this point, though, piracy had become a fact of life in the Caribbean, and the privateers who had made a living—as well as untold swarms of navy sailors who had fought in the war but were now unemployed—were not about to give it up. \n\nIn 1694, the main pirate haunt of Port Royal had been cast into the sea by an earthquake, so the pirates had unofficially chosen a new place to retreat, refit, and spend the fruits of their ill-gotten gains: Nassau, on New Providence Island in the Bahamas. The pirates who holed up here went by the name of the Brethren of the Coast, a loose affiliation of pirates including many of the names I mentioned at the top. If you’ve ever heard of a pirate republic, this was it.\n\nAt this point, Britain had transitioned from living off the table scraps of the Spanish Empire to establishing its own profitable colonies in the Americas, not just in the Caribbean but on the eastern coast of North America. The lucrative trading network they had established was now being threatened by the pirates, who were by now regularly raiding merchant ships and towns in the Caribbean as well as up and down the Eastern Seaboard as far north as Maine and Newfoundland. The men the crown had profited from were now cutting into their own profits, and so it was now in their interest to see it ended. At first they offered pardons to those who agreed to give up the piratical life, and this certainly cut into the buccaneers' ranks. But again, the reality of being a sailor in the eighteenth century made living at the edge of civilization preferable: what little legal work there was to go around either on merchant ships or in the navy was hard, bad paying, and demeaning. So many pirates, including Calico Jack Rackham and Charles Vane, would take pardons to escape punishment on capture only to turn around and run off back to the pirate haven in Nassau.\n\nWhen the pardons proved ineffective to quash piracy, the British looked to cut off the insurrection at its head, turning to one man who had a fair bit of experience in the privateering life: Captain Woodes Rogers. Rodgers was one of a few privateers who considered himself to be a patriot, refusing to attack any ship belonging to Britain or its allies. The British admiralty selected Rodgers to lead a convoy of ships to retake Nassau from the pirates by any means. A few accepted pardons, including Captain Benjamin Hornigold, who turned to pirate hunting himself. But a few pirates, including Jack Rackham, Read, Bonny, Blackbeard, and Sam Bellamy, the last two powerful captains in command of fleets in their own right, slipped off into open waters. Their refusal to accept the pardons made them enemies of the crown. Nassau, the last refuge of pirates in the Caribbean, fell to civilization. \n\nFrom then on, the pirates lived hunted lives. Scattered and without the support of a base of operations, they each met their ends. In 1717, Sam Bellamy and his ship the Whydah wrecked in a storm off the coast of Massachusetts. In 1718, Blackbeard was cruising off the coast of his old hunting grounds in Ocracoke, North Carolina, when he was attacked by navy vessels under the command of Lieutenant Robert Maynard. Blackbeard died in the fighting, and his crew surrendered. Maynard hung the old pirate’s head by the bowsprit of his ship as a prize. In 1720, Rackham, Bonny, and Read were captured off the coast of Jamaica after their crews captured a prize and got roaring drunk. Rackham was tried and executed, while Read and Bonny were convicted, but \"plead their bellies\" and were offered a stay because they were pregnant. Read died from illness while in prison, and Bonny faded into obscurity.\n\nThe pirates existed only in a brief window of time when the circumstances of history were right. It’s ironic that the same politics of empire that fueled their rise eventually spelled their demise, bolstered by their governments until it was politically or commercially inconvenient, then disowned and hunted across an open ocean that became less open over time.\n\nSources:\nEmpire of Blue Water, Stephen Talty\nPirate Hunter of the Caribbean, David Cordingly\nThe Republic of Pirates, Colin Woodard\nUnder the Black Flag, David Cordingly\n\nEdit: Thanks for the gold! Hopefully I can find a way down to the Bahamas to spend it... Cheers. Also, a few edits to the original (because Captain Morgan did not raid a portobello mushroom but the Spanish treasure port of Portobelo)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7d0rnq/did_any_pirates_ever_set_up_a_protection_racket/dq15x6p/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/70hn6p/were_there_if_at_all_any_piracy_going_on_in_the/dn3uhgc/?context=3", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/89finh/have_there_ever_been_a_situation_where_a_booming/dxhfsg5/" ], [ "https://www.gutenberg.org/files/40580/40580-h/40580-h.htm" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7uabuf" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "If you haven't already, you really need to read Luther's [95 Theses](_URL_0_) that he nailed to the door of the Catholic Church. The accusations he makes there are where you are going to find good religious evidence against the Pope. I draw specific attention to 42 & 43--the Catholic Church required you to pay for your sins using money, something that Luther claimed was against the spirit of the Bible, so you could maybe make the Pope out as some sort of scam artist.\n\nIf you're ok with doing some reading (not a whole ton, but more than a few pages), you might check you the Augsburg Confession and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (keep in mind that apology at this time meant something closer to \"retort\"). The Augsburg Confessions are essentially Martin Luther presenting the case for this point of view to the Imperial Diet. Since it was for the viewing of the Diet, it is a little calmer than other Lutheran writings.\n\nJust to make you more aware of the case against you--the protestant reformation did produce some stuff that was pretty vile regarding the Catholic church. [Here](_URL_1_) is a fun comic from the time depicting some demons literally shitting out monks.\n\nYou might be able to find some further help at /r/Christianity. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/95theses.htm", "http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20111217_MLP004_0.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cg4d2nx" ], "score": [ 13 ], "text": [ "Most African-American migration to California was during World War II, lured by employment opportunities in the shipyards and related defense plants. It's sometimes called [The Second Great Migration,](_URL_0_) by comparison with The Great Migration to northern industrial cities that began during the First World War. [Some details regarding migration to LA.](_URL_1_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.inmotionaame.org/print.cfm;jsessionid=f830575141393800685515?migration=9&amp;bhcp=1", "http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/columns/portraits/the-great-migration-creating-a-new-black-identity.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d73w88l" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "While we could classify the Jacobins, Montagnards, and Cordeliers as \"leftist\" in today's terminology, the reality is that there was intense conflict among those groups to legitimize their vision of the Revolution. After the execution of Louis, these were rivals, not like-minded groups working towards a common vision. The Mountain rode a tidal wave of popular sentiment to defeat the Girondists, but it's impossible to get that genie back in the bottle. A constant state of revolution requires a constant supply of counter-revolutionary enemies to sate its hunger, and with the Girondists removed, it was incumbent upon everyone to find (and point out) the next-least-radical amongst them.\n\nOn 25 June 1793, Roux denounced the Jacobins, who he had just supported in their fight against the Girondins a few weeks prior, for not going far enough by outlawing speculation and hoarding. The narrative of betraying the Revolution through half-measures is a common theme during this period. Robespierre, of course, responded to this attack with an attack of his own, tying Roux to France's foreign enemies.\n\nOn July 4 (and I'm skipping some things--events moved very quickly in Revolutionary France), Marat attacked Roux's character in *Publiciste*, further isolating Roux's influence and access. This lead to further accusations and a trial.\n\nSlavan, Morris. \"Jacques Roux: A Victim of Vilification.\" *French Historical Studies* 3, no. 4 (1964), 525-537.\n\nHanson, Paul. *The Jacobin Republic Under Fire*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dxxtpa4", "dxy86il" ], "score": [ 399, 166 ], "text": [ "Hello! I asked this question a few years ago and got [some terrific responses!](_URL_0_) ", "Here is a slightly modified version of an answer I wrote on r/history a few months ago:\n\nFirst and foremost, there are multiple instances in Indian history where an entity based in North India was able to project its power into the south, and also vice versa. The early Company Raj, based at Calcutta in Bengal, was able to project power both westward into the interior Gangetic plain and southward into the Northern Circars and Carnatic coast of modern-day Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. British Indian armies [marched along the breadth of India from South India to Bengal](_URL_3_) long before the introduction of the railroad. Pretty much the same route was also taken by the Guptas some 1400 years before, whose armies (if we are to believe Samudragupta's Allahabad pillar inscription, especially [Lines 19-20](_URL_1_)) advanced as far as Kanchi in Tamil Nadu, as well as by the Cholas, as described in Tamil sources like the *Kalingattuparani*. The armies of the Delhi Sultanate during the early 14th century overran virtually all of South India, as did the Mughal armies during the late 17th century.\n\nThe main difficulty in creating a pan-Indian empire was not projecting power from the Gangetic plains into South India, as there were no serious geographic obstacles separating the two macro-regions. The Vindhyas and Ghats were never impassable like the Himalayas, and did not feature sleet or snowstorms (the bane of many pre-modern armies) as in the Hindu Kush mountains. If an empire based in North India wanted to exercise domination over South India, the major obstacles it faced were not primarily geographical but rather political in nature, especially the inability of many historical Indian states (both Hindu and Muslim) to effectively control their own subordinates and maintain territorial cohesion. For instance, just a few years after the Delhi Sultanate invaded and conquered the Deccan and South India, the governor of Madurai in southern Tamil Nadu, Jalaluddin Ahsan Khan, declared independence from the Delhi Sultanate and established his own independent state ([Madurai Sultanate](_URL_0_)). The governor of the Deccan also declared his own independent sultanate (the [Bahmani Sultanate](_URL_2_)) in 1347, and as the Delhi Sultanate continued to weaken, independent sultanates also appeared in many other regions such as Bengal, Gujarat, Malwa, and Jaunpur, so it wasn't simply an issue with South India. Likewise, the later Mughal empire was able to temporarily conquer almost the whole of South India, only for the empire to disintegrate soon after Aurangzeb's death in 1707 with the various *nawabs* (governors) becoming de facto independent rulers, not just in South India but also in provinces like Awadh in the Gangetic plain. It was the British who finally ended this pattern in the 19th century by introducing centralized, bureaucratic governance of the entire subcontinent for the first time in its history, with every district of British India being governed by a salaried civil bureaucrat (District Collector) rather than by what amounted to a bunch of miniature kings with their own private armies who were prone to revolting at any time.\n\nTo summarize, there was nothing unique about South India that prevented empires based in North India from invading and conquering it, which they did several times throughout history. The problem was actually keeping it bound to the central government (in Delhi or wherever) after the initial conquest, and here North Indian empires failed because of underlying issues in their own political system. North Indian regimes encountered these same issues outside of South India as well, but they were amplified in South India due to its greater distance from the central authority. **In other words, geography *aggravated* underlying problems that made it nigh impossible for a stable pan-Indian empire to exist prior to the British Raj, but geography itself was not the decisive inhibiting factor.** If it was, then the British in the 18th and early 19th centuries (before modern technologies like the railroad and telegraph allowed central governments to greatly overcome traditional limitations of space and time) should have failed just like all of the previous regimes that tried to rule India." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://redd.it/3xpx32" ], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madurai_Sultanate", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allahabad_pillar#Samudragupta_inscriptions", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahmani_Sultanate", "https://books.google.com/books?id=h_w2AQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA36&amp;dq=%22the+greater+portion+by+land,+marching+through+Cuttack%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj75YfoiNbaAhWL8oMKHTJ-BwIQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&amp;q=%22the%20greater%20portion%20by%20land%2C%20marching%20through%20Cuttack%22&amp;f=false" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "djshlpy" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Yes, there are many historical records and strong evidence on both sides that verify this. But they were not just aware of each other, they in fact sought to actively trade with one another, which is how the Silk Road came about. The vast distance between the Romans and the Chinese meant direct trade was impossible, so the Silk Road came about as an indirect, looping trade network. \n\nSo when were the Roman Empire and Ancient China aware of each other? Evidence shows that first contact can be traced back to the Han Dynasty (206 BC–220 AD). Interestingly, while both sides knew the other lay across a vast distance, direct contact was either never established or has yet to be proven. The distance between the two was a large stretch of land consisting of basically the entirety of India and large parts of the Middle East. The Indian kingdoms, and the Parthian Empire that was regnant in the Middle East at the time, are said to have purposely inhibited contact between China and Rome so they could maintain a monopoly on the lucrative Silk Road trade between the two (direct trade between the two would remove the need for an intermediary like the Parthians). \n\nThe Chinese, at least, did try to establish direct contact though. Gan Ying was a Han envoy sent on a mission to Rome, but the furthest west that he made it was either the Persian Gulf, the Black Sea, or perhaps the Mediterranean's southwestern coastline (this is unclear; sources only translate into 'the western sea', meaning it could be any of the three, but it is unlikely to be the Mediterranean due to Rome's influence over the region meaning Gan Ying could have easily gone to Rome if he had reached the Mediterranean coastline). It is theorized that the Parthians dissuaded Gan Ying from going any further west, citing dangers of travel + a lengthy return journey if the winds were unfavorable, but it is possible they did so upon learning of his purpose and wanted to restrict contact between Rome and China.\n\nStill, Gan Ying's failed journey to Rome didn't amount to nothing. He did gain valuable information about Rome, and knew, more or less, where Rome was, as his travels had brought him past the northern fringes of India into the Parthian Empire, where there was active trade with the Romans. He learned what he could in the Parthian Empire, and then left back home to China, where his findings were recorded in the Hou Han Shu (後漢書), or the Book of the Later Han. An important piece of evidence pointing to Chinese awareness of Rome (which is listed as \"Da Qin\", or Great Qin) is recorded within, as follows (translated): \n\n > (Da Qin)'s territory extends for several thousands of li. It has more than four hundred walled towns. There are several tens of smaller dependent kingdoms. The walls of the towns are made of stone. They have established postal relays at intervals, which are all plastered and whitewashed.\n\nHope this helped.\n\nSource: Fan, Ye (September 2003). Hill, John E., ed. \"The Western Regions according to the Hou Hanshu: The Xiyu juan, \"Chapter on the Western Regions\", from Hou Hanshu 88, Second Edition (Extensively revised with additional notes and appendices): Section 11 – The Kingdom of Daqin 大秦 (the Roman Empire)\". _URL_0_. Translated by John E. Hill. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "Depts.washington.edu" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cb4zacx", "cb4zd6d" ], "score": [ 74, 23 ], "text": [ "I suggest crossposting that thread to /r/badhistory.\n\n(Edit: never mind, [it's already there](_URL_4_).)\n\n(Double edit: [it's so bad it has two different threads there](_URL_1_).)\n\nThe short answer: no. \n\nThe slightly longer answer: certain mens' rights pseudohistorians (Warren Farrell being the prime mover here) like to argue that many, if not all, gender-stratified ancient societies were in fact female-dominated, and interpret history based on that assumption. This is the ['disposable male' theory](_URL_2_) (NSFW): the fact that men were required to face death in battle, labor in dangerous situations, and so on, while women were kept safe at home, supposedly demonstrates that these societies valued women over men and so worked for the benefit of women. If one actually looks at the law, philosophy, and rhetoric of gender in these societies, one recognizes what utter balderdash such a claim is. *Actual* sociologists, on the other hand, tend to argue that there are *no* truly matriarchal societies, and never have been, and that those societies - such as the Iroquois - who have been claimed as matriarchies are better understood as egalitarian.\n\nAn even longer answer dealing specifically with ancient Rome: it is true that Roman women had more power and influence than women in many other cultures. On the other hand, Roman men were *terrified* by the idea of female power and female domination, which is probably why their literature obsesses about it so much. And this greater power of women in Rome - which in no way reaches the level of a 'female-dominated society' - was a constant theme (albeit varying in intensity) in Roman culture from Republic to Christian Rome, and has nothing to do with its downfall.\n\nCitizen women in Rome, as in most societies of the time, were forbidden to vote or hold public office; unlike most societies of the time, they *could* own property and do business under their own name. While the specifics involve the complications of Roman marriage law, I'll just say that the chaotic period of the late Republic saw the rise of a class of elite women, wealthy widows, who were completely free citizens under the power of neither father nor husband - Clodia, sister of the notable P. Clodius Pulcher, immortalized as 'Lesbia' in the poems of Catullus, was a notorious member of this class - and the power and influence wielded by these women was looked at dubiously by elite men like Cicero, who leveraged the fear and disgust felt by more traditional Romans in his famous [Pro Caelio](_URL_3_). Under the Empire, the rhetorical trope of the destructive political woman simply shifted from the public sphere to the Imperial family; slandermongers like Suetonius emphasized the influence that Imperial wives and mothers and daughters had on Emperors - charges of incest and poisoning were common fare - in order to paint their subjects in a negative light. And I won't even get into Ovid and Martial and the politics of female eroticism...\n\n... but the point is that these Roman worries about female power are, as far as we can tell, more rhetorical than real. [In actuality](_URL_6_), noble women loaned out money, supported candidates, were patrons of the arts, funded temples and churches and so forth, without any negative consequences for the Roman state. In fact, I would argue, the truth of Rome's fall is the exact opposite of what your link suggests: at the time when the Western Roman Empire was entering its terminal stages, in the fifth century AD, the Christianization of Roman law was in fact *reducing* the independence and influence of women. \n\n(For the horribly complicated question of 'why Rome fell', [see the FAQ](_URL_5_) or peruse [The List](_URL_0_). Women had nothing to do with it.)\n\nI don't know of any work that specifically argues *against* the idea that Rome was female-dominated, since the claim is self-evidently risible, so I'll toss a couple of general works at you. My favorite basic book on women in the classical world is Pomeroy's *Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity*. Another good resource for women in the Roman Republic specifically is Hejduk's *Clodia: A Sourcebook*. ", " > matriarchal at some point, thus leading to their decline?\n\n\n > what role did female suffrage (or other similar social movements) have in terms of the downfall of societies?\n\nThe big problem with these questions is the logical leap you are making, that a transition to matriarchy equals decline. Why do you assume this? For a historian to seriously consider this idea, you'd have to come up with some logical reason why that might be. \n\nTo answer your question, my guess is no, based on a couple things:\n\nFirst of all, there hasn't been a single society in history with state-level complexity that has been matriarchal. Rome and Prussia, the two examples you gave, were both pretty typical in their patriarchy. \n\nIn Rome only men could be senators, the military was a completely masculine institution, and emperors were all male. Women were free citizens but they could not vote or hold any political office. Richer women had some degree of indirect power in that they could influence politics behind the scenes, or wield large amounts of wealth if they could wrest it from their husbands.\n\nIn Prussia I am less sure, but I do know that they, like other pre-modern European states, inherited many institutions and social habits from Rome, and from general Indo-European patriarchal society.\n\nFinally, consider that the idea of the downfall of a civilization is completely loaded with somewhat archaic assumptions about what civilization means, and what decline means. Human societies grow, shrink, and change in response to cultural and environmental influences, in a non-teleological way. So what do you mean by decline? A decrease in economic output? A loss of military power?\n\nCertainly in the case of Prussia, it's pretty silly to talk about them as a distinct \"civilization\" at all, given that they were a German state/kingdom existing from the late middle ages to the 19th century, when they joined with other German states into a unified German empire. You could in fact say that the end of singular Prussian rule made Prussia more powerful and globally influential.\n" ] }

[]

[ "http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1ih2ls/societies_that_turn_matriarchal_are_on_the_decline/" ]

[ [ "http://www.utexas.edu/courses/rome/210reasons.html", "http://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/1iiz00/a_golden_treasury_of_bad_history_results_when/", "http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminism-and-the-disposable-male/", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_Caelio", "http://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/1iixkb/thread_discussing_whether_societies_that_turn/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/antiquity#wiki_decline_of_the_roman_empire", "http://wsm.wsu.edu/s/index.php?id=13" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6jwion", "c6jyaur" ], "score": [ 4, 6 ], "text": [ "He had it toned down for younger readers. For instance, in the first book of the Egyptian mythology trilogy, Isis was already pregnant with Horus when Set/Seth locked Osiris up in a coffin. Few years later Set blows up the coffin in front of Isis and little Horus, reducing Osiris to a half-dead god. Then Horus grows up, defeats Set after seven years of fighting and claims the throne of Egypt.\n\nIn the real mythology, Set killed Osiris and chops him up, so Isis (not pregnant yet) goes treasure hunting for the body bits but unfortunately Osiris' dick was eaten up by a fish. So she created a dildo as replacement, brought Osiris back to life and they both did it. That resulted in Horus, and when Horus grew up he cummed onto Sets' favorite lettuce, which Set ate up unknowingly. Then Horus proved his dominance over Set by summoning his sperm from inside Set. And that was only a little episode in the eighty year long war, which also included a crappy boat race and Set losing one of his balls. Something definitely not for young teens.\n", "The short, simple answer: the books are very well researched, they represent the mythological characters reasonably faithfully, and they draw on a large range of tropes that are also found in ancient myths. They don't represent *stories* faithfully, because they're not telling the ancient stories: they're telling new stories, which happen to feature some characters from the ancient ones.\n\nThe longer, more complex answer is based on questioning the assumptions behind the question! See, the thing about mythology is there isn't really any such thing as being \"accurate\". For the ancients there was no one canonical version of a myth: in that respect it's very different from, say, the mythology of the modern Abrahamic religions.\n\nSo when modern people talk about an \"accurate\" rendition of a myth, I get the impression what they often mean is: \"faithful to a specific version that I learnt from an anthology of myths when I was younger\". Trouble is, *those* versions aren't terribly \"accurate\" if you want to compare them to some well-known ancient versions!\n\nTake an example. In the story of the twelve labours of Herakles, near the end Herakles goes off into the far west to fetch the apples of the Hesperides, which are guarded by a dragon named Ladon. On his way he meets Atlas, offers to hold up the sky for a bit while Atlas goes off to kill the dragon and bring back the apples, and then afterwards Herakles has to trick Atlas into taking back the sky. Right? That's the version of the story that Riordan imitates near the end of *The Titan's Curse*.\n\nTrouble is, although that seems to be the *oldest* version of the story, it definitely wasn't the *standard* version in ancient Greece. Almost all sources that tell the story have Herakles go and kill the dragon and fetch the apples himself! To find the version with Atlas, we have to go to a really boring encyclopaedia of myth that was compiled around the 1st century BCE, which is really fairly late as these things go. In spite of that, we know it's the older version because a scene from it featuring Atlas is shown in the decorations of a 6th-century-BCE temple.\n\nSo in a situation like that, how do you decide what's \"accurate\"? In the story of the Trojan War, is it \"accurate\" for Achilles to be killed by an arrow through the ankle - which in earlier periods is only reliably attested in pictorial sources, by the way! - while he's attacking the gates of Troy; or is it \"accurate\" to say that he was assassinated during a rendezvous at a temple outside Troy in the middle of the night? Both versions are well-attested. \"Accuracy\" just isn't a well-defined concept when it comes to myths." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d1vxp2b" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "The short answer is that after the death of Manuel I Komnenos in 1180, the Empire endured a long string of incompetent (or in the case of Andronikos I, deranged) rulers that severely undermined Byzantium's position as the first-rate superpower of the Mediterranean and the Near East. In the last years of Emperor Manuel's reign, there had been a series of setbacks in commercial and diplomatic ties with the Latins (specifically the Italian powers, most prominently Venice and Genoa) that made Byzantium look bad in the eyes of the West. Manuel, though I would argue an effective Emperor and loved by the Crusaders, unfortunately failed to secure the Imperial gains that he sought during his reign, and so Byzantium's reputation as a supremely powerful military force was somewhat lessened by the time of his death. Had there been an Emperor even half as effective as the previous three \"Good Komnenoi\" that succeeded to the throne in 1180 (and it's hard to say how well Alexios II Komnenos would have done had he been a little older when his father died), the Empire probably would have been fine. The military under Manuel was strong, and even though the Battle at Myriokephalon in 1176 was seen as a disaster, it does not seem that the Empire's back was utterly broken like it had been at Manzikert in 1071. A competent and lively Komnenian ruler following Manuel would certainly have been able to rally the Empire's forces into another offensive, which the Turks would have in all likelihood lost, restoring the Empire's reputation. The situation with the Latins could have easily been mended with prudent diplomacy and a show of military force, as it always had been. Unfortunately, it was not to be.\n\nAndronikos I, with his obvious anti-Latin policies, allowed the so-called Massacre of the Latins to occur, and purposely destroyed ties with the West at this crucial moment in the Empire's history; he signed Byzantium's death warrant. His paranoid attempts to secure power by persecuting and brutally murdering his political opponents made him hated both inside and outside the Empire. While his goal in decreasing the power of \"the powerful\" was probably the right course of action, it was done in so completely the wrong way that it ultimately mortally undermined the authority of the Imperial throne. Dissent, rioting, and rebellion became more and more common in these later years of the Empire. The Normans, seeing the weakness and instability of the Empire, invaded a second time (the first was in 1081), but there was no Alexios I Komnenos to stop them this time. They ravaged their way across Greece, essentially unopposed, and sacked Thessalonika. And still, Andronikos seems to have continued his grisly persecutions, ignoring the problems that befell the Empire. His death in 1185 at the hands of his own people came not a moment too soon. And yet, the damage had already been done -- ties with the West, steadily improved during the years of Alexios I, John II, and Manuel I, were destroyed in essentially 3 years. The Angeloi (the successors of the Komnenians), a weak and incompetent family of rulers shown to be unfit to rule the Empire not long after their accession, drove the Empire further into a death spiral in the next 20. The army was neglected, diplomacy was neglected or conducted appallingly poorly (especially during the events of the Third Crusade), and the Emperors continued to ignore the problems so continuously mounting against them, choosing instead to retreat to the pleasureful confines of the Imperial palace. \n\nWhen the Crusaders arrived in 1203, they found that the once-powerful Empire had essentially no navy, a less-than skeleton defense force defending the Theodosian Walls (which were, surprise, in disrepair), and having lost many Imperial lands to revolts (notably Cyprus and Bulgaria), it was obvious to the Latins that Constantinople was ripe for the taking, and a much more lucrative and easy to acquire prize than having to march into the death-trap of Turkish Anatolia or Ayyubid Syria, Egypt, or Palestine. Furthermore, the large Italian contingent of the Crusade (spurred on by the Doge Enrico Dandolo) sought revenge for the Massacre of the Latins under Andronikos I. It was only a matter of time before such incompetence (whether born through villainy or ignorance) was to be repayed in kind.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfun0yg" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "You might have better luck over at /r/HomeworkHelp." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6q6oyw", "c6q91f2" ], "score": [ 7, 3 ], "text": [ "In 500AD Jerusalem was still under the control of the Eastern Roman Empire and believe it or not there were fairly few Jews living in the city or its environs. The city was populated mostly by Christians from all over Europe and Asia who came as pilgrims. This was a time when Jerusalem was beginning to take it's central role as the holy city of Christianity. In 614 however, the Sassanid Empire, along with ~20,000 Jewish rebels recruited in Persia, captured the city and it became a Jew-administrated part of the Sassanid Empire. The war then turned against the Sassanids who were forced to abandon the city five years later. In reprisal the Byzantines massacred Jews all across Judea and those who were not killed fled abroad once again. The Byzantines didn't retain it for long; the Arabs conquered Judea and most of the Levant in 638AD.\n\nJerusalem switched hands between the various fluctuating Muslim states for the next few centuries. The Muslim rulers were more or less tolerant of the sizable Jewish and Christian minorities in the city and allowed Christian pilgrims safe passage to and from the city. Non-muslims were required to pay a tax called *jizya* in order to practice their religions unmolested. It stayed this way until 1099AD when the First Crusade captured the city. Immidiately after the city was taken virtually the entire population of the city was butchered, excepting the Eastern Christians who were expelled from the city by the Muslims before the siege. King Baldwin I founded the Kingdom of Jerusalem which encompassed most of Judea and Lebanon. Muslims, Christians, and Jews did co-habitate in the Kingdom of Jerusalem with varying degrees of success. In 1187AD Salah ad-Din, King of Egypt captured Jerusalem immediately sparking the Third Crusade to retake Jerusalem which ultimately failed.\n\nThere would be several more unsuccessful crusades and Jerusalem changed hangs a few times but eventually the Kingdom of Jerusalem was whittled down to nothing and absorbed into Egypt which was now controlled by the Mameluke slave-soldiers in 1291AD. It had become much as it was before the crusades: a multi-ethnic, multi-faith city and pilgrims of all faiths were allowed to come and go. That's the way it stayed until it was conquered by the Ottomans in 1517AD.\n\nI hope that answers your questions.", "Giddeshan provides a pretty solid answer but I wanted to throw out there that the massacre after the capture of Jerusalem during the first crusade is still subject to debate among medieval historians.\n\nNo one doubts that once it was captured there was a brutal sacking (as was typical), but the numbers, and frankly the descriptions given in the primary sources are pretty unreliable. There is a distinct possibility that the descriptions of blood that is ankle or knee deep are unrealistic and are more for rhetorical effect than an actual legitimate description. This is especially worth considering given that many of the main sources (such as Fulcher of Chartres) are not eye-witness accounts.\n\nJust something to keep in mind, and heck it might even make for an interesting point to discuss. \n\nEdit for grammar, for shame, me." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cobpu44" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Indeed, divorce did exist in Meiji Japan and well before it as well. \n\nIt's important to note that marriage was often a family based deal, much like it was in other parts of the world. \n\nMarriage was very much about two families joining and for people of status, wealth, or prestige, marriage might be decided by people other than the bridge & groom-to-be.\n\nThe importance of Meiji Japan on divorce is that it was making steps in equalizing marriage in that wives were now given more room to petition for divorce and it was now legally codified that husbands that refused to grant wives divorces on reasonable grounds \"violates her rights to personal freedom\". \n\nBy 1898, after learning about Western contemporary divorce law, Japanese legislatures drew up their own uniquely 'dual' system and entered it into the 1898 Civil Code.\n\nBefore we move on, I should lay down some context for the times. \n\nin the late 1800s, many Japanese intellectuals were all about reforming marriage, divorce, and the social as well as legal laws that governed how Japanese families interacted. The idea was a a more liberal, progressive family unit would encourage a more open, productive society.\n\nOf course, these liberal thinkers were considered fairly radical by the more conservative Japanese populace, and traditionalists/anti-Western thinkers opposed them whenever they could. \n\n**It's also important to note that divorce in Japan was essentially very free for much of the Edo Period.** The big exception is families of status, namely the nobility, the samurai, and the upper crust clans. For major families, only heads of the household could decide on marriage and consequently, divorce. \n\nBut for most people, divorce was fairly straight forward. The husband would draft a letter of divorce, 三行半 *mikudarihan*, and once handed to his wife and her family, bam divorce complete. *Only the husband could draft such a note.* \n\nNow while this may seem extremely patriarchal, with the wife liable to suffer greatly at the whims of the husband, in practice, it was a bit more balanced and nuanced, if still disadvantageous to the wife in that she could not personally initiate legal action. \n\nFor example, there are letters from the time period of a wife's family having the husband draft up divorce papers in advance and then keeping them, as a warning that if the wife was not treated well or if the husband failed to provide for her, the family would 'accept' the divorce and would retrieve their daughter. \n\nOther times, wives would 'force' their husbands to draft letters of divorce and threaten to use it if they behaved badly, for example, drunken behavior or adultery. \n\nAll this being said, men undoubtedly had the power legally speaking, and there are a multitude of cases of mistreatment or cruelty through divorce/threat of divorce against women. \n\nBut as we move into the Meiji Period, divorce goes through a tumultuous series of changes.\n\nThe Western culture at the time saw the relatively high rate of Japanese divorce as unsettling and embarrassing. Japanese reformers reacted to this by trying to effect a change that would make Japan a low divorce rate society.\n\nFor example, in 1887, Yokoyama Masao penned a book that was published by a magazine company that was Christian leaning, examined various reasons why Japan had a higher divorce rate than other contemporary modern nations, decrying that divorce should not be allowed so freely as it was, describing it to be an evil act. \n\nWhat's really interesting is that as Japan industrialized more, it's divorce rate *dropped*.\n\nEven as women labor independence, education, and marriage/divorce laws became more equal, allowing women legal powers, (all the things that *increased* divorce rates in Western nations) Japan's divorce rate came down. \n\nFor example, in 1930 sociologist Iwasaki Yasu published a study on marriage in Japan and detailed that in 1880, the divorce rate was 3.38 per 1000 and decreased to 1.53 in 1899, AFTER the reforms to marriage law and divorce law were made in the 1898 Civil Code. \n\nThis is an important point to make historically that Japan's various changes during the Meiji Period ***were not simply Westernizing***. Japan wasn't simply copying and pasting wholesale from Europeans and Americans. It was going through it's very own Industrial Revolution and rapid expansion of ideas, cultural thought, social changes, and religions. \n\nIf Japan was simply 'trying to became Western/American/European' many of their values would not be so different. \n\nMoving on!\n\nDivorce was divided into two distinct categories. \n\nOne was *mutual divorce*. \n\nThe other was *court intervened divorce*.\n\nIn court intervened divorce, there needed to be grounds for divorce, usually sexual infidelity, but in general divorce was fairly straight forward even when the government was involved. \n\nWomen were given more legal powers to enact divorce proceedings and was sometimes rewarded a settlement of her husband's property. Men had legal requirement to provide for their wives and not mistreat them or it would be grounds for divorce. This was all thanks to the legal codification in the 1898 Civil Code. \n\n**So why did divorce rates decrease in Meiji Japan?**\n\nWell there are a couple reasons. \n\nFor one thing, marriage was more focused on the household of the married couple, rather than the entire extended family. This meant that the groom's parents no longer had *as much* of a say. This was important because many divorces prior to the Meiji Period were from a groom's parents saying the new bride was incompetent, or simply not endearing and sent home with a divorce letter. \n\nThis is not to say that the extended family still did not play a massive role in marriage. Simply that marriage was refocused and legal restrictions made it more difficult to get a divorce on a whim. \n\nNext, adultery was officially grounds for divorce and no longer allowed by Japanese society. Prior to the Meiji Period, many men had mistresses or visited prostitutes. This was considered the norm and unavoidable by many parts of society, including upper class families. Marriage was not for love but for status, economy, and political reasons. \n\nBut in the Meiji Period, adultery was no longer allowed. This consequently strengthened marriages that would have otherwise probably ended in divorce with the new laws set in 1898. \n\nNext, economic independence of women meant that many women did not need to marry out of necessity any longer. Their families were not pressured into finding a husband that may or may not be a terrible person so that their daughter could be provided for. \n\nThis meant that marriages were often more carefully entered and more carefully maintained. Romantic marriages also became more common since women had a greater variety of choice and freedom in who they married than before. \n\nAnd to tack onto this, rural marriage practices declined greatly with the national standardization of marriage/divorce law. Reinforced by the economic and cultural changes of the Meiji Restoration + industrial revolution, many rural marriage practices, including relatively informal divorces, declined. \n\nI have to get back to work but let me know if you have anymore questions! Cheers!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d3i8haw" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "The founding of Rome by the twins Romulus/Remus is but one part of the legend, the other being the prehistory of the founding of Rome under Aeneas. The story of the founding can thus be divided into three parts: the coming of Aeneas to Latium after the fall of Troy, founding a settlement called Lavinum; the founding of Alba Longa thirty years later by Aeneas' son Ascanius/Julius (this bit became more popular under Julius Caesar since his house claimed to be the descendants of Julius); the founding of Rome itself three hundred years later by a descendant of Ascanius/Julius. This legend however did not always form one whole. Rather, they were both independent attempts at explaining the same phenomenon - the founding of Rome. The story of Romulus was Latin in origin, while the story of Aeneas was Greek. \n\nLater sources such as Servius and Dionysius of Halicarnassus allow us to trace a pattern in the growth of the legend. As far back as the 5th century BC, the founding of the city was later ascribed to an eponymous 'Romulus,' who was later associated with the god Quirinus. Likewise, in the fifth century, writers such as Agathocles of Cyzicum attributed the founding to another character named 'Rhomos.' Others, such as Hellacinus of Lesbos, states that Rome was founded by Aeneas, naming it after a Trojan woman called 'Rhome.' Timaeus of Tauromenium states that it was founded by a man called 'Rhomos,' who was the grandson of Aeneas. \n\nAt some point, the Greeks became aware of the Latin Romulus, who 'existed' simultaneously with the Greek 'Rhomos.' Alcimus the Sicilian states that Rhomos was the one who founded Rome, but was the grandson of Romulus, who was the son of Aeneas. Callias of Syracuse states that a trojan woman named Rhome married a Latin king and had a son named Romulus, who founded a city in her name. \n\nAs you can see these accounts are quite awkward and confused, and the Romans must have realised that they needed a concrete foundation myth to match those of other rival cities (such as Praeneste, whose foundation myth was traced to Ulysses and Caeculus). It is unclear when the Romans decided to fuse the Aeneas/Romulus traditions, however. The Greek writers did not account for the 400 year gap between the landing of Aeneas and the founding of Rome, so it is likely the Romans created the list of kings of Abla Long to bridge the gap. The Latins also transformed the awkward Greek 'Rhomos' to the Roman-Etruscan 'Remus,' and seized upon the Greek literary trope of twin rivalry (Romans loved to borrow all manner of Greek aspects; the twin rivalry thing can be seen in cases such as those of Pelias and Neleus or Castor and Pollux). It's unknown why Remus had to be killed - maybe as a symbolism of shaking off Etruscan influence, since Remus was an Etruscan name. Or maybe it was just to simplify the myth and concentrate the importance upon one dominant figure. \n\nRegardless, the greatest evidence of syncretism between the two legends can be seen in Vergil's *Aeneid,* which is very much *the* main story for the founding of Rome. As seen, however, the unitary, coherent foundation myth was not always so, having to incorporate other elements from various Greek versions of the same legend, and then altering them throughout the centuries.\n\nSources:\n\nBrinkman, J. A., “The Foundation Legends in Vergil,” *The Classical Journal*, vol. 54, no. 1 (1958), pp. 25-33.\n\nDonlan, Walter, “The Foundation Legends of Rome: An Example of Dynamic Process,” *The Classical World*, vol. 64, no. 4 (1970), pp. 109-114." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dv9igai", "dvalvx8" ], "score": [ 6, 3 ], "text": [ "To make sure I'm answering your question correctly, can you say more about what you mean by \"public schooling\"? ", "The short answer is \"no\" and the longer answer is \"it depends on how we define \"first\", \"all\", and \"traditional.\"\n\nRegarding \"traditional\", governments throughout history have had varying degrees of interest, oversight, and influence on the education of a country's children (which has mostly meant the sons of men with social status.) For example, the Persian and Spartan states provided an education to boys from the age of seven until 15. The Athens government built and paid for the upkeep for gymnasia for educational purposes. While the academies were privately funded, the state had a say over class size, teacher qualifications, and location. Finally, the Jixia Academy located in the Qi state of China was founded around 300 BCE by King Xuan with the goal of providing a state-funded education to interested scholars.^1 While children through various ages and in various places received educations from their parents, tutors, at church-sponsored schools or academies their parents funded, it's hard to say there's a universal tradition of education being a private endeavor. \n\nGenerally speaking, we can see the evolution of a public education system for *all* children if we look at compulsory education laws, which, unless otherwise specified, apply to children of all genders, ethnicities, social status, and religion within the state. America provides an example of the complexities of this. By the end of 1920's, states, including Mississippi, had laws on the books requiring public schools provide an education to every child that showed up at a public school. However, the state repealed their laws around the time of *Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka*. The repeal was clearly about keeping Black children out of schools funded with tax dollars. It meant that if a Black parent tried to enroll their child in a particular school, the school could refuse the child admission, claiming they had no obligation to provide the child an education. The law wouldn't go back on the books until 1972. Additionally, prior to the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1975, it wasn't uncommon for schools or districts to refuse admission to children with disabilities they deemed too severe for inclusion in public education. \n\n\"First\" gets into some murky territory in terms of nation-states and open access to all children. Prussia is generally recognized as the first European country to institutionalize public education for children of all genders and from all social classes in 1763. By 1870, 67% of school-aged children were enrolled in a state-funded school. Having laws, though, didn't necessarily mean all families would chose public education. Greece passed compulsory education laws in 1834 and by 1870, only 20% of children were enrolled.^2 Prussia, though, ceased to be Prussia before cultural norms shifted around the education of children with disabilities so it's hard to say they provided an education to all children. And while some regions of the US colonies had ad hoc systems of private and charity schools funded with land grants and tax dollars prior to 1776, they were were small and regional and typically excluded white girls, Black or Indigenous children, and white boys with disabilities. So, no, the United States wasn't first.\n\n___\n1. Hartnett, R. A. (2011). *The Jixia Academy and the birth of higher learning in China: A comparison of fourth-century BC Chinese education with ancient Greece*. Edwin Mellen Press.\n\n2. Soysal, Y. N., & Strang, D. (1989). *Construction of the first mass education systems in nineteenth-century Europe*. Sociology of education, 277-288." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "czsubbs" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "[Here are a couple of posts](_URL_0_) on Marshal. He was a phenomenal tournament knight, he supposedly captured 500 men during his career, respected warrior, defeating Richard the Lionheart, and died regent of England for Henry III. Aside from his political achievements Marshal is so well known due to a biography commissioned and written shortly after his death. *L'histoire de Guillaume Le Marchel* gives an unparalleled insight into the life of a knight at the turn of the thirteenth-century. This text paints Marshal as an unparalleled warrior, perhaps unsurprisingly considering his son commissioned it, but the wealth and power he generated through his participation in tournaments and as the martial head of Henry the Young King's household corroborates much of it. \n\nThis text has been translated for the Anglo-Norman Text Society. David Crouch had written an excellent historical study (although Thomas Asbridge's more recent *The Greatest Knight*, based on his BBC documentary may be more readily accessible). " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/22z1lf/how_important_was_william_marshal_to_englands/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9gn5k8", "c9gurge", "c9gx2fh", "c9gxcpx" ], "score": [ 48, 21, 4, 12 ], "text": [ "[We know from Polybius](_URL_0_) that Scipio may have met with Hannibal before the battle of Zama, and talked a bit about the causes of the war, and each tried to claim that they were fighting a just war against an aggressor.", " > And, if so, did anyone ever take advantage of this\n\nOne famous example of this takes place in Xenophon's Anabasis. After Cyrus was killed in his failed attempt to take the throne of Persia, the band of Greek mercenaries he'd hired turned and marched for home.\n\nThe King of Persia was not thrilled by the attempt to overthrow him, to say the least, and there was a tense standoff between the Persians and Greeks. A truce was formed, but it was a suspicious one, and both sides watched one another closely. One of the high ranking Persian leaders, Tissaphernes, invited the Greek officers to a meeting. They were captured and executed.\n\nThe Greeks rallied together, and elected new leaders, among which was Xenophon, the writer of the story.", "During the middle ages it was far more usual for the heads of the armies to communicate before a battle with each other using [heralds](_URL_0_).\n\nThe wiki page cites the example of Agincourt.", "Although not a king, [Wat Tyler was cut down by the king's men during a meeting](_URL_0_) in the Peasant's revolt in England. Historical accounts range from \"they cut him down for daring to speak to a king like an equal\" to \"he drew a knife on the king and the mayor of London defended him\"." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D15%3Achapter%3D6" ], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herald" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants'_Revolt#Smithfield" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dlord0q" ], "score": [ 290 ], "text": [ "This is a really interesting question and one that can be approached in many ways depending on region, state, or years of interest. For the sake of time, I'll answer this from a more general perspective, and use specifics when I can. I'll use the perspective of those who were enslaved primarily in the Revolutionary Era, but will also try and address the 19th century even though that isn't my specialty. So I'm going to answer your second question first, since mortality rates are important to understand prior to knowing how their lives fared after they reached old age.\n\nGenerally speaking, many slaves did not live to \"old age\" as one may put it. For starters, many historians have poured themselves into the research into most enslaved people's first experience with slavery: the middle passage. Historians have suggested that at least [around 4.5% of slaves died while on shore prior to their deportation and 12.5% of slaves died during the passage over to the New World, and another 7.5% died during \"seasoning\" once they reached their destination.](_URL_4_). From here, mortality rates were entirely dependent upon where an enslaved person ended up. Enslavement in the Caribbean, for instance, was much harsher than being more north in the American Colonies. Conditions were so terrible, that slave owners like George Washington used the threat of selling their slaves to owners in the Caribbean against their own slaves because their slaves had heard the horrors of the West Indies. ([Washington even did this on several occasions to different slaves](_URL_0_).) Also worth noting that only about 6% of all enslaved Africans were sent to the American Colonies, [with the majority of the rest heading to the Caribbean and South American colonies](_URL_2_).\n\nLife in the American Colonies were difficult for enslaved persons even if they had \"good\" masters. Slaves typically worked from dawn until dusk if they worked outside, and even slaves who worked inside had long days [although some slaves were given Sundays off](_URL_3_) (many kitchen or personal servants typically worked from 4AM to 8PM).\n\nBabies had it even worse. [It is estimated that about half of all enslaved babies did not survive until their first birthday](_URL_5_). That same research institute also listed these as the biggest ailments facing slaves:\n\n > Common symptoms among enslaved populations included: blindness; abdominal swelling; bowed legs; skin lesions; and convulsions. Common conditions among enslaved populations included: beriberi (caused by a deficiency of thiamine); pellagra (caused by a niacin deficiency); tetany (caused by deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and Vitamin D); rickets (also caused by a deficiency of Vitamin D); and kwashiorkor (caused by severe protein deficiency).\n\nSo what was the life expectancy of slaves? Not very high as most can imagine: [21.4 years old, verses over 25 years old for whites by 1850, with only 3.5% of the population living to be 60 years old(4.4% of white Americans lived to be 60 years old).] _URL_7_). But, to be fair, reaching the age of 50 was considered old during this period. \n\nSo what happened to slaves when they got old? Well, a few things. First, if a slave happened to reach the age of 25, that individual was considered very valuable in most cases, causing slave owners to begin caring more for that individual's care. Second, some slave owners did free their slaves, and in some cases, like with George Washington, could free their slaves upon their death and with his personal servant, he even ensured he would receive a pension. [Washington also decried that all slaves that were too old to work or move on to new professions were to be cared for at the estate while still gaining their own freedom.](_URL_6_) While Washington was able to free over 100 slaves this way, he was the only founder who owned slaves that did this. \n\nAnother factor is that impacted elderly slaves in many states were manumission laws. While these laws sometimes barred all slaves from being freed at various points in history, one important factor is that some manumission laws prohibited the freeing of slaves passed a certain age. For instance, in Maryland, that age was 45. This was done because many slave owners had a habit of using slaves for most of their youth, and then freeing them in their 50s, [when they would be too feeble to work](_URL_1_). These types of manumission laws were men to protect enslaved Americans by forcing slave owners to either free their slaves earlier, or be willing to take care of their slaves in their old age. \n\nTaking care of old slaves was something that many slave owners opted to do in many cases, although using the terms \"care for\" is a loose term. In the best cases, slaves would be assigned simple tasks to complete in their old age, and in the rarest cases, slave owners would allow their slaves to retire on the property but their needs would still be taken care of by their masters. I cannot stress how rare this is ever recorded. (*Old Age and the Search for Security: An American Social History* pp. 93). This same book I just cited also outlines how slaves were still sometimes sold, even into their 60s if other owners still had needs for less physically demanding work. But again, this was rare to ever happen since only 3.5% of all African-Americans, including free African-Americans, lived until the age of 60. \n\nHope this answered your question. Let me know if you have any follow-ups.\n\nEdit: grammar\n " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/ten-facts-about-washington-slavery/", "http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/intromsa/pdf/slavery_pamphlet.pdf", "https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/slavery-and-anti-slavery/resources/facts-about-slave-trade-and-slavery", "http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-encyclopedia/article/private-lives-of-slaves/", "https://web.stanford.edu/~hklein/Klein_etal_Mortality_ST_WMQ-2001.pdf", "http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/slavery-and-anti-slavery/resources/facts-about-slave-trade-and-slavery", "http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/washingtons-1799-will/", "http://geriatrics.stanford.edu/ethnomed/african_american/fund/health_history/longevity.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "caq50c5", "caq6fgh", "caq6vmq", "caqb2fj" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "For the history of medicine, you can't beat the [Clio Medica](_URL_2_) series. They're focused primarily on the period 1600-1900, though, which is probably not what you're looking for. Each volume contains a series of essays which take on a theme from multiple angles (I'm particularly fond of \"British Military and Naval Medicine, 1600-1830\"). The wide variety of niche topics addressed, the depth to which the topics are analyzed (a 50ish page treatise on the historical development of the truss comes to mind), and the fact that the essays are largely written by authors in the Humanities rather than doctors make this series my go-to source for medical history. Furthermore, the extensive bibliographic information accompanying each essay makes further research pretty easy.\n\nMoving backwards towards Classical medical sources, I'd say an interesting bridge source for you might be the writings of [Paracelsus](_URL_0_), alchemist and surgeon (really a good place to get a feel for the transition from occult/magical ritual medical practice to the science of medicine that began in the Renaissance). Keep in mind that Paracelsus is an alchemist and writes about his experiments in a very abstract philosophical manner- you'll have to do a lot of work to interpret what he's saying in order to see the themes of medical/chemical/scientific inquiry develop. I think of him more as a philosopher of science/medicine than an actual scientific/medical authority. \n\nThe medical historian John Scarborough has written pretty extensively on the subject of the history of medicine in the Classical Mediterranean. If you have access to JSTOR, there are several articles written by him available which you might look into (\"Roman Pharmacy and the Eastern Drug Trade\" treats with the interplay of Far/Near/Middle-Eastern medicine with Roman medicine, could be a good jumping-off point for further study). I've also heard good things about his [*Roman Medicine*](_URL_4_).\n\nFor Middle-Eastern and Near-Eastern medicine, if you don't want to flounder around the ritual medicine contained in the mystical texts such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, you're probably going to want to look into the medical documents found in the [Cairo Genizah](_URL_1_), a collection of fragmentary Jewish texts concerning a vast variety of subjects. If you don't know ancient Hebrew/Arabic/Aramaic and aren't studying at Cambridge (where the collection is stored) see if your librarian can get ahold of [*Medical and Para-medical Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections*](_URL_3_) or [*Medical Prescriptions in the Cambridge Genizah Collections: Practical Medicine and Pharmacology in Medieval Egypt*](_URL_5_).\n\nHope this helps!", "Howard Clark Kee has a wonderful volume [Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New Testament Times]( _URL_0_)", "You sound like you may be interested in Majno (1975) [*The healing hand: man and wound in the ancient world*](_URL_0_), which examines, synthesizes, and comments on a staggering swathe of primary sources in from Rome on back. I think it's also clearly what the Gabriel book you mention was making an homage to.", "If you think you'd be interested in translated documents from the medieval period from 500-1500, I recommend the wealth of texts in Faith Wallis' [*Medieval Medicine: A Reader*] (_URL_0_) (2010). It's loaded with interesting excerpts." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.amazon.com/Hermetic-Alchemical-Writings-Paracelsus-Two-Volumes/dp/1578988349/ref=cm_cr_dp_asin_lnk", "http://www.genizah.org/TheCairoGenizah.aspx", "http://www.rodopi.nl/senj.asp?SerieId=CLIO#volumes", "http://www.amazon.com/Para-medical-Manuscripts-Cambridge-Collections-University/dp/0521470501/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1372195226&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=genizah+medical", "http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Medicine-Aspects-Greek-life/dp/0801405254/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1372194664&amp;sr=1-2", "http://www.amazon.com/Medical-Prescriptions-Cambridge-Genizah-Collections/dp/9004234888/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1372195226&amp;sr=8-2&amp;keywords=genizah+medical" ], [ "http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ebook.jsf?bid=CBO9780511554988" ], [ "http://books.google.com/books/about/The_healing_hand.html?id=BTprAAAAMAAJ" ], [ "http://www.utppublishing.com/Medieval-Medicine-A-Reader.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "coo2kg5", "coo3afg", "coo3sj7", "coo45gj", "coo484n", "coo8qe1" ], "score": [ 53, 3, 15, 10, 6, 5 ], "text": [ "My reply will probably be incomplete and I'm sorry, but I hope it will respect the guidelines. \n\nThere weren't countries that participated in the space war in the same extent of USA and ~~URSS~~ USSR\n\nI can speak for my country, Italy, that cooperated with the NASA and sent a satellite the San Marco 1 in orbit during the 1964, becoming the first nation after USA and ~~URSS~~ USSR to send something in orbit. \n\nIt so was also a member of the European Launcher Development Organisation (ELDO) and the European Space Research Organization (ESRO) established two years earlier, that later merged in the 1975 forming the European Space Agency. \n\nHope it will answer some of your questions.\n\nEDIT: Clearing something, ~~UK~~ and Canada launched a satellite before Italy, ~~but it was built by NASA, the Italian satellite was built by an Italian Team and launched from a US facility.~~\n\n\nEDIT: Canada sent a Satellite completely made by them 2 years before Italy, making them the first country after the two superpowers to launch a satellite. \nThank you /u/MuffButter for clearing that up!", " > or you know of any examples where its some country working jointly with the US/USSR \n\nAustralia certainly assisted the USA in some small way. Probably most famous (although even then not that famous) is the Parkes Observatory _URL_0_\n\nFrom that link...\n\n > During the Apollo missions to the moon, the Parkes Observatory was used to relay communication and telemetry signals to NASA, providing coverage for when the moon was on the Australian side of the Earth.\n\nIt and other facilities in Australia have since fulfilled a similar role for a bunch of other missions.", "The United Kingdom developed a launcher, Black Arrow which was a satellite launcher and Blue Streak which was a missile but was cancelled before entering production (it was given to the ELDO that Antorugby mentions and became part of the European launcher.)\n\nBlack Arrow successfully launched Prospero, the first successful satellite built in Britain and launched by a British rocket. The first UK satellite was Ariel 1 but it was launched by a US rocket, and built under contract in the US. \n\nThe UK has never had a 'space program' as such, the UK space sector is comparatively large (worth £9bn p.a.) but has generally been restricted to the private sector and academia, and the relativity limited involvement in the European Space Agency.\n\nThe UK didn't have a 'space agency' until 2010, previously it was an office in the relevant department (Trade and Industry, Business Industry and Skills etc.)", "A word about France:\n\nLike the US, USSR and other nations, France started researches in rocket technologies in the 1940's for military applications. These efforts were geared to acquire the capability to hit USSR with nuclear missiles (first nuclear bomb detonated in 1960, first launch of the AGATE test rocket in 1961, first operational IRBM silos in 1971). \n\nThe CNES (Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales , basically the French space agency) is created in 1961.\n\nFrance becomes the third nation to put an object in orbit in 1965 with the launch of Asterix on top of a Diamand A rocket.\n\nin 1964 was created the ELDO ( European Launcher Development Organisation ) to develop the Europa launcher. After nearly 10 years of development the project is canceled after a series of failures. Then came the ESA (European space agency), established in 1975, and the ultimately very successful Ariane first flight in 1979.\n\nFrench space initiative in the 60's can be seen through the lens of the policy of president De Gaule to give France independence in every sectors perceived as strategic.\n\nEverything I've said so far (and much much more) can be found on this very 90's looking French site (sorry) _URL_2_ . While made by an amateur, this website is extremely well documented and corroborated by other sources.\n\nWP articles:\n\n* _URL_1_\n* _URL_4_\n* _URL_3_\n* _URL_0_", "I believe that the short awnser to this (which I am woefully unqualified to give) is that ,yes , other programs did exist , and yes they did contribute to mankind's exploration of space.\n\nI think the first and most important thing to do is to place your question into context. The key driver of the Space race was the cold-war imperetive to achieve technological pairity as a part of the arms-race . With global power now largely defined by ones access to (and ability to deliver) nuclear weapons , the superpowers raced to develop better bombs and better means of getting them to their targets. This led to unprecedented funding for things like strateigic bombing aircraft , nuclear submarines , and of course ultimately the ICBM and its orbital spin-offs. \n\nNow , whilst the US and the USSR led movement and were able to dedicate a vastly greater amount of resources into development , they were not alone. In the 1950s and 60s other \"Great Powers\" , specifically China , Great Britain and France scrambled to create their own bombs and delivery systems in an effort to prove their geopolitical importance. Despite their increasingly limited strategic positions and shrinking budgets , Britain and France invested heavily in their nuclear deterrent , including the development of ICBMs. British efforts resulted in the Blue-streak / Black-Knight missile programs that successfully launched the Prospero satellite into orbit from Australia in 1971. Ultimately , they decided to withdraw funding from the project in favor of developing a submarine based nuclear deterrent , and Britain remains the only space power to have effectively abandoned its satellite launch capability. ( See: _URL_1_) France took a similar avenue with its Diamant Launch system , initially proposed by the military as a weapons platform , and which launched Frances first Satellite from Algeria in 1965. Both programs were later subsumed into a joint European Space agency that , along with Programs in Italy and Germany , would become the foundation of the ESA. More on that later. In the East , China launched its first satellite in 1970 atop a \"long march\" rocket , though the space program suffered extensively during the chaos of the cultural revolution and the death of Mao. To Summarise , several major world powers were launching their own rockets into space by the start of the 1970s.\n\nAnother aspect that you inquired about is co-operation between space programs and the Superpowers. Both political camps established programs that sought to facilitate their allies efforts to reach space , for both scientific purposes and for pure propaganda. between 1978 and 1988 the Soviet Interkosmos (_URL_0_) sent cosmonauts into space from as far afield as Cuba and Vietnam. Indeed , several participants came from outside the communist sphere , most notably France and India. For their part the USA were also willing to take specialists from its allies and partners once it had established its shuttle program in the early 1980s and had space capacity. Off the top of my head I can think of Astronauts from Great Britain , Israel , Mexico and West Germany who all got their first taste of space courtesy of NASA. Outside the manned space program both sides had extensive networks of co-operation with smaller space agencies and academic institutions that provided experiments , equipment and funding for space probes and Satellites. In the West the USA provided a cheap launch facility for many countries (A key factor in Great Britain abandoning its own launch facilities in 1971) , and in the Soviet Block the Vega series of probes carried instruments provided by several Warsaw pact states.\n\nBy the 1980s and the end of the Space race the emphasis had turned to co-operation. Following the Apollo-Soyuz test mission in 1975 the US and the USSR never had the same sort of antagonism that had marked the Space race of the 1960s. Morever the European space powers had begun to pool their resources into the ESA, which began its highly successful Ariane program in 1979. Though they remained reliant on US technical assistance well into the 1990s , the ESA is perhaps the best example of a non-superpower , non-national space agency making real contributions during this time period. When NASA found itself unable to pay for a mission to Halleys comet in 1986 , it was the ESA (in the Form of the Giotto space probe) that led an armarda of spacecraft to collect priceless data.\n\nIll stop there , im spewing space history out of my ass and its probably not a good idea! Hope this awnsers some of your questions and gives you some avenues to research\n", "East Germany developed (among other things) a high tech camera for the Soviet space program: [MKF 6 multi spectral camera](_URL_0_). The development costs were about 82 million Mark and it was considered at that time as the best space camera in the world. It wasn't even allowed to be exported to non Warsaw Pact countries." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkes_Observatory#Historical_non-astronomy_research" ], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_%28rocket%29", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ast%C3%A9rix_(satellite)", "http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/ariane/index.htm", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNES", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamant" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interkosmos", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow" ], [ "http://wikipedia.qwika.com/de2en/MKF_6" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f9u0g7o" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Roman Britain tended to be a fairly peripheral western province during its existence : its conquest was less motivated by its relative or potential prosperity, and more by political gains (essentially prestige operations and ensuring regional stability at the benefit of Rome) and Britain was fairly importantly militarized in comparison to its meager population : 40,000 men (an 1/8 of the Roman army) was stationed in a province with maybe 2 millions inhabitants). Overall, you can notice that militarized provinces in Europe tended to be the regions where post-Imperial *romanitas* dwindled to the point of assimilation (especially along the Danube; Roman Germania being more of a case of cultural mixing), because these provinces tended to be on the \"edge\" of Roman way-of-life, half pastoral and half-agricultural economically, with relatively few cities and *villae,* etc. although being unmistakably part of the Roman world.\n\nThis army was the prime motivator of development of trade and local production as it needed to be fed, clothed, garrisoned, supplied, etc. and all this being equal, importing these goods was cheaper for the imperial military budget than massively turning to a limited local production (in metals or salts, for instance), this fiscally subsided trade being accompanied by non-strictly military imports sold to soldiers, veterans and romanizing local elites. But what I'm describing there existed no more, not just in the Vth century, but since the IIIrd century onwards.\n\nThe Third Century Crisis hit Britain as hard as other provinces of the Empire, in spite not being as importantly damaged by the Barbarian raids and Civil Wars than in Gaul or Italy. Where the army's presence had motivated urban life and production dwindled while the subsided trade couldn't be sustained out of budgetary crisis (the Empire couldn't even afford to regularly pay its armies to begin with) and because productions in other provinces took a significant hit as well. Its consequences were in Britain, but also in other more or less peripheral provinces, an important institutional and social reorganization (mostly an important polarization of society between richer and poorer classes) but an economical one as well as local production (especially if it wasn't related to the former economical model) outright blossomed out of this : local pottery or tableware replaced imports; local, quasi-monumental, villae were built in important numbers in lowland Britain as well as modest farms a bit everywhere; new markets towns emerged and were directed under the control of local elites rather than imperial institutions and harbouring their own specialists and craftsmen; old cities being centers of trade, redistribution and wealth because of the remaining presence of the elites, rather than urban activity itself and where monumentality was inceasingly privatized, etc.\n\nAll of that led to the formation of a provincial *romanitas*, mixing both classical and native influences, which was eventually more more present in the island than the previous imperial culture model.\n\nBritain's agriculture became able to not only sustain the provinces (trough a network of public granaries and redistribution by local elites), but to produce surpluses. These surplus were used both to pay in kind the annona, but as well to obtain products that couldn't be produced locally (spices, fruits, jewels, precious tableware, olive oil, wine, etc.) eventually redistributed by local elites trough the new or revivified markets centers, in order to display both their romanity and their own social status. An important products that I not yet mentioned, but that filled this role, but note solely, was coinage. The renewed fiscal capacities of the Late Empire allowed it to inject in Britain, trough wages an subsides to local elites public service, a top-down monetarized economy, ensured by the connection of British elites to the empire.\n\nIn the Vth century, it was no more, because the empire was collapsing in the West, after decades of local raids gradually eating up the limited capacities of late Roman Britain while troops were gradually withdrawn out of it as defending Italy and Gaul was considered much more important strategically. As the empire \"downsized\" its assets, it had major consequences : the end of a monetarized economy and the economic and cultural binder it was, especially in maintaining urban life and structures; the end of a motivation to produce agricultural surplus for fiscal and exchanges purposes and the loss of purpose of extensive farming and villae; the end of a relative sense of security against periodic raids from North Sea, northern Britain and Ireland.\n\nRoman Britain was basically institutionally and financially exhausted into a political collapse, economical simplification and social changes decades before attested Germanic settlement in eastern Britain. But while the former diocese was ruined, it doesn't mean that it was a post-apocalyptic landscape either : the newcomers met with Brito-Roman populations, and their remaining elites, in still existing farms (altough it appears several lands were deserted), even in \"de-urbanized\" towns : the political collapse of the Empire in Britain, shortly followed by its collapse in the West, didn't put an end to their roman identity by itself and it didn't in western Britain : what was at stake was a sense of social insecurity, and how to maintain one's position in a post-imperial world; and adopting a new identity was often a convenient way to either feel \"socially reassured\" or to access, trough matrimonial ties or other, better opportunities.\n\nThat's well and good, but social and political shifts as well happened in Frankish Gaul with Roman elites intermarrying with Franks or even disguising themselves as Barbarians (or a rather transformed idea, shared with Franks, of what a Barbarian should look like) but early medieval Francia was essentially a late Roman society evolving from a late imperial foundation, while early medieval Britain was gradually Germanized, trough and trough, until only western peripheries remaining. You even had, possibly earlier, Saxons settlements in Normandy and Picardy which were quickly absorbed by Franks while keeping a distinct identity until the late Carolingian era. Why the difference?\n\nI, above, described Germanic settlers as \"newcomers\" and that's precisely what they were : while Franks not only existed as a periphery to the Roman Empire since they emerged as a coalition but also were integrated in Late Imperial institutions and society since the IVth century, peoples that came in Vth Britain were often peoples with only an indirect connection to the Empire and that basically settled as \"cultural and social aliens\" in a ruined Britain that couldn't either repeal them or institutionally aggregate them.\n\nWe often refer to them as Anglo-Saxons, in your post for instance, but that's a significantly later term probably born out of both folk traditions and references to classical texts (especially for Angles) : the idea that whole peoples, even kingdoms, were \"translated\" from Germania to Britain can't be supported archeologically (and the idea they formed stable peoples since Antiquity is really dubious historically, especially for Angles, whom later use to name some English people might find its origins in Merovingian courts).\n\nRather, they were probably disparate familial groups, not that differently from Slavic migrations in Balkans, settling among remaining Brito-Romans, and adopting several native features such as land allotment or agricultural practices, toponymy (e.g. Tamesis - > Thames; Cantium - > Kent), etc. from their new neighbours and for the Vth century, eastern British societies were undergoing, so to speak, soul-searching; and without a strong state or power to \"guide\" identity definition and decision as in the mainland (but also in western Britain where the lesser dependency on late Imperial features saw the earlier rise of petty-states), the lack of identity features associated to Rome (institutions, Latin literacy, roman goods) and an elite social shifting were probably main factors in the overall linguistic and cultural shift as indigenous Germanic petty-kingdoms emerged out of it, especially as leading families had a direct connection to international trade and prestige goods from the Rhine as western British elites did trough Atlantic (the opposition between them being quite probably a further factor into cultural differentiation).\n\nWe'll probably never know what happened *exactly* during the Vth and early VIth period in eastern Britain, if emerging royal lines were even royal to begin with or even descendants from Germanic migrants (there's some suspicion due to early names, that it might not be fully the case for the kings of Wessex), but it's probable that it stemmed from an indigenous dynamic rather than a passive \"assimilation\" by newcomers.\n\n\\- *Britain after Rome : the Fall and the Rise - 400 to 1070*; Robin Fleming; Penguin Books; 2010\n\n\\- *The Ruin of Roman Britain : An Archeological Perspective*; James Gerrard; Cambridge University Press; 2013" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ek9sr6s" ], "score": [ 86 ], "text": [ "I'm not sure if this exactly answers your question, but Malcolm Gladwell did an article back in 2004 about the history of ketchup and mustard, specifically focusing on how no one has been able to create a successful challenger to Heinz, but he does talk a little bit about the ketchup market before Heinz, and the circumstances that led to Heinz ketchup.\n\nEssentially, there was an establishment group of ketchup manufacturers, for lack of a better term, who used unripe tomatoes and a preservative called benzoate. This led to watery ketchups. In a sense, it wasn't that different from now. There were more names on the shelf, but they all had more or less the same taste. In the early 1900s, the Department of Agriculture decided that benzoates were bad. The establishment disagreed, but a group of manufacturers led by Heinz decided that vinegar could be used as a preservative instead, which would allow the tomatoes to ripen. Over time, the establishment was pushed out because the market decided that the vinegar and riper tomatoes provided a much better taste, and now we have the single massive company that everyone associates with the word ketchup.\n\nSource: _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/09/06/the-ketchup-conundrum" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dj8uao7", "dj8xtm3", "dj9dc37", "djc5bnk" ], "score": [ 138, 28, 3, 8 ], "text": [ "/u/LateNightPhiloshopher\n\nAragon and Castile were not united as Spain when Isabella and Ferdinand married and ascended to their respective king/queen-ships, rather they were put into a personal union. Navarra was joined into personal union only after the death of Isabella. \n\nThe rise of Castilian as the language of Empire, is best summarized in J. H. Elliott's magnum opus *Imperial Spain, 1469-1716*,\n\n > > \\[Elio Antonio de Nebrija's\\] interests, like those of many humanists, extended also to the vernacular, and he published in 1492 a Castilian grammar – the first grammar to be compiled of a modern European\nlanguage. ‘What is it for?’ asked Isabella when it was presented to her. ‘Your Majesty,’ replied the Bishop of Àvila on\nNebrija's behalf, **‘language is the perfect instrument of empire.’**\n\nThe domination of Castilian culture, language, and politics, was a deliberate effort started by Isabella and Ferdinand, where it was elevated as the means of power. This effort in turn followed the rise of Castilian culture and prestige during the Reconquista, during which time it displaced Leonese culture. Castilian culture was indeed vibrant, what with a strong [humanist movement](_URL_0_) and [founding of universities](_URL_4_). \n\nThe Catholic monarchs had designs to [change the political and religious system of Spain](_URL_3_), against the interest of the aristocratic class and with designs to control the clergy. They founded the *Santa Hermandad*, the holy brotherhood, with them at its head, as a \"national\" police force that is supported by additional local taxes. This gave them significant power against local nobility, as they had the power to investigate, judge, and execute. The holy orders such as the Calatrava was [corralled into royal obedience](_URL_2_). \n\nThere were many strong arguments in support of such an institution, as crime was unacceptably high in that period following Henry IV Castille's incompetent rule. When the Spanish inquisition was founded, evidence suggests they had similar ideas, although in most literature Ferdinand was seen as the true architect.\nTo quote Ferdinand, *\"The Hermandad would soon be joined with an Inquisition and, together, employed as an instrument of terror and obedience.\"*\n\nIn this period, the Crown of Aragon was undergoing a crisis demographically and economically. To give you an idea, the population of Catalonia in 1365 was 430,000 but in 1497 it was merely 278,000 -- a whopping 37% decline. The territory of Aragon may have appeared vast, but they were ruled through various courts, with little direct control by the monarch of the Crown of Aragon. \n\nIn Castile, on the other hand, a rising state had economic, demographic, political, and military strength. Thus, it made sense that it became the leading culture of the empire. As a succession of kings further depended on it -- despite the Revolt of the Comuneros where Castilian nationalists rose against a \"foreign\" Charles I who aspired to become Emperor Charles V of the HRE -- a symbiotic relationship between Castilian nobles and their king led to a strong direct rule. Is it a wonder that Spain's empire in the Americas and the Philippines was subjected to the Council of Castile? \n\nIn this period of rising strength, [the identity of \"Spain\" developed](_URL_1_), centered around the dominant Castilian culture. \n\nLater on, [over-dependence on Castile](_URL_5_) became a major factor in Spain's decline. ", "So this is a complex question with several layers:\n\n*Language in the 15-16th c was not codified so speaking of separate languages is difficult especially in a region like Iberia. The first formal grammar of Castilian was not composed until 1492 and the Real Academia Española (official institution overseeing the Castilian language) was not established until 1713. In the 16th century if one were to walk from Lisbon to Cadiz to Valencia to Madrid to Barcelona one would not notice abrupt changes in language, rather there would be a spectrum from a largely identifiable Portuguese, to Castilian, to Valenciao, to Catalan, etc. Also many of these languages were much closer in this period than they are today. But the question still has merit why did the dominant language of Castile become the language of a unified Castile and Aragon.\n\n*Both Ferdinand and Isabela although monarchs of kingdoms with differing dominant dialects were both members of the House of Trastámara, a Castilian noble house. So it is a bit erroneous to consider Ferdinand as a staunch defender of Catalan, most of his relatives were Castilians even if he ruled as king of Aragon.\n\n*For most of the Habsburg era (1517-1700), Castile and Aragon were governed independently of each other, as each were distinct kingdoms with their own laws, institutions, and traditions. Yet, Castile tended to have greater prominence because of its larger territorial area. Although the mediterranian territory of Aragon was expansive (the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardina, Naples, Sicily, etc.), after 1492 all of the Americas and the Philippines were annexed to Castile, but not Aragon. This also made the kingdom of Castile the largest income producing kingdom for the kings of Spain. \n\n*When Charles V came to power in 1517, he had almost no experience in Iberia, he inherited the throne as a co-monarch with his mother Juana la Loca. He did not speak Castilian or Catalan. He was born and raised in the Low Countries, his father's dynastic territories. He spoke flemish, eventually he would learn Castilian and speak with an accent for the rest of his life.\n\n*Philip II, Charles' son, was raised primarily by Castilians and would have been raised speaking Castilian even though he was also king of Aragon. Concurrently, by the mid-sixteenth century most of the major advisers to the monarch were Castilian and Castile had become the more powerful of the two kingdoms. Later in life, Philip II would also rule as king of portugal from 1580 as would his son and grandson until 1640. \n\nFor reading on the period see:\n\nEdwards, John. The Spain of the Catholic Monarchs, 1474-1520. A history of Spain. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 2000.\n\nElliott, John Huxtable. Imperial Spain, 1469-1716. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1964.\n\n\nKamen, Henry. Spain, 1469-1714: A Society of Conflict. 3rd ed. Harlow, England; New York: Pearson/Longman, 2005.\n\nRuiz, Teofilo F. Spain's Centuries of Crisis: 1300-1474. Malden; Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 2007.\n\nThomas, Hugh. The Golden Empire: Spain, Charles V, and the Creation of America. 1st ed. New York: Random House, 2010.\n", "I was wondering also the same for Standard Italian. Why this specific variety of Italian and not the others ?", "We talked about this about a year ago (see [Why did Castilian become the dominant language of Spain, as opposed to Catalan or Leonese?] (_URL_1_). This thread here, thanks to /u/Itsalrightwithme and /u/historianLA, probably has better answers. You still might want to check that earlier thread out, too.\n \nIf I may add something to the answers above is to give a bit of background, as a medievalist, on different languages spoken in the peninsula before the two Crowns were united and address your questions on Leonese, Aragonese and the like. This might help you understand why other languages had no chance (besides the fact that Castile had the numbers and the Aragonese court had been heavily influenced by Castilians even before Ferdinand and Isabella got to their thrones). The whole issue was really decided in the late 1200s. \n \nAs historians, we tend to pile all Iberian languages in the Middle Ages as Romance/Vernacular as opposed to Latin and Arabic (and Basque). This helps us avoid splitting hairs as to whether it's say Castilian or Navarro-Aragonese, etc. The language varieties that form Catalan (or the Catalan-Valencian-Balearic language, if we're being pedantic) are noticeably distinct from Castilian or Portuguese. But to the west of the Catalan-speaking area there's not that much difference (see my comment to the earlier thread). Even today, for a standard Castilian speaker from Madrid most other language varieties (Asturo-Leonese, Aragonese, Mirandese, etc) just sound like some sort of hillbilly Spanish, not as distinct languages in their own right. Their medieval varieties were even closer to each other. It is quite telling that even Spanish linguists had long considered the earliest extant lines in Navarro-Aragonese Romance, the *Glosas Emilianenses* (early 11th century) to be in Castilian.\n \nSo what we have in the Middle Ages is basically a bunch of people speaking a bunch of mutually intelligible language varieties across a dialect continuum spanning the whole peninsula, effortlessly switching between them on an ad hoc basis [1]. Some thought they spoke Latin and called it so (particularly if they were Romance-speaking Christians living under Muslim rule in the South). However, by the 1000s there's growing awareness across the Romance-speaking Europe that what we speak now is not really Latin. By the 1100s there's a whole body of literary works in vernacular languages in some regions (mostly epic or courtly poetry, that is the works were meant to be learned by heart to be later performed in front of an audience rather than *read*, though). Most importantly, in the 1200s Romance vernaculars emerge as *written* languages in their own right, making forays in what had previously been the exclusive realm of Latin - charters, legal documents and the like. If you read French, there's an excellent overview of the process by Marc van Uytfanghe (*Le latin et les langues vernaculaires au Moyen Age: un aperçu panoramique*, In: *The Dawn of the Written Vernacular in Western Europe*, ed. Michèle Goyens, Werner Verbeke, Leuven, Leuven University Press 2003 (Mediaevalia Lovaniensia. Series I. Studia 33), pp. 1-38).\n \nLanguagewise, Castile was a truly pioneering kingdom. The royal chancery, a conservative institution by default, with an infinite supply of Latin-speaking clerics, made steady use of vernacular as early as 1217. That's more than a century before France, say. Even though Castile's was not the first Christian Iberian chancery to start doing this [2], they were early enough. But for a really stunning breakthrough you'll have to wait until 1252 when Alfonso X the Wise ascends to the throne. He had shown an early interest in languages from back when he'd been a mere prince. When he got his hands on an Arabic treatise on astrological and magical uses of gems after the conquest of Murcia in 1243, he ordered his physician Yehuda to translate it into Romance in 1250 *so that everybody could better understand it and knew how to take advantage of it*. After he becomes king he sets up an important translation school and workshop in Toledo where tons of manuscripts are translated into Romance from Arabic and Hebrew. Apart from having important books translated into Romance, the learned king himself wrote several legal, scientific and historical treatises in that language. Now that was a real scandal because everywhere else in Europe Latin would remain *the* language of science for centuries to come. \n \nBy the time of his accession to the throne about 70 per cent of the output of the royal chancery is in vernacular. After he becomes king, it's 100 per cent, with Latin only used in correspondence with foreign dignitaries. \n \nMost important, though, is which language variety he chose for all of this. Languages spoken in his realms included Castilian (several varieties), Asturo-Leonese (several varieties), Galician-Portuguese, Basque and Arabic. The latter two were out of the question, of course, but he could have chosen any of the Romance varieties - some of these were quite respectable and widely used at court. Galician, for example, was *the* sophisticated language of courtly love poetry and the learned king himself penned several poems in it. Yet the rest of his work (and the whole body of the royal charters) is in Castilian. \n \nCompare this to what was the modus operandi in all the other Iberian chanceries. They would pick this or that vernacular depending on the addressee or on which language this particular scribe spoke, etc. The earliest vernacular charters from the Navarrese court are in Occitan. The earliest vernacular charter from that of Aragon is in Navarrese and when vernacular became really common they would use either Aragonese (writing to kings, nobles or their own princesses married in Castile and Portugal, to their ambassadors to these two kingdoms, to Santiago and Calatrava knights, to the Moors in Granada and to their own Muslim subjects, to nobles and city councils in Aragon and Murcia) or in Catalan (to their heirs, to their ambassadors and envoys to Cyprus, Sicily, Sardinia or Rome, in all things concerning the royal household, to nobles and city councils in Catalonia and Valencia, to Maltese knights, etc). Yet the Castilian bureaucracy now only uses Castilian varieties, irrespective of who a given text is addressed to. \n \nThis, too, had a precedent. When Alfonso's father, Fernando III the Saint, became king of Castile in 1217 he made Juan de Soria his chancellor and the chancery started issuing charters, etc. in Castilian with some frequency. Meanwhile, the Leonese chancery, with its strong links to the Archbishopric of Santiago, continued to work in Latin until the death of the last king of Leon in 1230. After that Leon was annexed to Castile and the same Castilian Chancellor, Juan de Soria, was now responsible for its Chancery, too, switching it to *linguistically Castilian* vernacular. Scholars like Inés Fernández-Ordóñez ([*Alfonso X el Sabio en la historia del español*](_URL_2_), In: R. Cano Aguilar (ed.): *Historia de la lengua española*, Barcelona, pp. 381-422) cite several factors: Fernando was king of Castile first and the Leonese nobles had to submit to him as such; Castile was the dominant power in the realm; unlike Leon, Castile had already had a history of using vernacular in royal administration and that vernacular was Castilian, etc (besides, this Soria guy was, well, from Soria in Castile, I hasten to add). But the consensus seems to be that with Alfonso the choice of Castilian was a deliberate policy that ensured neither Asturo-Leonese nor Galician had a future in the kingdom. Notably, in royal charters and in Alfonso's legal writings whenever this language he now uses is referred to it's called something like *the parlance of common folk* (i.e. as opposed to Latin), *our language* or simply *Romance*. Yet in his writings that had no legal status he called a spade a spade, normally using terms like *the language of Castile*, *Castilian* or the *Castilian language*.\n\n*(cont. below)*\n\n[1] My favourite example is a medieval Troubadour who said he spoke German and Portuguese and noted that that the best variety of the latter was the one spoken in Provence. So, 'Portuguese' was just an umbrella term for all Romance languages for that guy. \n\n[2] The first was, understandably enough, the multi-cultural, pluri-lingual Navarre that had strong links to the Occitan region in the South of France, *the* European centre of this linguistic innovation, i.e. using a vernacular as a written language. Their first royal document in a vernacular language dates back to 1169 (vs Castile's 1194) and there are more charters in vernacular than in Latin after 1234 (cf. Castile's 1245 or so). Leon, though, continued to produce exclusively in Latin until their kingdom got annexed by Castile in 1230. In Aragon, the use of vernacular only surpassed that of Latin in the 14th century (the first royal document in Catalan dates back to 1240). In Portugal, apart from a few isolated cases like the royal will of 1214, the chancery only starts using vernacular in the 1250s and makes the decisive switch in 1279. For all of this and more see:\n\n* Inés Fernández-Ordóñez. *La lengua de los documentos del rey: del latín a las lenguas vernáculas en las cancillerías regias de la Península Ibérica*, In: *La construcción medieval de la memoria regia*, ed. Pascual Martínez Sopena, Ana Rodríguez, Valencia, 2011, pp. 323-362 [PDF warning] (_URL_0_). \n\n* Wright, R. *Latin and Romance in the Castilian Chancery (1180-1230)*, In: *Bulletin of Hispanic Studies*, 72(2), 1996, pp. 115-128." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/66rnvz/how_much_influence_did_erasmus_have_in_spain/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3wsw9h/rise_of_great_powers_ama_part_un_western_europe/cxyzbou", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4f4pm2/late_medieval_society_in_the_age_of_thrones/d268eos/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ey7f0/queen_isabella_was_never_fond_of_the_spanish/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3k9877/i_heard_that_martin_luther_translated_the_bible/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/36d5di/why_was_spain_not_able_to_keep_up_with_the/crd0eu1" ], [], [], [ "https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/filoyletras/ifo/publicaciones/23_cl.pdf", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4f6ukl/why_did_castilian_become_the_dominant_language_of/", "http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra-visor/alfonso-x-el-sabio-en-la-historia-del-espaol-0/html/023c114a-82b2-11df-acc7-002185ce6064.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d0boqft" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Right – so a cursory Wikipedia search (bear with me here) mentions that it is a “recurved composite bow”, which, whilst specific to some degree, is still quite broad. Similarly, a quick look over that tells us almost nothing that can be verified (the sources themselves are quite iffy), but that doesn’t make it wrong. \n\nThe Mongol bow used during Chinggis/Genghis’ era was a recurved composite bow not particularly unlike the typical type of composite bow used across the Eurasian steppes in Central Asia and the Middle East – made of layers of horn, animal sinew, and glue, wrapped around a wooden (various theories as to what type of wood – not yew, for sure – possibly elm, spruce, ash, bamboo, birch) core. However, whilst we know what made up the bows that the Mongols used, it’s been fairly well established that the specific techniques of creating the bow have been lost – but, from both the descriptions of such features such as siha (what Peers says to be “forward-angled rigid end sections…which acted as levers”) and their corresponding appearance in various manuals/pictures/inscriptions/paintings/etc. of reliable contemporary accounts (e.g. Rashid-al-Din, Firdawsi, as well as several 13th century Chinese scrolls, paintings, and inscriptions) we can be fairly confident in how they looked (see sources section for some pictures). \n\nTherefore, in comparison, both sites have bows that look passably similar to those used by the Mongols. In terms of material composition, however – looking around, recurvebowshop seems to make most of their bows out of glass fiber, wood (not specific, I’m not an arborist so I certainly can’t say for sure by looking either), and leather, so not too accurate. Sevenmeadowsarchery seems to be repeating the same composition of something like ash tips, wood laminate, some coloured leather, so again, very likely not too accurate. \n\nSources\n\n* Chris Peers - The Mongol War Machine (pages 41-43)\n\n* Timothy May - The Mongol Art of War (page 72-73)\n\n* Timothy May - Culture and Customs of Mongolia (page 121)\n\n* Antony Karasulas - Mounted Archers of the Steppe (pages 18-21)\n\nPictures\n\nNote: Most of these were pulled from Karasulas' book\n\n* [Mongol cavalry pursuing routed enemy - Rashid-al-Din](_URL_2_) - specifically look for the definitive tips that go at the end of the bows\n\n* [Mongol rider shooting at full gallop - Firdawsi, *Shahnameh*](_URL_0_) - a bit stylised as you'd expect from a poem rather than a historical account, but the main features of the Mongolian recurve bow are seen here as well\n\n* [Archer making what has been termed a \"Parthian shot\", firing backwards at an enemy - Chinese scroll](_URL_1_) - other than, again, the shape of the bow, one thing I found of interest whilst going through some of the sources was that, whilst in all pictures the archer is using two hands, this one is facing backwards. Also, whilst it might not be too clear, its been fairly well established that the Mongols were using stirrups on their horses, which would have likely made this maneuver a bit easier. Just a fun fact.\n\n* [Archer shooting upwards, ideally landing vertically on their target. This one is supposedly hunting rather than fighting - c. 13th century Chinese scroll](_URL_3_)\n\nAs you can probably guess, these pictures are very likely artistic renderings/copies made from the original sources (I mean, they surely didn't paint in black and white on perfectly white backgrounds), but there are sources for most of these if you're interested in those." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.sevenmeadowsarchery.com/store/c14/Mongol_Bows.html", "http://www.recurvebowshop.com/mongol+bows.htm", "primativearcher.com", "http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,23666.msg318613.html?PHPSESSID=hd9hffvoa8j2645dbern2k17c7#msg318613" ]

[ [ "https://i.imgur.com/uuCgw29.png", "https://i.imgur.com/9E9uxmS.png", "https://i.imgur.com/9YrVJfW.png", "https://i.imgur.com/2M4Dj3H.png" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cswccqd" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "Actually no, the name comes from *UNGARI* which in turn comes from Ugor (Ουγγαροί, Ogór, ) which means \"tribe\" in ancient pre-Hungarian tongue of the Bulgarian-Magyar peoples.\n\nVarious languages added different consonants tot he begining of this word to make it roll off the tongue easier. For example (H)UNGAR(ians) - in English , W(ĘGRZY) in Polish, (В)енгры in Russian etc.\n\nThe Hungarian name for themselves \"Magyarok\" comes from ugrofinic \"magy\" and \"yar, ear\" both of which means \"man, person\".\n\nSo essentially, as many other original ethnic names, their name can be loosely translated to \"The People\".\n\n\nsee: *The Occupation of Our country and Linguistics*. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "coll7l8", "colldz5", "collwma" ], "score": [ 34, 165, 1025 ], "text": [ "Would-be commenters: Please read through our rules about [answers](_URL_0_) before posting. Answers should be informative, comprehensive, and sourceable. Anecdotes, speculation, and jokes will be deleted.", "Depends on the person or family's circumstances. President Johnson famously declared a \"War on Poverty\" in 1964. At the time, the US poverty rate was around 19% (according to the census, the rate in 2013 was 14.5%). Social Security, food stamps, and other programs were part of the effort to raise vulnerable Americans out of poverty and meet basic needs. There were also institutional barriers to education and employment -- the Civil Rights Act didn't pass until 1964. Protections for women and disabled Americans were largely non-existent. The 50s and early 60s were a pretty hard time to be member of a marginalized group--elderly, rural, minority, disabled, single mothers. The post-war era was a time of prosperity and income growth for a certain segment of Americans, but there were many, many people either forcefully excluded or left behind.", "The pictures/images you paint are consistent with the dominant *ideal* of what \"the good life\" was supposed to be like in the 1950s. These images weren't just Cold War propaganda, they were also replicated and idealized in advertisements, in film and on TV, and in advice literature as well. \n\nMany factors went into making this the dominant picture/stereotype of the \"ideal\" family; one is is that a whole generation of people who had grown up during the Great Depression and WWII were *very* happy to have the chance to have a family and live a more stable life after the war ended. Americans whole-heartedly embraced the \"domestic\" ideal of focusing of marriage, children, the home, and the consumption of commercial goods as the primary means of making themselves happy after the war. As part of that, large numbers of women either chose or were admonished (often a bit of both) to believe that their highest calling in life was to be a wife and a mother - they faced enormous social and cultural pressure to find a man, settle down, and become a housewife. At the same time, the federal government made a conscious policy choice to encourage massive consumer spending to help grow and feed the American economy after the war; things like the GI Bill (and the cheap mortgages which it allowed veterans to get), interstate highways (which spurred the growth of suburbs) and a whole range of other policies underwrote and encouraged Americans to buy and idealize the one-family, suburban home. And these policies *worked:* the post-war period was a time of tremendous economic growth and prosperity, which meant that large numbers of American families could afford these things. \n\nBut the ideal was just that: an ideal. It's definitely a mistake to look at \"Leave it to Beaver\" and think that this actually how most 1950s families lived. I don't watch a lot of TV these days so forgive the dated reference, but that's basically like watching *Friends* and assuming that everyone in the 1990s lived like Ross, Chandler, and Rachel (in massive, wonderfully furnished apartments that would have been way beyond the means of these characters in real life). \n\nWhile stats like [home ownership](_URL_2_), the [unemployment rate](_URL_3_), and [ye olde baby boom](_URL_0_) do suggest that there's more than a grain of truth to our stereotypes about the 1950s, there's also a lot of data that *contradicts* what we think we know about the 50s. In reality, employment rates for married women [rose steadily](_URL_5_) throughout the 1950s, and was well over 30/40 percent by 1960. And note that it was rising for *both* white married women *and* black married women - the cost of living and spending rates were on the rise, and the idea that a man could earn enough to support his entire family wasn't really the reality for many families. You also need to acknowledge that for black families and other minorities, the ideal of the suburban home was almost completely unachievable: they were denied access to the jobs that would have enabled them to live that life, while racist housing policies + practices kept them out of the suburbs and confined to predominantly black neighborhoods.\n\nThen there's the question of whether everyone was actually as *happy* doing these things in the 1950s as the ideal suggests - and while the answer here is (kind of) subjective, there's a lot of [evidence to suggest](_URL_1_) that many of housewives who *did* stay home were *miserable* doing so, that many of the \"domestic bliss\" marriages of the 1950s [ended in divorce in the 1960s,](_URL_4_) and that many of the kids who grew up in these homes had little to no interest in replicating their parents' lives when they themselves came of age.\n\nHere are some books I'd recommend if you're looking for the full story on all of this:\n\nElaine Tyler May, *Homeward Bound*\n\nJoanne Meyerowitz, ed., *Not June Cleaver*\n\nLizabeth Cohen, *The Consumer's Republic*\n\nStephanie Coontz, *The Way We Never Were*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_answers" ], [], [ "http://www.profutures.com/images/usbrate.gif", "https://books.google.ca/books?id=GYV-63KHXQ4C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=the+feminine+mystique&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=0M_fVMT4IIbesATRyYK4CA&amp;ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false", "http://www.iii.org/graph-archive/96062", "http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04000000?years_option=all_years&amp;periods_option=specific_periods&amp;periods=Annual+Data", "http://huberb.people.cofc.edu/www/Classroom%20Visuals/101%20Visuals/Chapter%2013%20Marriage%20Images/divorce-1860-2005.jpg", "http://lh5.ggpht.com/-RFh-D2TqsFA/UdMl_x665xI/AAAAAAAAB80/S6hpqUZbvew/image_thumb%25255B1%25255D.png?imgmax=800" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ej4f6f9", "ej4gzfe" ], "score": [ 24, 28 ], "text": [ "Well, you have to remember that until the advent of Bell Electronic Switch Systems, in the 1960s, most of the calls were handled by a live human operator that would connect the call from the caller to the destination number through a plug switchboard. So, there was no \"ringing\" or \"busy tone\", the operator would just say something like \"the destination number is not answering, sir\", after a few attempts.\n\nBefore the popularization of ESS switches in the 1970s, the most advanced telephone markets in the world would use of rotary switches (electro-mechanical) to connect calls without an operator. Those entered the market in the early 1920s, 50 years after the telephone was invented. Those would disconnect the call automatically after a preset number of rings without call pick up, in order to avoid central line and telephone exchange congestion.\n\nSo, for almost 100 years after the telephone was invented, calls would not ring indefinitely as they would be, most of the time handled by a live human operator that would just tell the caller there wasn't anyone to answer the call in the destination.\n\nHere are some good links about the history of telephony switching:\n\n[History of the Switchboard](_URL_0_)\n\n[History of Telephony Switches](_URL_1_)", "To properly answer this we need to understand a bit about the history of how telephone calls were completed in the early days. While in theory you could just run a line between two stations (a private line), this isn't very useful because a) you might want to talk to more than one station and b) it quickly becomes overwhelming if you want to implement a solution for a). To alleviate this, telephone exchanges were created. All calls that were placed were manually completed by an operator at a switchboard in the exchange.\n\nTo do this, the caller would take the receiver off the hook and manually activate a magneto that would send a ringing current down the line. This would alert the operator on your trunk appearance and they would pick up and ask you who you wanted to call. You would give that information and they would attempt to connect to the distant station through a similar mechanism on their switchboard. It's not well documented in anything I can think of as to how long they would alert the far station of the call, but it would be at most a minute or so. If the far station was answered the calls would be bridged together. If not, the operator would tell the calling party that no one was there and to try later.\n\nNow, obviously there are scaling problems here. So relatively quickly, machines that could provide automatic switching of calls were provided. This is an incredibly detailed field and there's no way I can get into all of it here, but the first automatic switches are generally attributed to Almon Strowger. He received his first patent for them in 1891. At this time the Bell System control over the US telephone network was strong and as he didn't work for them, they didn't generally install his equipment. However, many smaller independent companies did. These systems allowed for the subscriber to call directly to another subscriber without operator intervention. They were initially not particularly complicated systems but they grew in complexity quickly.\n\nThese systems are all built in a hierarchical fashion. Your call steps through various levels of the system based on the digits that you dial. The dialing of digits causes manual switches to move to complete the electronic connection.\n\nTo get to your question, early switches did not have any sort of way of monitoring whether a call was in the ringing state for an extended period of time. However, the offices where these switches existed were generally staffed 24 hours and technicians would note whether calls were in a stuck state. Over time circuits were created to alert on long calls and to also limit the length of unanswered calls. More advanced switching systems did this by default and could be programmed to limit the length to a value that the operating company felt was appropriate. It was often assumed that ringing times of over 20 seconds would more often than not result in an unanswered call. Fully electronic systems that began appearing in the 1960s had what was called \"ringing timeout\" parameters that could define this.\n\nSo, in conclusion, while in some circumstances you could do this, technology was quickly developed to limit the ability.\n\nSources:\n\n*A History of Engineering and Science in the Bell System, Vol. 1, The Early Years*, 1975, Chapter 6\n\n*Applicability of Automatic Switching to All Classes of Telephone Service*, Arthur Bessey Smith, Trans. AIEE, Vol. 38, p. 1567, Dec. 1919\n\n*The Rape of Ma Bell*, 1988, Kraus & Duerig, Chapter 17" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://culturexchange1.wordpress.com/2015/06/02/the-telephone-switchboard-the-story-of-a-revolutionary-instrument/", "http://www.telephonetribute.com/switches.html" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d1rrlwl" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Woodard openly credits Garreau's work as one of the foundations of his own book, so he would say *American Nations* represents a refinement or update of the same principles.\n\nI have read Woodard but not Garreau. Woodard's book is extensively endnoted but I cannot say I've researched any of his sources. But while his sources speak to a kind of historicity, it seems to me that Woodard favored instances that supports his thesis, and didn't really account for other factors (effects of urbanization, socio-economic classes) that undermine his pat generalizations. That said, I still found it to be an interesting read and good food for thought.\n\nApropos of nothing: he does not mince words when it comes to the Deep South. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cgzp231", "cgzpdck", "cgzq3qy", "cgzu1fl", "cgzvodj" ], "score": [ 2, 6, 20, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Actually, as a person learning from Chinese from a teacher who makes a point to teach us about China and has been to China, the nation has many, many languages and dialects.\n\nShanghai has its own dialect, so does Beijing, the Southern region its own language (Cantonese). Then there are the many native languages in YunDong and GuangDong Provinces, not to mention the different languages in Xinjiang and Tibet. You just don't hear about them so much because everyone learns Beijing Dialect because that's what all the TV broadcasts are in. ", "India and China both possess a significant number of languages.\n\n[If you take a look at Ethnologue for India](_URL_0_) and [China](_URL_3_), you'll see that India has ~460, and China ~300. So, call it 160 languages more in India than China. Out of those, India has more extinct languages than China does - so China's doing better on the retention level for their variety of tongues.\n\nIn linguistics, there's a phenomenon observed with numbers of language and geography: namely, that geographical features such as mountains and rivers will halt the spread of languages and dialects; it's why places like [Papua New Guinea will have 800+ languages](_URL_2_]! Take a look at [this map of India](_URL_1_) and [this map of China](_URL_4_) ; you'll find that the majority of these languages that are \"small\" and help add to India's numbers are in the mountainous areas - and that China's major varities of languages happen around their mountainous regions, too. Geography is a large contributor.\n\nI'm sure /r/linguistics would be able to provide a better answer (I'm drawing on my years of linguistics in uni for this, while I try to track down any actual books that would address this specifically).\n\nI live in India and have friends in China, and I'm also inclined to hypothesize that some of it has to do with cultural retention vs homogenity: India has a large number of official languages (22), and China has only one. India's individual states virtually all have their own language, and it is not uncommon for a child to grow up with a mother tongue, and speak a state language and Hindi and English as well.", "Nooooo. A dagger to my heart!\n\nSinitic languages alone number around a dozen, arguably more. There's Mandarin, Wu, Cantonese, Min, Hakka, Pinghua, Hui, Waxiang, Jin, Xiang, Gan... But then within a few of those, Min for example, they can be broken down into 5 or more mutually unintelligible dialect groups which are languages in their own right.\n\nAdd to that Tibetan, Uyghur, Zhuang (all on the money, by the way) as well as smaller languages like Hmong or Thai, and China's actually quite a diverse landscape, linguistically. Then on top of *that* you have multiple Korean dialects, Russian, Xibe (Manchu, basically), and the list goes on. That Mandarin is the lingua franca doesn't detract to the underlying diversity that's very visible in even just a short amount of time here.\n\nAnd just to add to that, populations of non-Han ethnicities (and therefore their language use) are under-reported.\n\nAnyway, this is largely an issue of perspective and an uneven exposure to the two countries' linguistic makeup. If you can add some detail to your question I'll happily spend a good chunk of time clarifying my own answer. As it is, your question is somewhat vague, and the initial question is based on a misconception, albeit a wide-spread one, so if you'd like a deeper more detailed answer the question will need to be added to somewhat.\n\nedit: Left a sentence half-finished. Oops.", "Beyond the semantics of your question, which others have covered in detail, the question seems to deal in part with the *perception* that, in most parts of the world, you can say \"Chinese language\" and people will assume you're talking about Mandarin, or maybe Cantonese. However, saying you want to speak \"Indian\" will get you funny looks. \n\nMost of what I gather is the difference is based off my reading of Fukuyama's *Origins of Political Order*, which runs the risk of being dubious pop history, but I'll go with it. Basically, the idea is that China has historically tended towards being a unified state. Certainly there were things like the Warring States period, and many parts of what is now China entered and exited its sphere of influence over time, but the concept of 'China' as an unified political entity that should exist has been around for a long time. While there are many dialects and local languages, the longevity of the concept of China meant that Mandarin came to be dominant.\n\nIn contrast, India wasn't regularly unified in the same way. There were a few periods of unity, even then the whole subcontinent never had one ruler for very long until the British came in, but mostly the trend was a large number of independent states. As such, no one language came to dominate politically like in China. ", "Another reason is the evolution of the Chinese written language, which unlike most languages in the world today, does not have written alphabets that somewhat correspond to phonetics.\n\nIn Chinese history, as the main Han Chinese ethnic group encountered other ethnic groups and other languages, they would often adopt new words and create new Chinese characters that are phonetically similar to the other language, in order to make conversation easier.\n\n(The Chinese do this even today, creating new Chinese words for English words that cannot be translated easily).\n\nAs many of the minority ethnic groups in China (in ancient time) did not have their own writing systems, the Chinese writing system (and the spoken words) became more in common use.\n\nThis creates an appearance that the Chinese language (especially the written system) is 1 single system, when in reality, the Modern Chinese language evolved from a merging of many many (100's) of local languages.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.ethnologue.com/country/IN", "http://www.muturzikin.com/cartesasie/10.htm", "https://www.ethnologue.com/country/PG", "https://www.ethnologue.com/country/CN", "http://www.muturzikin.com/cartesasie/9.htm" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dbyu2wo", "dbzud6n" ], "score": [ 78, 22 ], "text": [ "More of a clarifying question, but were the pyramids themselves worshipped? Were old pharaohs buried in them still worshipped ? ", "We have only a little information about the state of Egyptian structures in the late Pharaonic/Roman period, so it's difficult to be precise as to the state of repair of the pyramids - or any other Egyptian monuments - at this time. However, the short answer to your question is that, at least while Egypt retained some independence, occasional restoration work was done on some monuments, usually for religious/magical reasons to do with aiding souls that had already passed into the afterlife. For this reason, Pharaonic restoration work tended to involve erecting new inscriptions rather than making extensive repairs to old monuments.\n\nEven this work seems to have largely ended by the time Egypt passed under Roman control (at least we have no evidence of its continued practice), and the Graeco-Roman period is often considered to mark the start of \"tourism\" to Egpyt. Certainly it was in this period that many of the monuments famous today first seem to have been visited on a regular basis simply because they were remarkable sights.\n\nThat's the summary; here are a few salient details:\n\n• We do know that Egyptians [completed some repairs to the sphinx](_URL_1_) soon before the reign of Thutmosis IV began in about 1420 B.C. The monument was then almost buried in sand (as it later would be again), and Thutmosis, who was one of the then pharaoh's sons but not actually in line to succeed him, had it excavated and built a retaining wall to prevent it sanding up again too easily. His workmen also re-secured some blocks from its back in their proper places. This was not, however, a typical thing for an Egyptian ruler to do; [we know from the so-called \"Dream Stele\"](_URL_0_) left at the site that Thutmosis's motive for the restoration was that he had had a dream in which the sphinx promised him he would become pharaoh if he would restore it.\n\n• Later, in the reign of Ramesses II (c.1280 B.C.) the two main pyramids at Giza appear to have undergone some restoration. This work is attributed to Ramesses' som Khaemwaset, who added hieroglyphic inscriptions to monuments at Giza, Saqqara and Dashur. Although Khaemwaset is sometimes called \"the first Egyptologist,\" these additions had explicitly religious functions; although a contemporary inscription records that the prince \"loved antiquity and his noble ancestors,\" and could not bear to see old monuments fall to ruin, his texts were created because they \"literally renewed the memory of those buried within, benefitting their spirits in the afterlife,\" Manassa notes.\n\n• Possibly associated with this same period is evidence from within the Great Pyramid of limited repair and replastering work that hardly fits the MO of the typical tomb robber. It's not possible to date this but it's usually attributed to the Pharaonic period.\n\n• About a century later, during the 12th Dynasty, a ruler named Khnumhotep set up an inscription (first transcribed by Percy Newberry in 1890-1) which imply some Pharaonic-style conservation work took place in this period. His inscription boasted: \"I caused the names of my fathers which I had found destroyed upon the doors to live again...\"\n\n• At some point during the Middle Kingdom, at the height of the Cult of Osiris, the royal tombs at Abydos were excavated in search of Osiris's tomb. When the diggers uncovered the First Dynasty tomb of Djet, they took it to be the deity's resting place and so restored it, building a new roof and an access stairway.\n\n• In the Third Intermediate and Late Periods, older monuments were studied so that their styles could be replicated in new buildings. Some dilapidated temples were restored at this time. The work was not extensive however and with the decline of the state funds for restoration probably weren't available in any case. Thompson states that \"by the Roman period, Egypt was little more than a mass of ruins.\" What survived was generally that which had been built most solidly - not least, of course, the pyramids.\n\n• Both Strabo (writing within 6 years of Cleopatra's death, in 24 B.C.) and Diodorus Siculus give accounts of the Great Pyramid that imply they personally visited the site and were taken around it by local guides, who told them stories about its construction. Diodorus, who visited in around 50 B.C., writes in chapter 64 of his Universal History of the Great Pyramid that he saw \"the entire structure undecayed\" – though it would be unwise to assume this was a careful description.\n\n• That's not least because Roman era graffiti was found inside the Great Pyramid early in the 19th century, written in soot on the roof of the subterranean chamber, which again strongly suggests that the pyramid was open to at least some visitors at this time; that the pyramid's Descending Passage was left open, not sealed, argues against the idea that the local people were keeping the monuments \"in repair\" in Cleopatra's time, and might suggest they no longer considered them sacred in this period, several centuries after the arrival of dynasties of Greek rulers.\n\n• We also know that Romans often visited other Egyptian sites to see their wonders - popular destinations include Armana, Abydos, Hatshepsut's mortuary temple, Karnak and the Valley of the Kings. Unfortunately all we have in these cases are inscriptions, not accounts of what exactly these sites looked like at the time. But again this argues against Pharaonic monuments being considered sacred and inviolate in this period.\n\n• There are numerous other Graeco-Roman grafitti on various Egyptian monuments, perhaps most famously on the plinths and legs of the pair of sandstone colossi commemorating Amenhotep III (reigned c.1350 B.C.) near Luxor that are popularly known as the [Colossi of Memnon](_URL_2_). One of these statues was felled by an earthquake in 27 B.C., only three years after Cleopatra's death, and it was after that occurred that the statue famously began to emit an unusual sound, said to have been like the string of a broken lyre, soon after sun-up on some mornings. Largely thanks to this phenomenon, the Colossi acquired a reputation as an oracle. Because of the fame thus acquired, and the graffitti left by visitors, we know something of their history around this time and it's clear that while the damaged statue was not immediately repaired, the fallen portions were replaced about 200 years later – [a restoration popularly ascribed to Septimus Severus](_URL_3_), who visited the statues but failed to hear the sound shortly before 200 A.D.\n\n**Sources**\n\nThomas W. Africa, \"Herodotus and Diodorus in Egypt,\" *Journal of Near Eastern Studies* 22 (1963)\n\nColleen Manassa, *Imagining the Past: Historical Fiction in New Kingdom Egypt*\n\nMaria Swetnam-Burland, *Egypt in the Roman Imagination*\n\nJason Thompson, *Wonderful Things: A History of Egyptology 1: From Antiquity to 1881*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QrMRBgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT191&amp;dq=thutmosis+dream+stele&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjt9LzNgqnRAhVsCsAKHVw9DLIQ6AEIPzAG#v=onepage&amp;q=thutmosis%20dream%20stele&amp;f=false", "http://www.guardians.net/hawass/sphinx2.htm", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Colossi_of_Memnon_May_2015_2.JPG", "https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OldbAAAAQAAJ&amp;pg=PA13&amp;dq=septimius+severus+restoration+statue+of+memnon&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiUka-ogKnRAhUqLcAKHc4ZD-kQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=septimius%20severus%20restoration%20statue%20of%20memnon&amp;f=false" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cxrc7r8" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Congrats! Not many folks will have had such a unique, historic experience. \n\nIf you're looking for a book about the firsthand experience, you might consider Augusta Clawson's *The Shipyard Diary of a Woman Welder,* which was a bestseller when it was released in 1944. Clawson, a writer from New York, traveled west to work at Kaiser's Richmond No. 1 shipyard, and her writing is breezy, with a lot of \"gee whiz\" attitude. It's not a historical work, but it's a first-person account written contemporaneously with events, and it's a fun one at that.\n\nBath is a bit of an odd duck in terms of WWII shipbuilding, but only because of the vast scale of the wartime industry. Bath dates to the 19th century, and even before the United States entered the war, it was running full-tilt with U.S. Navy contracts and some from the British government, too. It benefited greatly from wartime expansion (financed with low-interest loans from the federal government), but it was an existing facility with a workforce that was already present. A lot of the prototypical \"Liberty Ship\" shipyards that we think of, like those created by Kaiser or Higgins, were developed particularly for the war. They sprang up without pre-existing infrastructure or industry, and so they garnered a bit more attention.\n\nNationwide, the figures are astonishing: The United States built more than 50,000 landing craft, 3,100 Liberty ships (including EC2 and VC2 types together), 1,100 more merchant ships (mostly tankers), and more than a thousand warships. Entire shipyards were built in Wisconsin, Illinois, Oregon, California and elsewhere to meet the demand. Hundreds of thousands of Americans moved to these new shipyards, demanding vast new housing complexes, schools, restaurants and other facilities. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cy7nhuf" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "J.A. Crook's Law and Life of Ancient Rome says that one of the generalizations concerning Roman commercial law is that \"[t]here was no law of patent or copyright, [and] no protection for property in ideas.\" Rome didn't have modern technologies to speed book copying along, so most copies were made by booksellers using literate slaves as scribes. You wouldn't save much money or time over a bookseller by making a copy yourself.\n\nEven though copyright didn't exist, plagiarism as a concept did. Vitruvius related an occasion where King Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt held a poetry contest, and had Aristophanes judge. Aristophanes surprised everyone by saying that the poet who least impressed the audience should win, because he is the only one who made his own poem, while the rest had stolen their poems from older works. He then proved it by having books from the library brought in order to show the source of the verses.\n\nAs for unlicensed sequels, the closest thing I can think of is the Aeneid. It's basically Illiad fan fiction written for political reasons. It takes the character of Aeneas from Troy, and has him escape the destruction of the city and go on to help found Rome." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "de0fl45", "de1611i" ], "score": [ 82, 5 ], "text": [ "Wonderful question! It's [something that still comes up today](_URL_0_), and there's no certain answer unless you've got a telepathic time traveler handy. That said, **we do know that Nixon considered destroying the White House tapes at least twice, but he decided against doing so because he was convinced they were protected by executive privilege, that they would be useful to his memoirs, and later, he came to realize they might be useful in an impeachment defense.**\n\nBefore we discuss why Nixon might want to *destroy* the recordings, we need to talk about why he wanted them in the first place.\n\nOne of the clearest, easily available answers is [that given by Nixon Chief of Staff H.R. Haldemann during an oral history interview with the Library of Congress in 1987](_URL_3_). As Haldemann explains, the sheer volume of information the president had to deal with made keeping accurate records critical. Otherwise, there was no way to confirm who said what, to whom, when, and using what words. If someone came out of the White House saying something that was a lie, the president needed to have a way to confirm that it was a lie.\n\nLyndon Johnson had used a taping system in the White House (as had Kennedy for some portions of his presidency), but where Johnson liked technology and gadgets, Nixon was a techno-phobe. He ordered the taping system shut down and removed, replaced with a system of human note-takers and \"color memos\" that described the mood and atmosphere in particular meetings. According to Haldemann, word got back to Johnson about the trouble Nixon was having, and Johnson said Nixon was an idiot for not keeping good records. That led to the taping system, which started working on Feb. 16, 1971 in the Oval Office and Cabinet Room. A few months later, it was expanded to Nixon's other offices and rooms.\n\nThe first time Nixon considered destroying the tapes [was April 9, 1973, months before they became public knowledge in the Senate hearings](_URL_2_) into Watergate. In 1997, the *Washington Post* published an account of newly released tapes that (in a very *meta* moment) featured Nixon talking about destroying the tapes. (Note that many of the tapes remain untranscribed and unreleased even today, due to the sheer volume of conversations).\n\nAccording to the transcripts published by the *Post* in 1997, Nixon decided on April 9 to pull a few tapes for safekeeping and destroy the rest. A week later, he had changed his mind. \n\n > On April 18, Nixon told Haldeman to \"take all these tapes\" and review them, \"as a service to the [future Nixon] library.\" He also wanted Haldeman to determine how damaging they were and whether any might be helpful.\n\n > \"In other words, I'd like it if there's some material there that's probably worth keeping,\" Nixon told his chief of staff. \"Most of it is worth destroying.\"\n\n > The president also made clear that he did not want to shut the \"damn\" system down. \"You know what I mean,\" Nixon said. \"You never know what conversation is [going to be] interesting and so forth and so on.\"\n\n > Haldeman agreed. \"[It's] not a bad thing for you to have,\" he told Nixon.\n\nThis 1997 revelation backed up what Nixon had shared in his interviews with David Frost. Here's an excerpt from *The Nixon Interviews with David Frost, Vol. 5*, which transcribes those interviews:\n\n > And after going through that period, I then felt, after listening to the tapes, that perhaps Haldeman not having taken the system out, that it was probably a good idea, because the tapes in many respects contradicted charges that had been made by Mr. Dean. And Mr. Haldeman was to say ─ talk to me later, when we talked about this matter, that he agreed that one of the reasons that perhaps he didn’t move on the instruction to destroy only those, except for the important national security matters that I have mentioned and domestic issues of importance that I mentioned, was because, he said, after all, he said, you’ve got to have a record in the event that somebody says something and it proves to be untrue. Now I’ll conclude on this point. I didn’t destroy the tapes because, first, I didn’t believe that there was a reason to destroy them. I didn’t believe that there was anything on them that would be detrimental to me. I also, I must admit in all ─\n\nFrost interrupts for a moment here. \n\n > ─ candor I don’t believe that they were going to come out. The second point was that I didn’t destroy them because I felt that if at a later time, that had I done so, it would have been an open admission, or at least appeared to be an admission, well, I’m trying to cover something up.\n\nThe second time Nixon considered destroying the tapes was in July 1973, immediately after White House aide Alexander Butterfield revealed their existence in testimony to the Senate committee investigating the Watergate break-in. Those tapes were immediately subpoenaed, but Nixon contested the court order, saying that they were a matter of executive privilege and classified for national security reasons.\n\nThe court battle lasted until the summer of 1974, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in *United States v. Nixon* ruled 8-0 in favor of the subpoena. Nixon had to release the tapes, and he did so, having released edited transcripts in April 1974.\n\nIn his memoirs, Nixon wrote that he did not consider destroying the tapes until Butterfield's testimony, something we now know was untrue. That said, the memoirs ─ if they are indeed trustworthy ─ indicate that Nixon considered deleting them in summer 1973 but [decided against it because they were \"my best insurance.\"](_URL_1_) Nixon would be able to use the tapes to provide reasonable doubt in any impeachment hearings, he believed, and he thought that the Supreme Court would possibly be split 4-4 on the ruling of executive privilege. That would have let him keep the tapes confidential. \n\nNixon gambled right up until the end, and in hindsight, he absolutely was convinced that he made a mistake in not deleting the tapes.\n\nIf you're looking for more reading, you might consider two sides of the same coin: John Dean's *The Nixon Defense* and Haldemann's own *The Ends of Power.* I think reading both is a good balance.\n\n", "There is strong evidence that he did destroy a particularly damning tape, known ever after as [the 18 1/2 minute gap](_URL_1_). The WH attempted to explain it as an accident, caused by Nixon's personal secretary, Rosemary Woods, when she was transcribing it; she claimed that she leaned waaay back in her office chair to take a phone call, leaving her feet on the pedals of the dictation machine, and then held the stretch while the tape got erased. [She re-enacted this explanation for reporters,](_URL_0_:) thus providing a moment of comic relief in a national crisis. As the *Post*'s recap notes, experts determined there were four or five separate erasures. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/237296-rnc-on-clinton-even-nixon-didnt-destroy-the-tapes", "http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1552&amp;context=nlr", "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/nixon/103097tapes.htm", "https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1988/summer/haldeman.html" ], [ "https://www.google.ca/search?q=rosemary+woods+photo&amp;rlz=1C9BKJA_enCA661CA661&amp;oq=rose+mary+woods&amp;aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l3j69i60.8262j0j4&amp;hl=en-US&amp;sourceid=chrome-mobile&amp;ie=UTF-8#imgrc=Qdhh7QCLcfdQSM", "https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/16/the-missing-18-12-minutes-presidential-destruction-of-incriminating-evidence/?utm_term=.95a37c1911ab" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dpdb7gr" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Technically, the captured members of the resistance were not considered as POWs by the Geneva Conventions. This is because the French resistance, for example, did not wear uniforms or identifying marks visible at a distance, nor did they carry arms openly. This is a difficult issue, since they also do not fall into any of the other protected classes under the conventions-- civilians, sick, wounded, shipwrecked, etc. Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative To The Treatment of Prisoners of War (12 August 1949) was not in effect during WW2, but this post-war modification seems to specifically exempt most resistance forces from being considered as POWs. Article 4, PARA A discusses who POWs are, and subpart (2) says that resistance forces are included as POWs ONLY if they meet certain conditions: \" a) being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; c) that of carrying arms openly; and d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.\" Since the French Resistance of WW2 (for example) did not comply with subparts b) and c), I would read this as saying that the Germans could have legitimately treated them as common criminals under the law of the German occupation. I don't currently have at hand the version of the conventions which was in effect during WW2, but from memory of when I took a course on the conventions at the ICRC, I believe it left the status of resistance fighters to be defined by the occupiers, and did not include them in POW status. Thus, they basically were left out of the Geneva Conventions, and this status was not changed in the 1949 revisions. German treatment of them as common armed criminals was not prohibited by the conventions. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cl6h6go", "cl6lfx7" ], "score": [ 9, 2 ], "text": [ "The nation of Belgium and its armed forces was not involved in the Algerian War. There are no existing records or sources that reference any involvement of the Belgium armed forces for the French cause. Are you certain that this fellow you ran into said that he fought under the Belgian flag? There is of course the possibility that he was a Belgian man in the French paratroopers or perhaps more realistically, a Belgian French Foreign Legionnaire. \n\nI also find it very hard to believe that someone belonging to the paratroopers would find themselves being captured in 1962 when the FLN (and other insurgent groups) were essentially limited to their bases and areas and were actively being fought into tighter and tighter spaces as a result of the Challe offensive.", "He was either in the French foreign legion or he's lying. I know of no sources that could indicate Belgian militaristic involvement in the Algerian War of Independence." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d9lxonj" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "King's savior and resurgence of his career was in part the coming together of 3 different factors meeting the world events of late 1940-1942 and the need for high energy in naval high command.\n\n1. Was his eventually close relationship with FDR, and Secretary Knox.\n\n2. His greatness as a naval officer eventually overrode his personal attitude and demons, and his professional reputation was never ruined.\n\n3. His ability to be the fighter and wartime admiral along with his seemingly limitless reserves of energy.\n\nIt is also important to understand the billet of COMINCH, or its previous version, Commander-in-Chief US Fleet, the terribly named CINCUS(King renamed it after Pearl Harbor). \n\nIn the interwar period the USN went through several structural reforms, thanks to the Panama Canal it was no longer seen as crucial to maintain equally powerful Atlantic and Pacific Fleets. Thus the force was combined, you had the \"Battle Force\" made up of the gun line and scouting assets and escorts, and the \"Patrol Force\" of older and secondary ships to support the main force. The commander of the Battle Force typically dual hatted as CINCUS. \n\nIn 1940 Admiral Richardson got into a bad spat with FDR over the decision to move the Battle Force from California to a new main base at Pearl Harbor, he felt it was too exposed and under developed. This led to his term being cut short and a shuffle in high command. It also led to another reform in the fleet structure. The Pacific Fleet and Atlantic Fleets were reformed, while the Asiatic Fleet under Hart had always been a separate side show command. Admiral Kimmel was named CINCPAC, and as the main sea going billet as CINCUS in case the combined force ever did operate together. While King who had tried to get named as CNO had been stuck on the General Board, normally a holding ground till officers had to retire, however Stark who had been named CNO, got him the CINCLANT job.\n\nIn that post he was faced with the challenge of a new naval war in the Atlantic, and cemented his place in FDR's mind as one of \"his admirals\" and a great fighter. This was high praise from the President who loved the Navy most of all, more even than those who had worn the uniform, Asst SECNAV was his longest job besides President itself. \n\nWith Kimmel disgraced by Pearl Harbor some additional changes had to be made. Nimitz was sent out to Pearl and told to \"not come back until he has won\". But the need to organize a global war and coordinate the entire fleet could not happen from a ship. So King is brought in as COMINCH to handle the actual operations of the ships and commands. To \"Fight the Navy\" as it were in the days before Combatant Commanders and the modern force structure. Stark meanwhile continues as CNO, doing much of what the modern CNO does, long term planning, force management, acquisitions and such. \n\nBut Stark's greatest failure was perhaps not his own doing, while yes Pearl Harbor occurred on his watch it was not particularly his undoing. What it was, was that he was simply not Ernie King. King had the work capacity, and force of nature essentially to force a consolidation of the offices, he could do the whole job better than with two splitting the load. He also was able to develop a working relationship with Admiral Leahy in the end, who was FDR's CoS and who had been the CNO before Stark. It also helped that it balanced the Army and Navy 2-2 for the US high command with Marshall and Hap Arnold on the other side. \n\nSo he gets both posts, and Stark gets to save face by going out to England. \n\nIan W. Toll's *Pacific Crucible* gives a great rundown on the Navy in early WW2 and Ernest King and the other senior Admirals as well. \n\nAnd Borneman's *The Admirals* are both great places to start for more." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fhiomoj" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Anders Winroth, _The Conversion of Scandinavia: Vikings, Merchants, and Missionaries in the Remaking of Northern Europe_, Yale University Press, 2014\n\nNora Berend (ed), _Christianization and the rise of Christian Monarchy - Scandinavia, Central Europe and the Rus', c900-1200_, Cambridge University Press, 2007\n\nJón Viðar Sigurðsson, _Kristninga i Norden 750-1200_, Samlaget, 2003\n\nOddgeir Hoftun, _Kristningsprosessens og herskermaktens ikonografi i nordisk middelalder_, Solum Forlag, 2008\n\nBrian Patrick McGuire, _Da himmelen kom nærmere : fortællinger om Danmarks kristning 700-1300_, Alfa, 2008\n\nSten Tesch (ed), _Skiftet : Vikingatida sed och kristen tro - Ett mångvetenskapligt perspektiv på kristnandeprocessen i Mälarområdet_, Artos Norma, 2018" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8k104r", "c8k1d00", "c8k3l01" ], "score": [ 2, 44, 10 ], "text": [ "Sorry for the wikipedia link, but I just remembered a concept that I haven't heard since I was a kid: [Quipu](_URL_0_), mnemonic knots which convey simple messages, akin to the earliest forms of cuneiform in simplicity of content.", "They did have writing systems. [Several of them](_URL_0_) in fact. Some, like Mayan and Epi-Olmec, represented every sound in the spoken language (e: *probably.* Epi-Olmec hasn't been deciphered yet.). Others, like the Aztec and Mixtec scripts, were mostly pictographic and only loosely tied to the spoken language. But even these were effective enough to record things like history, religious rituals, and accounting information. The reason most people haven't heard of them is because the Spanish branch of the Catholic church burned every single pre-Columbian book they could find. Only twelve manuscripts made it out of the country before the bibliocaust, although a few others were reproduced from memory afterwards.", "As outlined by Snickeringshadow, there were complex written languages that existed in Mesoamerica. In the Andes however, things get a little more interesting. They did not have a true writing system, but they did have a complex record keeping system based on colored string and knot tying, which resulted in what are known as Quipu. While not as versatile as a full writing system, it was highly useful for organization and record keeping.\n\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quipu" ], [ "http://ancientscripts.com/ma_ws.html" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quipu" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "crdhum9", "crdp6ra", "crds5tp" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Edith Hamilton's \"Mythology\" is always a good place to start for Greek and Roman, and a little Norse. Others may be able to recommend for other cultures, my main experience is with Greece and Rome. ", "There are several books of Irish mythology, the Tain being one of the more famous, which were written by monks in the 12th century. These are not books about Irish mythology, they are the books OF Irish mythology, or as close as you can get. Some Christian spin laid over the stories but they're wonderful nonetheless! Fascinating stuff, and relatively easy to read if you get a good copy.", "I'd recommend \"The Hero with a Thousand Faces\" by Joseph Campbell. It is from 1949, and there are certainly many critiques on both structuralism in general and Cambells' monomyth in particular. But, seeking commonalities in myth and hero stories he covers a lot of them, the book is beautifully written and much of later fiction is explicitly modelled after Campbell. It is one of my favourite books, I've recommended it before to people with general interest in mythology and they also found it very interesting. In any case, it is an excellent read and you'll likely remember it often when reading other myths, or even just watching films or other fiction. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]