Datasets:

Pavithree

/

askHistorians_18762_28144

like 0

{ "a_id": [ "ck43v3n" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "First of all thanks for your question. To help your understanding of the Congo Free State develop a bit, there are a few answers I have written previously that address some of the [common misconceptions ](_URL_2_) and the [history and manner of rule of the territory]( _URL_3_). To reiterate what /u/holytriplem has said, it was not the Belgians who were viewed as the perpetrators of the genocide in the Congo, but Leopold and his company who were rightly blamed.\n\nTo address your original question then, it is also crucial to understand that there were varying schools of thought by 1914 on the colonial efforts of the European imperial powers. You are absolutely right in saying that it was a British led condemnation that saw Leopold lose his private colony, but generalising about the average British person's attitude is incredibly difficult as it was not the official British policy to condemn Leopold's owning of territory. From the late 1890s through the first decade of the 20th century, support for the British empire was high, especially during and after the Boer Wars around the turn of the century. Events such as the Siege/Relief of Mafeking were highly popularised, and jingoistic sentiments were engaged and developed through the advent of what could be called 'modern war reporting' (i.e. news from the battlefields arrived hours or days rather than weeks after the event). The British were proud of their empire (good write up [here]( _URL_0_) about the period - non-academic article though so use with caution.) In terms of the actual outbreak of war, the Belgian Congo played little part in determining British response. \n\nCecil Rhodes had only recently and very violently put down a native uprising in his company's private territory (Southern Rhodesia) and the British had been reluctant to condemn the actions there, but there was a wideheld belief that the British empire was different and 'better' than those of other European powers. The Germans were seen as heavy handed and violent, the French much too close to their colonial subjects, and the Italians as examples of abject failure in running an empire, but most British believed their empire treated all of its subjects fairly, providing them with civilisation and religion and infrastructure and all the other things that Africans 'needed'. Towards the end of the 19th century though a very small, very vocal minority of the British public began putting forward an explicitly anti-colonial agenda and sought to cast Leopold as the rogue of the Congo Atrocities, acting as a despotic megalomaniac would when given absolute power. A report by a British consul, Roger Casement, brought to light in the English speaking world the scale of the suffering in the Congo and others furthered the humanitarian effort and it was this instead upon which the British fell with their full support - they condemned not the holding of the territory by Leopold but his actions towards the peoples within it for being barbaric and unbecoming of a civilised power.\n\nPerhaps the most notable example is Joseph Conrad's fantastic novel, *The Heart of Darkness*. There is a rather decent article available [here]( _URL_1_) which explains the British attitude towards the Congo and the resentment that was directed more so at Leopold, himself an explicit advocate of economic racism against colonial subjects, than at the Belgians as a nationality. This vocal anti-colonial minority campaigned hard and publicly to highlight Casement's report and the testimonies of missionaries working in the EIC as to the scale of the mistreatments and deaths, and spur others to act, specifically the Belgians themselves.\n\nGuy Vanthemsche in his great book *Belgium and the Congo, 1885-1980*, states that:\n\n > Between 1885 and 1900, the Congolese issue flared up at key moments. But at the beginning of the new century, the atmosphere changed as the international campaign against Leopold II increased. This had repercussions in Belgium. Some factions of the Belgian press and, increasingly, public opionion were strongly opposed to the Congo Free State policy. Parliamentarians protested against inhumane practices in Leopold's African state and the Congo became a divisive issue in Belgian domestic politics. (p.41)\n\nIt was only in 1906 after the threat of an international conference on the Congo issue that Leopold conceded to allow the Belgian state to annex the colony. The Belgians, although perhaps not as supportive of their colonialism as the British were of their empire, nevertheless held regular exhibitions of Belgian colonialism in the Congo from 1898 to the 1930s. The actions of Leopold were seen by both themselves and the wider world as a different time and the Belgian Colonial Office and Ministry of the Colonies fought hard to portray an extreme contrast of the 'before' and 'after' of Leopold's rule and the annexation of the EIC. Unlike in France or Britain, there was almost no migration from the EIC to Belgium during Leopold's rule and subsequently, Belgian colonialism retained some distance from the general public, that impacted on the public opinion and the way it was shaped by international condemnation. Leopold was very aware of international public opinion and the effect it had on domestic politics in Belgium, going so far as to pay a lawyer to lobby the US Congress with regards to the Congo issue, a plan which spectacularly backfired in December 1906 when the dealings were made public and the US and Britain very quickly pledged complete support in removing the EIC from Leopold's control (see Martin Ewans in *European Atrocity, African Catastrophe* p.227)\n\n The British in 1908 demanded the abolition of forced labour in the colony and to safeguard the rights and freedoms of the Congolese peoples, a policy supported by the Americans. The British public opinion on this is difficult to ascertain - newspapers were generally in favour of the abolition but it was made repeatedly clear that the problem lay not with the Belgians who were willing to do everything possible to guarantee the future of the people in the EIC, but with Leopold. Leopold's successor, Albert I, made public declarations of intent as to a better future for the Congo (and unlike Leopold actually visited the colony). If newspapers can be seen as a hazy reflection of the opinion of the public they write for, then the atrocities in the Congo were widely condemned. \n\nUnfortunately, making more accurate statements about the public attitude is nigh on impossible and I don't know enough about WWI itself to pass judgement on British attitudes towards Belgium during the outbreak of war, so maybe somebody else could fill in the gaps. I hope this long-winded, rambling answer helps you a little. Obviously, my knowledge is primarily African orientated with the metropoles themselves playing out in the background, but if you have any more questions fire away and I will do my best. The books I referenced are absolutely great reads and probably available on google books for free - have a gander and a read if you want.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/781/propaganda-public-opinion-and-the-second-south-african-boer-war", "http://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/African%20Journals/pdfs/PULA/pula012001/pula012001005.pdf", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/28cph1/was_cecil_rhodes_really_responsible_for_more/cia009i", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ba2ah/i_have_read_that_the_colonization_of_zimbabwe/cj3azuc" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dvm4tbi" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I've been hesitating to answer this because I can't think of any source that says in so many words \"of course, a lord couldn't simply take land away from someone\". Then I realized that there's no canon law that says \"the Pope cannot sacrifice unbaptized boys on the altar during Easter Mass\", either.\n\nI've just re-read Magna Carta, the original version sealed by John ... well, the English translation thereof. After the first clause, the one about the church, the next 7 are all about preserving inheritances, of the normal heir and of the widow. Showing so much care about inheritance shows how much more important possession is.\n\nAnd indeed possession of land is later protected. Clause 39 (in Warren's numbering) is \"No freeman shall be ... disseised [lose land] ... or in any way destroyed ... except by the lawful judgement of his peers and by the law of the land.\" Clause 43 says that if a fief is escheated to the crown, their tenants shall hold by their old conditions. Clause 51 deals with any who have be dispossessed. So too with clauses 56 and 57 for Welshmen.\n\nLand was critically important -- consider that it's now called \"*real* estate\" or \"real property\". Some was supposed to lose land only through laborious proceedings of right (or self-help by taking back rightful land by force of arms, but that was later curbed and suppressed).\n\nEven attempts by the king to constrain privileges, like later proceedings of *quo warranto* (or more unsystematic ones under Henry II) to make men justify their franchises and privileges, or enforcing forest law on royal lands, stirred up a lot of unrest.\n\nWhat the king granted was whatever was in his hands. The title was, either by reviving an old title or by creating a new one. At least in Anglo-Norman times, an earl got the title of a shire, could sit in the shire court with the sheriff and the bishop, and got the third penny of justice, one-third of all fines assessed in the shire. Other things would often enough be given with it -- castles, manors, mills, parks, whatever that the king already held, privileges and franchises that were governed by and conceded by the king.\n\nHow did the king get titles and lands to grant? Maybe no king had given it before -- I think William the Conqueror kept about a third of England in his hands. Or a lord could die without an heir, in which case, his lands and titles were \"escheated\" to his lord, which often was the king. A lord could be \"attainted\", deprived of lands and titles, due to treason (meaning he lost the rebellion; as later famously observed, if he won, it wasn't treason) or other major felony.\n\nA fief in the king's hands usually had tenants, whether serfs, freemen, sergeants, knights, and/or lords. If the fief were being regranted, they would likely be granted with them.\n\nI don't have examples of grants by charter or letters patent to hand to point to. Generally, a charter at least was very detailed in listing exactly what the donor was giving to the recipient, just to avoid later questions about who had the privilege of the fair of Saint Frithfrith, or the mill on the River Plunk and the right to force the locals to use it, or the court of the hundred of Doddering Sloughleigh.\n\nThere were edge cases. There might be a charter of confirmation. A lord might die without a male heir but with a daughter: the title and possessions might be confirmed to the daughter's husband.\n\nCertainly no later than the restoration of Charles II and the act removing all jurisdiction from noble titles, noble titles were completely honorary; any lands or other possessions would be given separately. I don't know when the transition happened.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d01wxun" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I'll preface by saying this is not an area I am well studied in, so I hope someone with more knowledge on the subject will correct me if I'm wrong on something. Anyway:\n\nWhile the two peoples you speak of, the Huns and Mongols, most certainly did not speak the same language, and in all probability did not have the same exact cultural traditions as eachother, they probably lived in much the same way. The nomadic horse archer lifestyle is incredibly old. Like, seriously old. The Roman Empire was not the first to experience raids by nomadic horse peoples, nor was Attila the only one to lead his people into settled lands. The Assyrians of Mesopotamia, who had their heyday thousands of years before the Romans even enter the scene, famously fought with similar nomadic horsepeople called scithians if memory serves, who were very similar to Atilla's huns.\n\nEurope actually experienced a second invasion in the 9th and 10th century (a long time after Atilla and roughly three hundred years before Genghis Khan) from nomadic steppe people called the Magyars, and these were indeed very similar to the other two groups. It is also worth remembering that any civilization living close to the eurasian steppe probably dealt with smaller groups of nomadic peoples much more frequently; the large-scale invasions of powerful leaders like Attila and Genghis Khan are merely the more famous ones. The Chinese dynasties spent much of their time and effort trying to keep the steppe tribes from unifying in order to prevent exactly what Genghis Khan did.\n\nIn short, throughout all of recorded history up to the modern period, nomadic horseriders have populated the steppe and been a smaller or larger nuisqnce to the settled societies that they happened to border. This lifestyle was pretty much the most effective way to survive on the steppe, and up until modern firearms, mounted archers were supremely deadly on the battlefield (outside of battle, the bow and horse combination was primarily used for hunting in order to survive, but it turned out to be pretty effective at hunting people as well as beasts). As a result, there was not much reason to change that way of life all that much over the ages. Because it worked perfectly fine as it had for thousands of years.\n\nIn conclusion: While the Huns and Mongols are nearly a thousand years apart and were *by no means the same people*, how they lived would indeed have been very similar if not almost the same." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ez4un6b", "ez7xq2j" ], "score": [ 2, 9 ], "text": [ "Whilst you await a more specific answer the [faq](_URL_0_) may help", "How did the Allies win WW1?\nSo this is a pretty big ask as there’s a lot of moving parts in the Allied war effort but I think I can break it down into three (because historians love threes) broad areas. We’ll call them Blood, Steel and Brains.\n\n**Blood** – Is more or less the numbers argument. From the outset the Central Powers were outnumbered by the Allies due to the immense population of Russia and the British Empire. Once the US joined the war the numbers went even further into the Allies favour. This enormous pool of manpower dwarfed that of the Central Powers and meant that unless a decisive victory was won quickly on the battlefield the Allies would most likely win a long war.\n\n**Steel** – By this I’m really talking about the Allied industrial and economic power. Again due to large empires and then the entry of the US, the Allies were able to draw on vast reserves of resources and industrial capacity to fight the war. Especially by the vital year of 1918, with the naval blockade biting Germany, the Allies were at their highest level of output. Ammunition, guns, tanks, food and all the other supplies needed to fight were being turned out at a greater rate than the Germans could compete with. When German troops captured British and French positions in the Spring of 1918 they were dismayed to see how well the Allied troops were eating and when compared to themselves.\n\n**Brains** – And by brains, I mean all of the technical, tactical, doctrinal and strategic advances made by the Allied armies in four years of fighting. While we may think of WW1 as only trench warfare, the reality is that the fighting went through a transformation during the war, and it wasn’t only the Germans who picked up new ideas. The Allies were able to outfight the German armies on the battlefield.\n\nBlood and steel I’ll combine for brevity and cause I think numbers are a little boring. Based on populations alone it’s quite easy to see that the Allies had a huge advantage over the Central Powers. Taken all together the Allies had a total population base of ~700 million against the Central Powers ~200 million. Now a state’s ability to actually raise armed forces from these populations varies a lot, but the main players in the Allies are still able to raise enough troops to outnumber the Central Powers. Along with manpower the empires of France and Britain provided enormous reserves of vital war resources like coal, oil, steel, rubber, lead as well as vital foodstuffs. Also available to the Allies was the immense industrial base of Britain and America. Britain was in 1914 still the workshop of the world, but the US and Canada were also rising industrial powers. Although it took some time to convert civilian industry to war footing the end state was a mammoth military industry that powered not just the British War effort but also considerably aided that of France, Russia and the US. \n\nGerman industry simply couldn’t keep pace with the spiralling cost of fighting the war. Ever more ammunition was needed for the guns and the siege like nature of the fighting meant that it was extremely costly in terms of materiel. Historian Meleah Hampton has noted how in 1918 as the Allies were turning increasingly to a materiel centred approach to fighting the Germans had to rely on a more human centred approach as their supply situation became precarious.\n\nBrains is, I think, the most important area, but I’m probably biased. As they fought the war the Allies underwent what has previously been called the “learning curve” but is now more accurately called the “learning process”.\nThe ideas of how war would be fought leading up to 1914 turned out in many ways to be faulty, but these problems were compounded by a variety of novel problems that hadn’t been previously considered. Issues like deep belts of barbed wire, complex trench networks extending miles back, the inability to neutralise enemy artillery, gas, tanks, light mortars and a score of other things made the problem of fighting, on the Western Front at least, a very difficult challenge. And often every solution raised new, different problems to be solved. \n\nOver several years of fighting the Allied armies tackled these problems, tried solutions, discarded failed options and eventually came up with a winning concept. It was realised that the war was attiritonal and that an outcome from a decisive battle was unlikely. While the Germans could, and did, pull back to high ground and fight a defensive war in the West, coming up with ingenious methods of defence in depth, the Allies were forced to fight offensively. The Germans were occupying French and Belgian territory and had to be removed. This meant offensive operations. And in 1915, 1916 and 1917 the Allies repeatedly launched offensives to dislodge or destroy German troops. Strategically they usually failed, but there were often many operational or tactical successes. And even the failures were useful if lessons could be gleaned from them. And although the progress was uneven, the Allies did move forward, both literally and metaphorically. \n\nBut I think the thing that really did it for the Allies was Foch being appointed Supreme Commander on the Western Front. It was at this point when the Allies were able to come up with a strategic and operational concept that would bring them victory. After the failures of the German Spring and Summer offensives it was the Allies turn to strike. Starting with the French at Soissons and then switching to the British at Amiens they were able to launch consecutive, rapid (for the time), successful limited offensives against German positions. \n\nMaking use of secrecy to keep the Germans off balance about where they were going to strike and then using devastating artillery barrages and often supported by tanks the French and British were able to break into German vital positions, taking trenches, men and guns and forcing neighbouring positions to fall back. The Allies then advanced again until German reserves were rushed in and resistance stiffened and they shut their offensive down. As soon as one offensive stopped another army would start up again, pushing the Germans off balance and forcing them to rush reserves to the newly threatened part of the line. These hammer blows pushed the Germans back in what is known as the Hundred Days Offensive, which ended with the Armistice on 11 November. \n\nThere’s more detail and a lot of other things going on all the war through this, but I think it’s really those three areas that determine the outcome of the war." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "e0gs6zb" ], "score": [ 15 ], "text": [ "Not to discourage another answer, but this question seems to be answered somewhat here:\n\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views#wiki_historians.27_views_of_edward_gibbon.27s_.22decline_and_fall_of_the_roman_empire.22" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ce1mqvs" ], "score": [ 37 ], "text": [ "I talk about this extensively at the below link, although feel free to ask any more questions.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIn a bulletted nutshell:\n\n1. Latin never achieved an overwhelming penetration into the countryside. This is probably due to the military nature of the british economy, so that it had less country/town interaction than say Gaul which had a more diversified economy, were Latin did achieve a significant penetration.\n\n2. The socio-economic collapse in southern central England after Roman withdrawal was almost total, as well as quick, in the sense that it occurred within living memory. Because the socio-economic structures of the former Roman state and the middle/upper class had collapsed, all that was left was the peasant class, who having never spoken latin significantly, continued to use Brythonic/Welsh in their daily lives.\n\n3. When the Anglo-Saxons arrived, they brought with them trade links to the continent and a more significant material culture, so that the Romano-British assimilated toward this new culture, rather than the reverse, because there was simply no Latin culture left for the Anglo-Saxons to absorb due to societal collapse.\n\n4. The areas that maintained Romano-British culture were thus those that were simultaneously least Romanized and farthest away from Anglo-Saxon settlement (Wales/Cornwall), because they had their own tribal structures and material culture from which to rebuild after the departure of the Romans. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1kqlm6/why_did_britannia_fail_to_latinise/cbry81i" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dtmadwg" ], "score": [ 19 ], "text": [ "The \"improvised synthesis of methamphetamine\" first crops up in the US during the 60s and 70s though it's history is older.\n\nMeth in that period was prevalent in the west coast of the US and mostly the purview of outlaw biker gangs who were linked to other aspects of the drug trade. They used the \"California Cook\" or P2P method. These were the first \"clan labs\" associated with meth production in the US and they were very dangerous. The production quality of the P2P method is also pretty inefficient and the resulting meth is usually of lower grade than other methods.\n\nIn the 80s and 90s, the \"Nazi Cold Cook\" method took off, and it used anhydrous ammonia and ephedrine, mainly acquired through theft of farm supplies and large scale purchases of over the counter ephedrine and pseudoephedrine.\n\nThat became the predominant \"clan lab\" in the US, into the early 2000s. It started to lose popularity as the DEA and states tightened the sale of ephedrine/Sudofed and fertilizer suppliers and users made it harder to steal or acquire anhydrous ammonia. The early 2000s also saw a major shift in meth supplies from internal to the US to Mexico as \"home cookers\" ceased to be the main source for meth in the black drugs market. It was more efficient and cheaper to smuggle industrial scale produced meth across the border. In a way, the enforcement activities that successfully reduced the number of clan labs in the US, led to a \"professionalization\" and \"commoditization\" of the meth market.\n\nThe alternate form of production is the \"red P\" method you refer to (of which there are two primary variations). This has been around for a while and popped up in clan labs from time to time but was not as popular as the Cold Cook among home brewets. It is the primary production method used in Mexican labs, however. \n\nSource: Long ago, in a land far away, I attended an abbreviated version of the DEA Clan Lab course and worked with a number of meth task forces, but since that might be seen as \"anecdotal\" by the ever vigilant Moderators, I recommend you see this DOJ publication for a start: _URL_0_\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs13/13853/product.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cwq36vk" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Those are ceremonial yes(and worn by the emperor at that). That said, the region is by no means uniformly hot and dry and climate depends much on elevation, geography, etc. So certainly there would be times when dressing warmly would be advisable." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.anheuser-busch.com/s/uploads/Dillon_AMToure.jpg", "http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/bios6/suleim01.jpg", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menelik_II#/media/File:Emperor_Menelik_II.png" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cg48wpo", "cg4ab6a", "cg4d6af", "cg4ezot", "cg4mxm2", "cg4pfkg" ], "score": [ 38, 4, 3, 3, 8, 2 ], "text": [ "It is currently moving in he direction of a more federal system like the US. \n\nThe big reasons are\n\n\n- greater migration between Wales and England than between England and Scotland (just by virtue of geography), \n\n\n- greater political nationalism in Scotland (rather than Wales' more cultural nationalism), \n\n\n-the fact that Wales has for around 500 years been legally part of England.\n\n\n\nHere is the history:\n\nWales has legally been part of the Kingdom of England since the 1534 Act of Union. (I think it is legally separate since in 1997 it got its own govt. etc)\nThis Act of Union was not really a union of equal partners. It was an annexation.\n\n\nIn 1603, the King of Scotland also became the King of England. This is called a union of crowns. Both kingdoms remained separate, the same person, King James simply ruled both, as James VI of Scotland and as James I of England.\n\nJames tried to roll the two kingdoms into one, but this was resisted on both sides. So for 100 years, the two kingdoms remained separate, each with their own constitutions and Parliaments. \n\nBy 1700, both sides were more used to one another and wanted Union -England liked not having to worry about an enemy to the north, and wanted to make sure that no European rival would take the throne of Scotland. The Scots grew to like and depend upon England's more sophisticated economy and financial institutions. Both sides hated and feared Catholicism.\n\nSo in 1707, there was an Act of Union, but it was a union of equals: the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England ceased to exist, and were replaced by the United Kingdom of Great Britain. \n\nScotland retained a number of powers in this new union, most notably retaining their own legal system, Scots Law. This is a crucial part of why Scotland and England/Wales are different .\n\nIn the 18th century, the nation building project proceeded apace - there was a Scottish Enlightenment, with notable philosophers like Hume, but interestingly, all of these guys were embarrassed of being Scottish, and styled themselves as 'British' at a time when England was very focused on 'Englishness'. \n\nIn the late 19c., Scottish nationalism started to emerge. I'm not an expert on this, but I understand that it largely started as a bit of a joke, e.g. the whole Tartan thing was reinvented to try to impress a visiting Queen Victoria.\n\nThrough the 19c., Wales was populated by a lot of English migrants to the valleys. I don't think this happened on the same scale in Scotland, where migrants were mostly Scots or Irish. \n\nThe decline of the Empire in the early 20c. IMO really put a strain on Scotland's place in the union - for 300 years it was one of the few shared institutions Scots really had a big part in - Scots were frequently the shock troops of Empire, whether in the military or as settlers (see for example Appalachia and the Southern US). \n\nBy the late 20c. Welsh nationalism had emerged as a way to ensure the survival of the language and culture. But it never became a strong political nationalism because of how much inter-migration there had been between Wales and England. Scotland, because of it's location, never had the same mass migration to and from England (the borderlands of Northern England are fairly empty)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n", "Further, why do the Scots speak English, having a historically tenuous relationship with England, and the Welsh speak... well, Welsh?", "This is interesting. Just a few quick questions.How did the Norman Conquest of England affect the Welsh ? \n\nThe Tudors were Welsh too. ", " > What would be the closest American concept to think of the various British nations, are they treated like American states or more like the various member nations of the EU? \n\n While a lot of people like to see the European Union as some sort of emerging supranational federation, by definition it's more akin to a confederation then anything. The difference being that while a federation is a political union of self-governing states, a confederation is a union of sovereign states that seek a common front on principles (the European Union being a historically economic one). \n\nThe closest (nation-wide) political concept that Americans share with the British devolved Parliament system is the current federal system that the United States (a form of governance also found in a number of other countries including Canada, Germany, and Russia). I point out nation-wide as there is an actual closer American comparison but ill get to it later. \n\nAs you may have noted federation is pretty much a union of partially self-governing states. While the British nations have self-governance and a degree of autonomy akin to a federal system, it isn't a true federal system as these self-governing rights are not entrenched in any form of constitution (and thus those rights are not guaranteed). The local parliaments of Scotland and Wales were parliaments granted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and can be revoked at any time by that same Parliament. So what place In United States actually operates in a nearly identical manner? The District of Columbia. \n\nLike the British devolved Parliament system, The District of Columbia has a form of devolved governance granted by the Congress. This can also be taken away by Congress noting the fact that the District has no reserve constitutional powers. ", "I think some of the responses here are slightly inaccurate and as both a British person (with some natural knowledge of this) and someone who has studied the Act of Union I thought I would add my own version.\n\nWales was annexed by England in the 1270s and 1280s, although it was not officially incorporated as part of England until the 1500s. In short though, whilst not officially part of the Kingdom of England, in all practical respects it has been for the last 700 years or so. This meant for many of the most important periods of institution building, the two countries were united. The common law system developed in both countries. The elites of England were largely transplanted into Wales (even if the populace remained quite distinct, successfully maintaining their own language etc. better than the Scots). When the English reformation rolled around, Wales was part of that process. Even when Wales later developed its own religious identity of non-conformism in the 18th Century it still built upon this Anglican tradition focusing on Methodism (a movement with its roots within the Church of England) rather than other forms of Protestantism. Even today, the Welsh Assembly has FAR fewer powers than the Scottish Parliament.\n\nIn contrast, Scotland remained separate for far longer. They were entirely separate until 1603 when James I/VI became King of England. Up to this period a large number of the distinct institutions of Scotland had developed. In particular Scotland had developed a civil law legal system, its own Presbyterian Church and its own educational system and institutions in the form of Universities such as St. Andrews. In the 17th Century there were some fitful starts at integration. Notably both Charles I, and Parliament in the Civil Wars attempted to ally with the Scots. Scotland was integrated as one polity (with representation in the Westminster Parliament) during the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell right up until the restoration of the Monarchy. \n\nWhen the Act of Union was formed it was in the context of the Glorious Revolution and fears that James II and France might try and use division between the nations to aid an invasion. Scotland had also seen its economic position worsen, and in particular a disastrous attempt to set up a colony around modern day Panama had backfired. However, it was clearly a voluntary union (unlike the one with Wales) and thus Scotland kept many of its independent institutions: its own Church, its own legal system, its own educational system. \n\nAs well as this I would contend that Scottish nationalism benefited from the 18th and 19th Century ideas of the 'noble savage' and romanticism. Most Scottish people lived in the lowlands and came from Anglo-Saxon roots, and all the ideas we now associate with 'Scotland' were in fact entirely Highland and Gaelic. Historically most Scots would have rejected the facets of clan society as barbaric. However, the Gaels, like the native Americans, were viewed as noble savages even whilst their genuine culture and society was wiped out in the 18th Century. This period also interestingly saw the development of tartan and kilts (an excellent overview of this can be found in 'Invented Tradition' by Eric Hobsbawm). It also saw the development of a mythology around it with books such as James McPherson's 'Works of Ossian'. This new form of Scottish identity was further expanded in the 19th Century until everyone basically forgot how recent and artificial it was. Even today, Scottish nationalism is far more strongly felt than Welsh nationalism. The Scottish Parliament has more powers and in a lot of ways Scotland remains far more distinct.\n\nTLDR: Wales was integrated earlier and did not retain as much of a distinct identity. Scotland had a much longer time to develop its own institutions, and maintained them better, as well as benefiting from romanticism and other fetishisations of highland culture and thus has maintained a much stronger nationalism and a more distinct polity.", "As to soccer leagues, [Berwick Rangers](_URL_0_), a club in an English town, play in the Scottish League, for reasons of simple geography. They are farther north than several Scottish teams they play against and only just south of Glasgow Rangers and Celtic." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.berwickrangersfc.co.uk/f-match-centre/league-table.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e3h1k6f", "e3h2x94" ], "score": [ 2, 6 ], "text": [ "Just for clarification, you mean why the variety of ship's boats, yard lighters, and other small craft like the Captain's Gig, Whaleboats, and other small motor launches and support ships? Vs the actual ships like the frigates, corvettes, destroyers, cruisers, carriers, and battleships which did come in a score of varieties all their own. ", "There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, different types of ship are capable of doing different things. A battleship makes a very poor landing ship, but you'd never want to have a Landing Ship Tank (LST) fighting in a naval battle. The same holds true even within a general classification of ship. An aircraft carrier is any ship with the primary role of carrying aircraft, and as such includes the large fleet carriers of the *Essex* or *Yorktown* classes, and the *Bogue* class escort carriers. A large carrier like an *Essex* is too expensive and slow to build to build in large numbers; as such, to fulfil the convoy escort role, the USN needed to build a smaller class of carrier, the *Bogue*s. \n\nThe other main reason comes down to how ships are designed and constructed. A rifle, tank or artillery piece might be built in a few days to a few weeks, in a factory building hundreds, thousands, millions of the same model. Those pieces of equipment would only be expected to last for a few years before being replaced. A ship took months to years to produce. Shipyards typically built only a few ships at any one time, with only a few ships in a class, and they would be expected to last for years before replacement. This last factor accounts for some of the variety in ship classes - the oldest major warship in the USN during the war had been laid down in 1910. Military equipment was built in an assembly line fashion, ships were built in a more bespoke way. All this meant that design priorities were different. With military equipment, maximising the volume was important; this meant that it was harder to integrate the lessons of combat experience, as this would require the assembly line to be retooled. With ships, which were not built in such volume, lessons of combat or new design concepts could be integrated, and new classes constructed. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d0ctt84", "d0cyc2k" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Several species of animals were known to have gone extinct during the Roman period - the subspecies of elephant that the Carthaginians used for instance was hunted into extinction. Tragically, this wasn't because of spite or food - instead the elephants were usually captured to be paraded in the arena in peaceful exhibitions that proved enormously popular among the Romans who considered the elephants to be noble and intelligent beasts. The one notable incident of using elephants in an arena battle resulted in a near-riot from the crowd who were outraged that elephants were being killed. Unfortunately, the Romans never quite figured out how to make permanent exhibits like zoos which is why they kept taking North African elephants off the wild until no more were left.\n\nSome forms of bird were also hunted into extinction due to demand for them as a luxury food. \n\nBoth of these cases can be found in Baldson's old but still surprisingly readable _Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome_.\n\nThat said, the modern concept of extinction / endangered species is a distinctly modern concept that arose out of the environmental conservation movement; and certainly the Romans weren't wiping out species as quickly as we are losing them now.", "Hi! you may be interested in a few previous threads\n\n* [are there any documented conversations about preserving and protecting endangered species before 1700 A.D.](_URL_5_) - /u/restricteddata discusses the formation of the concept of extinction - late 18th c\n\n* [are certain varieties of fruits or vegetables that where once quite popular now extinct?](_URL_6_) - /u/zither13 describes a plant extinction ca 300-100BC\n\n* [What was the first animal recorded to go extinct?](_URL_0_) - /u/masiakasaurus provides a survey of early records of extinctions. The following posts look at some of these events.\n\n * [When the last aurochs died in 1627, were people aware that the species was extinct?](_URL_2_) - /u/restricteddata on aurochs \n\n * [When the Steller's sea cow was discovered in 1741, it was hunted to extinction by sailors just 30 years after its discovery. Why didn't this happen to Manatees or Dugongs?](_URL_1_) - not really focussed on the extinction event, but a thread on Stellers sea cow out of interest\n\n * [Why is the extinction of the dodo so famous?](_URL_4_) - /u/restricteddata on the dodo\n\n * [Was the American public aware the passenger pigeon was being hunted to extinction?](_URL_3_) - /u/kieslowskifan on the passenger pigeon\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1osx3k/what_was_the_first_animal_recorded_to_go_extinct/ccvo6ut", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/42rh2d/when_the_stellers_sea_cow_was_discovered_in_1741/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1u4abe/when_the_last_aurochs_died_in_1627_were_people/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3oiq5p/was_the_american_public_aware_the_passenger/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2i6yyk/why_is_the_extinction_of_the_dodo_so_famous/cl0803g", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2m8wfa/are_there_any_documented_conversations_about/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3c2esv/are_certain_varieties_of_fruits_or_vegetables/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cgbhmu5", "cek5f8o", "cek6ecn", "cek6s1r", "cek798b", "cek7nk0", "cek8268", "cek826e", "cek8a34", "cek8efq", "cek8nbn", "cek8q7e", "cek8qzw", "cek8rs4", "cek8tmf", "cek8y3x", "cek90v0", "cek93ii", "cek93pt", "cek9epb", "cek9mo9", "cek9pyw", "cek9sml", "ceka3sb", "ceka87q", "cekabqc", "cekaf5k", "cekakpv", "cekbf27", "cekbskr", "cekbtmy", "cekc0ix", "cekc2f7", "cekc7uu", "cekceco", "cekcuaw", "cekd727", "cekdp46", "ceke4ij", "ceke8mr", "cekfp01", "cekfptx", "cekfy87", "cekh5gg", "cekh6aa", "cekhg97", "cekkeho", "ceknl34", "cekqnje", "cekrhhj", "cekrw0a", "cekuje8", "cf0l38m" ], "score": [ 2, 62, 10, 23, 51, 17, 13, 11, 10, 12, 2, 7, 26, 10, 3, 2, 5, 2, 5, 3, 5, 10, 3, 25, 3, 12, 3, 8, 3, 5, 3, 2, 6, 5, 7, 2, 5, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 6, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Some of my favorite history museums, \nEli Whitney Museum, _URL_3_\nYuma Territorial Prison, _URL_2_\nCentro Cultual Espana _URL_4_\nHiroshima Memorial Peace Museum, _URL_0_\nMuseum of Tolerance (Mexico City), _URL_1_\n\nHistory is fluid, all of the above museums acknowledge that our interpretation of history is constantly changing. With an understanding the fluid nature of history, you can make history come alive for visitors, allowing visitors to make the content their own.", "One of my favorite museums is the Ulster Museum in Belfast: part history museum, part natural history museum, tiny bit art museum, all in one building and entirely free. It's probably not the best museum in Europe, as much as I love it, but I bring it up because the basement of the Ulster Museum is devoted to the Troubles in Northern Ireland. There aren't any artifacts in this exhibit, a purposeful choice. At first I was skeptical - museums are supposed to have artifacts, right? \n\nBut you walk through it, reading this plain gray text printed on these plain white walls; a few black-and-white photographs are printed on the walls, blown up. If you've been going through the exhibits in order, you've seen the foundation for the Troubles being laid, decade by decade, and then you get to this part and you see its conclusion, the riots and bombings and IRA splinter groups laid in front of you one by one. And I think the plain text, the plainness of the white walls and the simplicity of the exhibit, gives the viewer a chance to consider the events anew, to take everything in. And then at the end there's some paper and pencils and you can write your thoughts. It's this quiet, introspective space, encouraging you to take a moment or two and reflect on the enormity of this very *loud* history. Not just in the museum, but in Belfast itself. \n\nSo there are no artifacts, yet it's an incredibly powerful, thoughtful space. It's in Belfast, the heart of the Troubles (well, not to exclude Derry), it understands its place, and it isn't arguing for anything more. It doesn't need artifacts. I think shoving things in there would only distract you from the introspection that the exhibit is going for. What artifacts it needs are elsewhere in the museum, part and parcel of the long and complicated history that led to the Troubles, the confluences of people and events and ideas that made them happen. \n\nI think an exhibit that knows what it wants to say, and knows how to say it, is a successful one: one that makes its viewers think, consider something anew, see something in a different way than before. And for that reason, I think the Ulster Museum will always be one of my favorites (that, and Belfast is one of my favorite cities).\n\nAlso, if I could design any exhibit or any museum I wanted, it would be a women's history museum. I don't know what I would put in it, but it would have more than dresses and shoes. ", "Oregon Historical Society, gotten a lot out of a little. Current exhibit is based on American history and it's stunning. \n\nEdit; Sorry just ran through the question quickly. U/tumble-weeds has a good answer, its a combination of original pieces and displays from George Washington and Jefferson to Jack Ruby and John F. Kennedy that gives a snapshot of the moment in time. \n\nStunning artifacts because it has Jack Ruby's wallet and its contents, which included his liquor license for his club, and the camera that has the famous film of Oswald being shot. And well displayed collection. So both stunning ", "My favourite thing I visited the first time I went to Paris as an adult and could choose my own schedule (yay) was the War Museum 'Musée de l'Armé' everyone raves about the Louvre, which of course is a must, but parts of it feel very stuffy and one hardly gets to see some of the works because of the vast crowds. By contrast the War Museum was bursting at the seems with interesting artefacts, with a lot of effort put in to contextualising them and making the experience coherent, yet it was quiet enough that one got to spend time properly appreciating each section. \n\nIn London there is the Wellcome Collection, which focuses primarily on the history of medical science, so a great place to take any kids or big kids who want to be entertained by gore. As well as their amazing permanent collections they also have regular talks and lectures, reach out programmes and art exhibitions. Last time I visited we found there was an exhibition of 'outsider art' which was very good indeed and a series of activities on the olfactory system, which meant I got a chance to smell some chloroform, which it turns out is *really* fun so long as you don't over do it! \n\nWhen I visited Switzerland as a child we visited an art gallery which featured the works of very dangerous criminals, still lives by serial killers and the like, and a museum that had a lot of comic taxidermy, frogs riding squirrels to battle and the like. I can't recall the name of either but they're both somewhere near lake Geneva IIRC. These aren't strictly historical, but they are a good way to get reluctant people interested in the idea of visiting Museums because they focus on the unusual and morbid. Following the 'horrible histories' model of using gross, creepy and scary stuff to entice.. \n\nIn Milan, Italy the Museums around Sforza Castle are a must, their highlight is their original Leonardo Da Vinci Manuscripts. They are cosy enough that one can have a good natter with a knowledgeable member of Staff about an object. \n\nIn Rome the Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Moderna is a must. Again not strictly historical in focus, but full of art and pop culture history. Not just because it's quite good, but because it's set in the Borghese gardens which are absolutely paradisical and which you can spend days exploring, there's a Zoo, Villas preserved as though the occupants of centuries past were still living there and beautiful scenery for miles around. The high parts will provide you some of the best views of Rome. \n\n ", "If you're into military stuff, nothing beats the Imperial War Museum in London. Of course, if you make it to London, the British Museum is amazing.", "I'm not a historian but have travelled a good amount and for me the Victoria and Albert in London takes the cake. Place is amazing.", "I'd argue the Deutches Museum in Munich is fantastic although it's focus is technical, it's often about the history of technology as much as the technology. \n\nSo stuff like an exhibit on the history of mining methods, from fire based methods of pre-history, to the evolution of what we know as a mine. They have a wonderful series of large exhibits such as a full scale fishing boat from the sail era, to experimental Nazi rocket planes. ", "There's a Bronze Age site near Peterborough in the UK called Flag Fen that I always recommend to people as one of the best archaeological sites I've ever visited. I think it's well known in British archaeological circles; I found out about it when I did an A-Level in archaeology at school but I don't think the majority of the general public know about it and I really think they should. English Heritage describes it as 'unique for its scale, completeness, longevity and complexity'.\n\nThe site is made up of a few areas, there's a reconstructed bronze age village, a visitor centre with helpful volunteers, and a walking tour if I remember, but the real jewel in the crown is the 'ritual causeway'. Basically, the ground level in this part of England used to be a lot lower than it is now and the land would often become submerged under water for long periods of time. It's believed that a bridge was constructed to link higher parts of the land together when this happened, leaving an island in the middle which was supposedly used for religious ceremonies. They've found a large amount of artefacts in the area suggesting that people travelled there to leave offerings, but it may have also been used for practical purposes.\n\nFrom their website: 'Visit the only place in the UK where original Bronze Age remains can be seen in situ, the incredibly preserved timbers of a monumental engineering achievement.\nExcavations on the site revealed details of a wooden platform and post alignment that stretch for nearly a kilometre across the fen. These were built up between 1350 and 950BC and are of great national and international significance. Due to the waterlogged nature of the fens, this unique monument has been remarkably preserved.\nIt is believed that the post alignment consists of 60,000 vertical timber and 250,000 horizontal pieces of wood, spanning the wet and marshy fen to meet a droveway on dry ground at each end. All the pieces of wood had been worked and shaped with tools.'\n\nI must say that personally I found it more interesting and impressive than Stonehenge. Obviously Stonehenge is older and more visible but the scale of Flag Fen and the fact that I'd never heard of it before was what impressed me. There is a building where a small part of the bridge has been excavated for viewing which is kept wet to preserve it, but I'm just fascinated by the fact that the rest of it is still underground and that there's still speculation about the purpose of the bridge.\n\nPeterborough is only an hour or so north of London on the train and is a great historic cathedral city in itself, so it's certainly worth a visit. When I spoke to a volunteer at the centre he expressed concern at the limited funding they receive, and there are also concerns about the land drying out due to the growth of the city - I think it would be great if more people knew about it. Places like the British Museum and the Louvre are of course outstanding in their international breadth but Flag Fen is a real piece of English local history and that's what makes it special to me. \n\nEnglish Heritage has the best page with a history, details of its excavation and listing, sources, and a map: _URL_2_\n\nTheir website, with recommendations for further reading on the history page: _URL_1_\n\nThe wikipedia page is also informative and has a picture of the exposed bridge in the preservation hall: _URL_0_\n ", "The Lincoln Museum in Springfield, IL is awesome. They recently revamped it and it is incredible. The whole complex is basically a walk-through Lincoln's life, starting from his cabin in Indiana, to his assassination. You literally walk-through his life in amazing exhibits. \n\nAlso not far away is his law office while in Springfield, his family home in Springfield, and his tomb. All of these are also great. Walking through his home is really something. \n\nThen, on top of this, less than 10-20 minutes away is New Salem, IL (where Lincoln lived in his 20s). They've structured this to be like it was when Lincoln lived there, so you can see that part of his life. \n\nThe whole place is a must see for anyone interested in Lincoln or American history. I would be surprised to find anyone interested in history at all to not be fascinated by this place.", "The best I've been to was the Museum of London. It is dedicated to the city itself and takes you on a chronological journey from paleolithic times to modern. What makes is rather special is that it shows you stuff found in the city. So it does not have the \"best\" Roman statue, it has Roman villa and camp things actually found in the city. And you can look out a window at the Roman wall of the city. Sort of the right size focus to make it really work.", "I've been at the 1st WW museum in Ypres,Belgium twice when I was in my mid teens.\nAlso visited the cemetaries around the area.\nI remember it all left a huge impression on me.\n\nI also went to the open air museum in Arnhem , Netherlands.\nIt has a lot of WW2 vehicles which is really cool, also planes etc.\nDon't think I learned alot there but I was young back the so I really enjoyed seeing the vehicles but I remember their jewish segment really was graphic, informative and once again impressive, especially on a 12 year old.", "I have two:\n\nFirst is definitely the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. It's not well labeled, and when it is labeled, it's rarely in English, but it has some of the most amazing treasures from Egypt and the Arabic world from prehistory to the middle ages (mostly Pharaonic Egypt, of course), all well presented.\n\nSecond is probably the Louvre. Of course, it's primarily an art museum, but they have huge Egyptian, Babylonia, Greek and Roman sections. It does kind of make you sad that a lot of it was stolen by Napoleon.", "The American History Museum (Smithsonian) in Washington DC is incredible. They just spent several years remodeling it and it is chockerbock full of really interesting historical items (the piece of gold that started the gold rush, Lincoln's hat, etc).\n\nThe museum is really accessible to people of all ages and there are lots of plaques to read if you want more detail on items. While I was there, they also had lots of staff around to answer questions. ", "The Henry Ford strikes me as a place that fits this list. I feel divided often when I leave because Greenfield Village is such a testament to Henry Ford's hubris. But the concentration of historic landmarks related to Ford, Edison and the Wrights and then the other various buildings he relocated to Dearborn, MI (Greenfield Village) is unrivaled as far as I know. The museum's collection of historic vehicles isn't just Mustangs and Lincolns. The Rosa Parks bus, the Kennedy limo, and so many more pieces of their collection are well presented and add dimension to what could just be a car museum.", "I used to work with the Heard Museum in Phoenix. If you're into Native American history, it's the best in the world.\n\nOf course museums like the Smithsonian, the British Museum, Les Invalides, etc. are sort of must-sees if you like history, but I've always felt like I learned the most about an area by going to a local historical society museum. They're everywhere, so whenever you go on vacation, just look up when the local society is open and go check it out. Here in Fresno, for example, there's a historical society for the High Sierras. They operate a working steam mule for cutting logs, and have a old train caboose they've been restoring that, hey, you can show up and volunteer on!\n\n The Clovis Historical Society here has parts of the log flume that would carry timber from the Sierras down to the Fresno area. The flume that ran from Hume Lake to Sanger [was the longest in the world](_URL_1_) at the time. It not only carried timber and water down, but people of questionable sanity could actually pay money to ride it. Imagine [Splash Mountain](_URL_0_) but 73 miles long.\n\nThe San Francisco Maritime Museum and San Diego Maritime Museum are both great places to visit if you like wooden ships and the Age of Sail. They each have one of the only remaining old ferries from the Bay Area, and lots of other neat ships, too. The Star of India, the Surprise (the ship used in Master and Commander - fully functional, which volunteers take out once a month or so - learn to work the ropes!), an old Soviet submarine, an Alaskan Timber Ferry, the first boat sailed across the Pacific solo, and so forth. Neat stuff.\n\nIn South Carolina, I spent some time with the Sumter Historical Society folks. Got to see a bunch of historic buildings, including a rammed earth manor that has been inhabited by the same family for centuries, the house of the wealthiest black slaveowner prior to the Civil War, got to crawl through the raised floorspaces with a historian specializing in architecture, and so forth.\n\nSo yeah. Local history museums. There's so much much more to our past than what can fit into a textbook.", "The Israel Museum is good mostly because of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient manuscripts. The stuff there can really blow you away--they've got artifacts from pretty much all of Jewish history.\n\nBut there's something a little less museum-y that I think is really cool. During the 1948 War of Independence, one of the major battlegrounds was the road to Jerusalem. The Jews in the city were essentially besieged for much of the war, and a tremendous amount of Israeli manpower was spent trying to resupply them, including battles to secure roads, convoys through hostile territory, and building new roads.\n\nAnyway, when the war was over and actual road infastructure built, rusted out trucks from the war were left in the median of the highway to Jerusalem. It's not really a museum, but a really interesting way of presenting artifacts from the not-so-distant past.", "One more to add: The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archeology and Anthropology. It's Philly's hidden gem. It has huge collections from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Asia, and America, covering all sorts of time periods. The building itself is pretty amazing, too. ", "Well, there's no definitive list of \"good history museums\" so I'll just talk about a few of my personal favorites (so there'll be a bit of an emphasis on my interests). \nThe British Museum is fantastic because it covers so much of history. Naturally an empire so large the sun never set would be able to acquire a large variety of items from all over the globe. They have artifacts from the neolithic age all the way to the modern age. (I don't think they have any paleolithic, but I may be wrong) \nThe Metropolitan Museum of Art has a beautiful collection. The art is some of the best preserved I've seen at a museum. They have this one statue in particular that I can just stare at for hours. It's this amazingly done kouros from Greek's archaic period and wow. It's so great. There's another statue in there from the Sumerian city of Lagash during a period when most of Sumeria had been conquered by the Akkadians and it's also just spectacular. In perfect shape.\nThe Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC is a museum with a different feeling than the others. It's centered around 1 event (no surprise there) and it really gives you a full educational run through of the atrocities of the Holocaust. \nThe Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum is, like the Holocaust Museum, centered around 1 event. There are replicas of the atomic bomb used on Hiroshima and artifacts surviving the explosion. There is a central goal of the museum, to get people to think about the horrors of war and the ideals of peace. Which, honestly, is a pretty good slant to have if you're going to have a central theme for a museum. \n I've heard fantastic things about the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, unfortunately I've never had the opportunity to go there. \n \n\nAlso, there was a museum I used to go to all the time when I was a kid in Belgium that had a bunch of military equipment from Belgium's history, so a lot of medieval stuff through 1800s weaponry up through WW1 and WW2. I haven't been back in over a decade, does anyone know what that museum is named? ", "The biggest impact a history museum has had on me was visiting Yūshūkan, next to the Yasukuni war shrine in Tokyo. While I don't believe this to be a greatly constructed museum, the content itself was astonishing, due to the explicitly anti-Western approach it takes to reporting on global events and the avenue it gave to me in understanding the mindset of Imperial Japan. I believe this to have been the first time I saw in a real way a different perspective to mine regarding the events of history, and true exposure of the impact misinformation can provide. The only downside to this trip (it was part of a longer trip exploring the whole of Japan) was that for some stupid reason I did not bother visiting Hiroshima, which would've made a fascinating juxtaposition.", "Imperial War Museum in London. I was only 12 years when I went there but it blew my mind! Its also a large part of the reason why I want to be a historian. ", "The rugby meseum in New Zealand in Manuatu.\n\nSmaller but lots of condensed information instead of longer with lots if big words.\n\nPractical things for kids", "I really like the World War 2 museum in New Orleans, although lately I've been bothered by some of their \"interactive\" new exhibits. There's nothing wrong with wanting to capture the feeling of being in a different place and time, but the last time I was there I went to FINAL MISSION: THE USS TANG EXPERIENCE, and I was thrown off by how Disney it all was.\n\nYou line up in a queue outside the building and are led into a segment of a mock-up submarine with a bunch of stations that represent different functions of the ship, and everyone lines up in front of a console. (I was a radar operator!) The \"experience\" starts and it's more or less a ride- the chamber fills with smoke and shakes, you do basically a minigame version of the job your console represents while the submarine \"sinks\" around you. The whole ride lasts about ten minutes. \n\nAnd this is all based on a true story. I don't understand the thought process behind developing this kind of historical exhibit- what kind of emotions are meant to be evoked by this, and does the format lend itself to impacting those emotions?", "I've been to many of the museums mentioned thus far (I mention that just for context because my \"vote\" is not one limited by geography), and I was blown away by a recent visit to a history museum...the [Minnesota History Center](_URL_0_).\n\nI am 38 and thoroughly enjoyed it, and have thought back to my experience in several of the vastly different exhibits numerous times in the months since my visit, but what I think speaks more to the excellence of the museum is that my 9yo and 5yo kids enjoyed it as much as I did.\n\nThere were numerous exhibits that put the visitor inside an experience in a vivid (multi-media, multi-sensory) way, like the WWII bomber that visitors enter & \"ride\" to Normandy (with seats rattling beneath you, the smoke of the bombs visible through the windows), listening to (real) audio of men who were part of that battle talking about how & why they enlisted & what they thought as they flew toward battle.\n\nThere was also a house to explore that showed how life had changed for the families that lived there through various waves of immigration to the US--and visitors got to touch/open/explore just about everything--the drawers in the Victorian parlor, the lunch boxes sent with the factory workers, etc. (again, with numerous opportunities to hear actual people from various periods talk about their experiences).\n\nAnd an \"iron mine\" we donned hard hats to enter before loading explosives into bore holes & detonating. And a malt shop where we served sodas. And a munitions factory line where we could assemble weaponry and compare our times. And areas with employees on hand who helped us make sense of the tools we could pick up and experiment with to understand how the local people used them to gather & prepare wild rice.\n\nHonestly--I could go on and on. Any ONE of the exhibits would have been world-class (and not all because of interactive elements), but there were seriously more than a dozen that were simply amazing. So if you're ever in Minneapolis/St. Paul...", "The best put-together museum I've ever visited was Washington D.C.'s Holocaust Museum. The walkthrough is organized to take you through the entire ordeal--starting with the rise of ending of the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Nazi Party, moves through the increasingly strict restrictions passed by the Nazis, including artifacts from each. The place is packed with artifacts and it's organized *so* well. Some of the stuff they have there is truly horrifying--they have one room that just has piles and piles of probably thousands of shoes, all stolen from Jews entering camps. Be warned, there's some pretty powerful videos of medical experiments and stuff, but those are all behind child-protection walls so they're easier to avoid.\n\nI'm just sad the Propaganda exhibit is gone now. I'm sure whatever they replaced it with is just as great.", "Both Te Papa in Wellington and the Auckland Museums are great if you wish to learn about New Zealand history. Te Papa is very touristy but they only ask for a donation, whereas the Auckland Museum however costs twenty five dollars (20USD) or if you are a NZ resident it is free although I think the want donations.", "Id like to add the German History museum in Berlin. It stars with Rome and goes to the fall of the Berlin wall. I took me four visits to make it to the end.\n\nBut i cant think if anything that beats the British Museum.", "My personal favorite thus far is the Midway Musuem in San Diego. It's an old Musuem on an aircraft carrier. It's huge and I have not finished it but such a jaw dropping experience to see an aircraft carrier in person. Tons of planes on top, a lot of great veteren volunteers who served on the ship when it was cruising the world so it's such a personal experience for them to tell you how it runs and some of it's missions. A must see if you're in San Diego", "I went to the museum at the bank of England during a London visit a few years ago. I went there totally by chance, but I liked it very much.\n\nVery small museum about the history of banking in general and of course the Bank itself. I liked it.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nAnother, actually fairly sizable museum which is perhaps not that known is the Emigration Museum in Hamburg. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt covers the european emigration to the US from Hamburg. A very large number of europeans went to the USA on HAPAG-LLoyds steamers out of Hamburg during the 1800s and it tells their story along with a fair bit about the shipping companies that made it possible.\n\nThe museum is housed in a rebuilt emigrant \"hostel\" where people used to wait for the ship to America.", "Bletchley Park / The National Museum of Computing (UK) for me.\n\nDays of interesting content (different to what youd see anywhere else) and a veritable army of volunteers in both who are super friendly and eager to tell you about anything and everything. ", "I love the Pitt Rivers in Oxford. It's a depressing testament to the British Imperial ability to loot the living daylights out of the rest of the world... but it's still fantastic. The shrunken heads are amazing. ", "For someone interested in the Eastern Front of WW2, the [German-Russian Museum](_URL_0_) in Berlin was amazing. They even have T34 tanks and Katyusha rockets in the garden. They also have the room where the surrender of Nazi Germany to the USSR was signed. ", "The Montreal Art Museum is by far the most fun I've ever had in a museum. They have such a great selection of art from ancient cultures, whether it be Greek busts or sarcophagi or Sumerian effigy statues.", "Museum of the Confederacy, downtown Richmond VA. It shows how much inventive skill was on the rebel side, something us lifelong Yankees never hear about.\n\nHampton Roads was the Silicon Valley of the Civil War. The development of practical submarine warfare, the discovery and mapping of ocean currents...and that if the Civil War had been more naval, the Union would have had a much harder time.", "The series of Smithsonian Museums in Washington D.C. has a collection that has got to be one of the (if not the) largest collections of all things history. Not to mention the beauty of the museums themselves. [The Air and Space Museum](_URL_0_) there has been a personally favorite since I saw it for the first time at 10 years old. ", "The [Sir John Soane Museum](_URL_1_) in London is one of the best small museums I've ever been to. Though it's been renovated (electric lights and modern plumbing) and restored over the years, it's basically the same as it was in 1837 when Soane died. Another favorite of mine is the [Museum of London](_URL_0_), which confines itself to the history of the city and its environs. Neither of these are what I call photograph-on-the-wall-with-text museums; they both are predominantly artifacts. ", "I really enjoy the Hong Kong History Museum, and always recommend it to guests. \n\nIt is broadly chronological, from geological past through to the 1997 handover to China. Several big, 1:1 dioramas of old Hong Kong life, that have mostly disappeared, and some good info on the expansion, trade and opium wars that made Hong Kong what it is today. Coupled with the Maritime Museum across the harbour, it is a solid day's worth of historical activity.\n\nIt is also free on Tuesdays and 10HKD the rest of the time. And does some great special exhibits - currently has one on photographs of Hong Kong through time, including the Japanese invasion and other interesting periods.", "If anyone's ever in Iceland, the National Museum of Iceland (Þjóðminjasafn Íslands) is an incredible look into Icelandic, Viking, and Saga history. The main exhibition is staged chronologically, from the settlement of Iceland around the 9th century through the present day. There are thousands of artifacts and it's very comprehensive. It is super dense, so be prepared, but very thorough. \n\nMy other recommendation would be The Settlement Exhibition, Reykjavík 871±2 (Minjasafn Reykjavíkur) in central Reykjavík. It's a great example of using multimedia technology in a history exhibit. It's underground, at the site of a viking longhouse, and encircling the whole room is a digital rendering of what Reykjavík might have looked like around 870 (confusing, so [here's](_URL_0_) a photo--viking longhouse is not pictured). The multimedia work is beautiful and really brings the site to life. There are also places to explore digital 3D models of the longhouse, virtual tours, etc. \n\nBoth of these museums are relatively small (Settlement much more so) and I think they're doing amazing things! The Settlement Exhibition is part of a city program that runs three museums, this one, Árbæjarsafn (an open air museum where you can experience Iceland though the ages-- like a living history park, also great), and the Reykjavík Museum of Photography, which I highly recommend but mostly has contemporary work on display (though you can ask and they will gladly show you any of their 6 million historical photographs of Iceland). \n\nSo if I could curate a history museum or exhibition, I would probably focus on the history of photography. Maybe I'd like to curate something that focused on bringing together art and history exhibits, which I think a photography museum could do very well. \n\nGreat question, and I love the responses as well :)", "The best war museum I've ever been to was the War Museum in Budapest. It cost myself and my friends about €1.40 and we were in there for nearly 4 and half hours. It is staggeringly big (and there was a considerable amount of it closed off for refurbishment). It really paints an extraordinarily rich tapestry of Hungary's turbulent past. Also of note in the city are the disturbing artillery pieces on top of Buda aiming down on Pest placed there after the uprising in the 50's. ", "Pittsburgh's Heinz Regional History Center is very good--whether on not you're from Pittsburgh.", "The most immersive museum I've ever been to by far is Alcatraz. Ok, it's not a resource for serious academia, but the narration provided by the former inmates and guards really makes the place come alive and it's really well done.\n\nAs for others, Cambridge has a plethora of small, university owned museums with bizarre opening hours. My favourites include:\n\nThe Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology _URL_3_\n\nand near enough opposite, with a huge whale skeleton suspended above it is The Museum of Zoology, currently closed for refurb until 2016.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nBoth have an astounding array of exhibits and if you're lucky you can get shown backstage.\n\nAnother astounding place is the Jagellion University Museum on Cracow, where you can see Copernicus' original astronomical instruments.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_2_", "I stopped by Auckland's [Maritime Museum](_URL_0_) because it was all that was open on a Sunday morning. I came away thoroughly pleased with experience. The collection focuses on the technology and simple history of shipbuilding and usage from Polynesian explorers to Americas Cup racing. It's presented by historical era in a way that shows how New Zealand's culture continues to be impacted it's relationship with the sea.\n\nThe Chicago Field Museum picked up sponsorship of [the brain scoop](_URL_1_) in addition to it's own YouTube presence. It's got my vote for best outreach program.\n\nI have a fascination with historical figures whose actions or attitudes don't fit within their cultural boundaries but who ultimately alter the course of their culture - people like Ataturk, Genghis Khan, and Crazy Horse. I have no idea how I could present that in a way that made sense to a museum goer but that would be my museum.", "One that had a lasting effect on me is the Vasa Museet in Stockholm.\n\nThe Vasa was a 64-gun Swedish warship which sunk on her maiden voyage in 1628 (in itself a great tale of bureaucracy gone wrong), and was almost perfectly preserved in the local lagoon, before being salvaged in 1961 and painstakingly conserved. The museum was built in the 80s specifically to house it.\n\nAside from the incredibly intact nature of the ship (which is monstrously huge), and the very sensitive way they've done repairs (additions are in a lighter wood to make it clear what is original), the main reason this museum resonates is because of all the surrounding exhibits.\n\nThey reconstruct the era perfectly - the social context, the political and military state of the time, and the engineering from forest to ship that went into the creation of this thing. What was brought across spectacularly well was the horrific nature of the seafarer's life during such a time of conflict.\n\nI think that it is very interesting to see a museum so centred around one singular object with a very short life, and as such has the freedom to explore one very specific moment in time to an immense level of detail, as well as the meta-history of how the conservation was carried out and where the records and details of the period come from.\n\nHighly recommended.", "I haven't had the chance yet to experience any museums outside the US, but my favorite is the Civil Rights Museum in downtown Birmingham, Alabama.\n\nI think the Civil Rights Era of US History is a tough nut to crack for a museum as there are very different threads going in all directions and it's not entirely MLK did this and then MLK did that (although that's a huge thread). This one instead focuses on what they know best which is Birmingham. The opening piece is you sit down and watch a brief video that kind of sets things up for you with recorder first hand narrative and then the screen lifts and the theater you were sitting in now opens up into the museum with just two water fountains in front of you. One says \"Whites Only\" and looks like something you'd see in a nice public park. The other says \"Coloreds Only\" and looks like a plain iron pipe sticking out of the ground with a spicket on the end as if it belonged on a farm instead of a park. And then it dawns on you. That second fountain was designed, built, and intended to be used by animals not people. And then the second bomb drops on you...they thought they were sub-human.\n\nThe rest of the museum is great and nothing is ever thrown right in your face but you get a feeling of tension everywhere at the exhibits. When you see one of the buses that stopped in Mississippi (I think) and it's covered in dents, burn marks, etc. you get a small inkling of uneasiness that the riders probably felt when they pulled into the bus station and were surrounded by an angry mob of whites.\n\nI can't recall all of the other exhibits but one of the last pieces has always stuck with me. It's a video from the time of an elderly white woman saying something along the lines of \"When I was a little girl they laughed and sang songs in the street and were happy and now they're just angry and sad all the time.\" It's comical to a degree but very eye-opening after you've gone through the entire museum.\n\nYou can also take a walking audio tour outside and see all of the churches that were attacked, bombed, or served a strategic meeting points. \n\nAll-in-all you see how the \"Magic City\" earned the distinction of \"Tragic City\" and turned from Birmingham to \"Bombingham.\"", "The [Watson-Curtze Mansion](_URL_0_) was the one field trip I used to look forward to in grade school. It is a late 1800's mansion left to the City of Erie in the early 1940's to use as a museum. I used to love going because of the [planetarium](_URL_1_), but the older I get the more I appreciate the architecture, and the history of the area where the house is located. \n\nEdit* This is not the \"biggest or Best\", it's just a small museum in my home town, I noticed almost all national museum's listed and decided to list something more modest.", "The British Museum is the best museum I've been to, it's got such a brilliant and varied collection - the Elgin Marbles, Rosetta Stone, the frieze from the temple of Apollo at Bassae, bits of the Erectheum, the Younger Memnon, Benin Bronzes, an Easter Island head, the Cyrus Cylinder, Ginger the Mummy... \n\nIn terms of small museums, the Civic Museum in Como, Italy, is great as well. Only about seven euros to get in, and it covers the history of the town from prehistory to WW2. There's even some Greek vases there and Egyptian mummies. ", "As far as the best building for a history museum, the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, DC is beautifully designed. The building is designed with elements from Southwestern cultures and the landscaping is designed with elements that are important to various Native American cultures.\n\nIf you visit, I'd also recommend the cafe inside the museum. The food there is from several different regions in the Americas and the menu changes seasonally.", "How has no one said the National Archaeological Museum in Athens!?\n\nGranted, it says archaeology and not history, but we aren't talking about paleolithic artifacts here. If you're at all interested in Greece from oral history to the medieval, you owe it yourself to see it when in Athens.", "Has anyone been to the National Palace Museum in Taiwan? I heard it is full of all the best treasures that the Forbidden City had and is better than anything in all of China.", "The Newseum in Washington D.C. is really quite great.\n\nIncludes a permanent exhibit that features \"5 centuries of news history\", the most comprehensive collection of Pulitzer Prize Photography, and a lot of other great exhibits. ", "As a New Yorker there are a few here I could recommend. Obviously there's the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Museum of Natural History. The MET has an amazing collection of artifacts from really any part of the world/any time in history and I'm sure is matched by few, if any, in scope and scale in the Western Hemispshere. The Natural History Museum is also really interesting and well done.\n\nTwo a little bit more niche ones. The Museum of the History of the City of New York is a large, in depth history city from when Manhattan was all forest through 9/11. Then there's the museum at Ellis Island. I think this is a mustsee for any American but is also great for non-Americans. It has great history, full examination rooms, artifacts and the log books but can also be very personal too because it gets you thinking about American identity and could possibly even be part of your family's history. ", "The Jewish Museum in Berlin is very good. I think it's best visited on your own and ideally when there are not too many people there, and when you have a lot of time. It has both sections that really \"get\" to you, that convey a small part of the horror of the holocaust, and also portrays the history of Jews in Germany from the early beginnings to a few decades ago. It has both informative texts, pictures, and artifacts, and hands-on stations that make you engage with the material. I think it's a very good museum for all age groups. ", "I have two favorites, both in Philadelphia. The [Philadelphia Museum of Art](_URL_2_) has some really great collections. I'm most partial to their architectural installations- the [13th century French cloister,](_URL_2_collections/permanent/42060.html?mulR=1995941678|1) the [12th century portal from the Abbey Church of Saint-Laurent](_URL_2_collections/permanent/42059.html?mulR=521555310|75), their [gorgeous](_URL_1_) [period](_URL_2_collections/permanent/42223.html?mulR=108783189|71) [rooms](_URL_2_collections/permanent/45852.html?mulR=195301128|1). It's famous for the Rocky steps but there are some great galleries inside.\n\nMy other favorite is the [Rosenbach Library and Museum.](_URL_0_) It's small, with only three galleries (one of which is dedicated to [Maurice Sendak](_URL_0_learn/exhibitions/night-max-wore-his-wolf-suit), whose works are a major part of their collection), but the stuff they have in their collections are fantastic. Bram Stoker's notes for Dracula and the original manuscript for Ulysses, among others. And as for public outreach, they do [hands-on tours](_URL_0_handsontours) where you get to get up close and personal with the materials. I haven't done one yet, but I've heard great things about them. Apparently the Rosenbach brothers were big on having their collections accessible to the general public. They just became part of the Free Library of Philadelphia so hopefully they continue with that mission. \n\nSo. Come to Philly.\n\nEdit: I've focused on the literary aspects of the Rosenbach, but they do have actual artifacts in their [collections](_URL_0_learn/collections)- they just so happen to have some incredible literary materials too.\n\n", "Deserves a mention.\n\n**The Vasa Museum, Stockholm**\n\nThe Vasa is the only preserved seventeenth-century ship in the world, and a unique art treasure. More than 95 percent of the ship is original, and it is decorated with hundreds of carved sculptures.\n\nThe 69 meter-long warship Vasa sank on its maiden voyage in the middle of Stockholm in 1628, and was salvaged 333 years later in 1961. For nearly half a century the ship has been slowly, deliberately and painstakingly restored to a state approaching its original glory. The three masts on the roof outside the specially built museum show the height of the ship's original masts. \n\nToday the Vasa Museum is the most visited museum in Scandinavia, with over one million visitors a year. There are ten different exhibitions around the ship to tell about life on board the ship. The film about the Vasa is shown in 13 different languages. In addition there is a well-stocked shop and a pleasant restaurant. Tours of the museum take place every day. Free admission for children up to 18 years.\n\n_URL_1_\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/index_e2.html", "http://www.myt.org.mx/", "http://www.pr.state.az.us/parks/yute/index.html", "http://www.eliwhitney.org/", "http://www.ccemx.org/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Fen", "http://www.vivacity-peterborough.com/museums-and-heritage/flag-fen/", "http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1406460" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splash_Mountain", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume_Lake#Formation_of_Hume_Lake" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.minnesotahistorycenter.org" ], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.ballinstadt.net/BallinStadt_emigration_museum_Hamburg/Welcome.html", "http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/pages/museum/default.aspx" ], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-Russian_Museum" ], [], [], [ "http://airandspace.si.edu/" ], [ "http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/london-wall/", "http://www.soane.org/" ], [], [ "http://minjasafnreykjavikur.is/english/Portaldata/12/Resources/myndir/reykjavik871/syning-lr.jpg" ], [], [], [ "http://www.museum.zoo.cam.ac.uk/", "http://www.uj.edu.pl/en_GB/uniwersytet/muzea/collegium-maius", "http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g274772-d276732-r147857501-Jagiellonian_University_Collegium_Maius-Krakow_Lesser_Poland_Province_Southern_Po.html", "http://maa.cam.ac.uk/maa/" ], [ "http://www.maritimemuseum.co.nz/", "https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkyfHZ6bY2TjqbJhiH8Y2QQ" ], [], [], [ "http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Curtz", "http://www.eriecountyhistory.org/planetarium-history/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.rosenbach.org/", "http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/42056.html?mulR=521555310|76", "http://www.philamuseum.org/", "http://www.rosenbach.org/learn/collections", "http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/42059.html?mulR=521555310|75", "http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/42060.html?mulR=1995941678|1", "http://www.rosenbach.org/handsontours", "http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/45852.html?mulR=195301128|1", "http://www.rosenbach.org/learn/exhibitions/night-max-wore-his-wolf-suit", "http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/42223.html?mulR=108783189|71" ], [ "http://www.vasamuseet.se/en/", "http://www.visitstockholm.com/en/To-Do/Attractions/the-vasa-museum/142" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e7wp3zo" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Depends on where you were. The proclamation only applied to slaves held by slaveholders in rebellion. So, there were a lot of people still enslaved in the border states (and even in states in rebellion if the slave holder pledged themselves to the Union.) So, it primarily served as an enticement for enslaved African Americans held by the Confederacy to embrace the Union and leave their owners' plantations when opportunity presented itself (like when the Union soldiers were nearby.)\n\nBut the larger institution of slavery wasn't eliminated until the war's end in 1865 with the passage of the 13th Amendment. (An amendment which Mississippi failed to ratify until 2013.) At that point, some changes were radical. Individuals left the plantations they'd lived on and sought to reunite with family and loved ones. Many, young and old, sought basic educations. Other changes were barely changes at all as barriers to freedom were implemented on black communities in the form of racial violence and \"black codes,\" many of which through sharecropping effectively bound freedmen to the lands they'd labored on before.\n\nSignificant improvements in black life did take place during Reconstruction, albeit for a limited time. But, as far as your question goes, I think that covers what I know of it..." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "duyrmt7" ], "score": [ 30 ], "text": [ "It would depend on the movie or period pieces you are referring to, some I have seen have had fairly decent armor and some have not.\n\nHowever looking at art from the time it appears that fighting without armor on your arms and legs was fairly common. And there are reasons for this.\n\n1) Armor is expensive. Now this is a gross generalization, but for large periods of Greek and Roman history the soldiers had to bring their own equipment to battle. If they only could afford a helmet and breastplate, then that's all they would have. \n\n2) You have to remember that both the Greeks and Romans were fighting with large shields. This by their very nature means one of their arms will always be protected. The other arm should always be held behind that shield waiting for their moment to strike. And even in that case there is some evidence that the Greeks and Romans (should the soldier in question be able to afford it) could have some armor on their exposed forearm. I do not know how ubiquitous this was though. \n\n3) Greaves (armor for their lower legs) was readily available, however again it was not as common as helmets and breastplates. Since those are the most important things to protect. Now, the reason why legs are not as heavily protected has to do with body mechanics, angles, and formation fighting. Truth be told, aiming for the legs is fairly difficult, especially with a big shield in the way. Your spear or sword starts at your shoulder, so to attack the enemy leg means the length of your weapon has to angle down over most of your opponents body, drastically decreasing your reach as opposed to your opponents reach. And unless you're careful opens you up to attack. It just isn't a priority. The exception seems to be cavalry, where having your legs protected in some way would have an obvious benefit should you ever engage in combat with someone standing next to you and your legs are exactly at their striking level.\n\n4) So leather armor is not entirely a modern notion, but was nowhere near common as people seem to want to believe. Frankly, padded cloths are just cheaper and just as useful. \n\n5) Pants just weren't as common a feature in the roman and greek world. It was seen as a barbaric style until fairly late in Roman history. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ckoc39z", "ckonn1e" ], "score": [ 83, 6 ], "text": [ "The Scottish border lies along the River Tweed, and has done so for a very, very long time. Officially, this became the border in 1237, and while there have been a few conflicts over where, exactly, it is, it's stayed roughly the same due.\n\nWales, on the other hand, is a bit more complicated. Its borders partly reflect Roman settlement, with Roman forts on the mountains in the west of England representing an early Welsh border. However, after the Romans left and the Welsh kingdoms of Gwynedd and Powys came into power, the border shifted into something that is more recognisable today. Conflict between the Welsh kingdoms (Powys especially) and neighbouring English kingdoms (especially Mercia) led to the creation of Offa's Dyke, a big trench meant to provide protection from Welsh raids. This became the border in the late 8th century. While the modern border doesn't quite follow Offa's Dyke, it does follow more or less the same route. However, over the next several centuries the border between England and Wales fluctuated, with Welsh rulers sometimes taking land from the English and vice versa. The border was firmly established in 1535 with the Laws in Wales Act, which annexed Wales into England and established the border between them. This border was partly determined by tradition, but also by linguistic tendencies - places that mostly spoke Welsh became Wales, and places that mostly spoke English were England. There were a few exceptions and a few locations that would be ambiguous for some time afterwards - Welsh enclaves in England, for instance, would remain until the 19th century, and the status of Monmouthshire wouldn't be firmly determined until the 20th century - but largely, the border was set at that point.", "Sorry to add on to this, but what role would Hadrian's Wall have played in the modern/historical borders?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cutxspw", "cuv9i7g" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Although I can't speak to the organization of platoons in WWII, I can provide info for WWI. Prior to 1917, the platoon or 'half-company' was primarily seen as an administrative component for the Company, which was seen as the lowest unit of manoeuver on the battlefield. This changed following the experience of the Somme, with the role and organization of the platoon being re-formulated in training manual *SS 143 - The Training and Employment of Platoons*. The platoon was now organized with a minimum of 24 and maximum of 40 men, split into 4 sections with a 4 man headquarters company (1 officer, 3 other ranks). The Platoon now contained 'all the weapons with which the infantry soldier is armed - namely rifle and bayonet, Lewis Gun, rifle bomb and bomb.' Each section was based on one of these weapons systems, and lead by an NCO. There was a Rifle Section, Lewis Gun section, Rifle grenade and grenade section, with the rifle section often being trained to utilize both grenades if need be. British military historian Paddy Griffith referred to them as 'mini-armies', and they were often viewed as such at the time, with grenades and rifle grenades referred to as 'section howitzers'.\n\n* *World War I Trench Warfare (2): 1916-18* and *Trench* by Stephen Bull\n* *Tommy* by Richard Holmes\n* *Battle Tactics of the Western Front: The British Army's Art of Attack, 1916-18* by Paddy Griffith", "WW2 had more variations in the platoons due to the greater variety of unit types namely paratroops, mechanized, Chindits, etc, as well as the standard infantry platoons. I highly recommend a site called Bayonet Strength for an easily understandable and well written explanation of how the various British (and other) Infantry Battalion were organized in WW2. These are broken down by type of Battalion including composition of squad, platoon and company and the changes enacted throughout the war. \n_URL_0_\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e929guz" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Not to discourage further discussion, but you may be interested in these previous related answers:\n\n* [Historically speaking, does it make sense for college level history courses, such as Western Civilization, to start in ancient Mesopotamia and end in early Europe?](_URL_0_) with u/b1uepenguin\n\n* [Steve King & the contributions of Western Civ](_URL_1_) with u/agentdcf and some great followup discussion." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/33nrg8/historically_speaking_does_it_make_sense_for/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4tln3x/steve_king_the_contributions_of_western_civ/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbxfu0h" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "East Asian languages have a lot more homophones than European languages, so similar sounding names doesn't mean much. \n\nAnyway, in Chinese it's 胡志明 (Hu Zhi Ming in Mandarin, Wu Ji Ming in Cantonese). In Korean it would be Ho Ji Myeong. The first name (latter two syllables) literally means Ambition Light (or enlightenment). \n\nHe has used a couple of names before settling on Ho Chi Minh. His birth name is very traditional and old-fashioned, it literally means \"born to respect\". He has used Nguyễn Tất Thành (Nguyen Success, according to some Confucian tradition you change your name when you are older, this is his first change of name.) and Nguyễn Ái Quốc (Nguyen Patriotic. He lobbied for independence during the Treaty of Versailles, that's the name he used, I guess to convey his desire for national independence). When he was in China he used a more Chinese sounding Lý Thụy (Li Rui in Chinese. While there are people with the surname Nguyen in China (Ruan in Chinese), it's very distinctly Vietnamese). " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chqst4y" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "This is a massive question. There are entire books that attempt to answer this question but still leave information out. I do not have the time right now to give you a good enough answer so I have X-Posted this to /r/IrishHistory. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e47eq3f" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Genetic evidence suggests three possible pre-Columbian journeys from the Americas to other parts of the world. The presence of haplogroup C1a in southern Siberia is possibly due to a back-migration across the Bering Strait ([Dulik et al 2012](_URL_2_)) but the time-depths involved here muddles the picture. Genetics studies of the Rapanui from Easter Island indicates Pre-Columbian admixture with Native Americans ([Moreno-Mayar et al 2014](_URL_1_)), likely as part of the brief Andean-Polynesian exchange mentioned in another post linked here. Haplogroup C1 has also been present in Iceland for at least 300 years, possibly going all the back to the days of the Vinland expeditions 1000 years ago ([Ebenesersdóttir et al 2010](_URL_0_). Of course, changes are in this case that the Native people who went to Iceland did not do so voluntarily. \n\nGetting into oral traditions, there are a few other examples. I talk about two of those in this post: [Did Native Americans have any folk stories / tales of pre-Columbian explorers?](_URL_3_) Keep in mind that it's challenging to separate legend from history here." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.21419", "https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982214012202", "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276666/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3mqsr1/did_native_americans_have_any_folk_stories_tales/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "crzyfju", "cs01rss" ], "score": [ 6, 5 ], "text": [ "I can't speak to all of the memorials, but during the war some were destroyed in France and Belgium by the Germans during the war. The Mont St. Quentin memorial, depicting an Australian soldier bayonetting a German eagle was destroyed in 1940; the Vimy Ridge Memorial, by contrast, had a detachment of SS men to guard it during the war. The statue of Ferdinand Foch at Bouchavesnes was left in place, but the Germans destroyed much of the scenery around it, in an act of spite to the man that had, essentially, won WWI (the Germans still lost, again; Foch 2, Germans nil). ", "I do not know of evidence that points to widespread destruction of memorials. As has been mentioned, the Nazi army did destroy a memorial specifically depicting violence against a German eagle. I've also seen reports of WWI battlefield and trench markers being trampled by moving troops (however, those reports were indirect, the result of a student interviewing a Belgian man, and I'm somewhat hesitant to trust them at all). But that's about all I know of. Certainly many memorial sites were left untouched, and those that were damaged were often casualties of troop movements or bombings rather than specific targets of violence.\n\nWar memorials were, and are, often shared sites of mourning between nations -- even nations that were opposed in wartime. In the case of the Second World War, for example, the community of Coventry Cathedral's Cross of Nails was in contact with German religious figures even before the war ended, and the cross is visible in churches on both sides of the war, around the world. I am not well informed on the subject of memorial preservation and destruction specifically in wartime, but it would not surprise me to learn that memorials were avoided and protected by both sides. As has already been mentioned, I know that Hitler himself took personal interest in the preservation of a Canadian memorial at Vimy Ridge. I'm not saying that was standard procedure, but I do know that so many Great War memorials were left untouched following the Second World War that it *was* standard procedure to save money on a new memorial by adding the names of fallen WWII soldiers to an existing WWI site." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cknob6d", "cknt8ek", "cknw1ze" ], "score": [ 41, 6, 3 ], "text": [ "Not by any means. It was mainly used by France to distract England in various wars those two were having in return for promises of assisting the Scots, the 'auld alliance'. Over many hundreds of years there were quite a few Scots who went fighting with or alongside the French and lots of diplomatic and cultural interaction. This connection started to die off after Tudor times, primarily because the Scots became staunchly Protestant and thus not well inclined to the French Papists. The merger of the thrones then started the divorce and the Union completed it. However there was still a not insignificant amount of cultural exchange from thereon. And of course there was French assistance (of sorts) during the '15 and '45 Jacobite rebellions.\n\nApart from that partnership there was no signs that Scotland was a 'major' power, however that is defined.", "Actually before the political union of 1707 there was the personal union of 1603.\n\nAfter the death of Elizabeth I of England the man next in line to the english throne was James ~~V~~ VI (thanks /u/Nairbex) of Scotland. He did ascend to the throne under the name of James I of England. By the way, he is the king that commissioned probably the most famous of the english translations of the Bible, the King James Bible.\n\nSo from 1603 to 1707 (with an interregnum in 1648-60, during the Cromwell regime) England and Scotland were governed by the same King or Queen, but were considered two different countries with different laws and governments. That said, the foreign policy of the two kingdoms, being decided by the same person, were obviously closely aligned.", "Many Scots served as mercenaries for European countries under agreements; practically the entire clan Mackay was in service for the Dutch Republic. Scotland might not have classified as a major power but it certainly possessed significance in certain key areas." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cae9g0m" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "* The front crawl was invented by the native north Americans and was seen by the Europeans as to produce to much splash. But ever since the 1844 swim race has become the standard swimming stroke.\n* The breaststroke is one of the oldest strokes dating back to the stone age where there are depictions on the walls, thought to have been invented by imitating the movement of frogs.\n* Butterfly is attributed to Australian Sydney Cavill who found a faster way of swimming then the front stroke. It used more muscles and the kick was based on that of the motion of a dolphin" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c53j96m", "c53jee6", "c53kpxn", "c53l4rx", "c53o8h2" ], "score": [ 10, 10, 3, 2, 10 ], "text": [ "Confucianism and Daoism.\n\nOf course that is if you consider them religions. \n\nSource- [God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World](_URL_0_)\n\nAlthough I disagree with one of the religions the above book chooses. ", "Daoism and a mixture of animism and ancestor worship. However, Buddhism was never able to supersede these and now they co-exist, with Buddhism taking distinctly Chinese characteristics and most people who believe in religion believe in a combination of the above.", "When China was first unified under the Qin Dynasty, the official 'religion' was Legalism. During this period practice of Confucianism and Taoism was banned. Though, these were more philosophies rather than religion, which emerged during the War States Period and the Spring and Autumn Period. Since the Emperor of the Zhuang Dynasties' power had diminished, the rulers of the States under the Zhuang declared themselves King over their own autonomy. This of course clashes with the rule that the Emperor was regarded as the Mandate of Heaven, so his appointment to throne was considered divine. So basically the birth of the philosophies debated with many issues in the States. Each State would usually adopt an official philosophy to run their kingdom.\n\nSo when the Qin dynasty finally fell to the Han dynasty (which was Taoist) it became the official religion.", "The 'shamanism', 'ancestor worship' and 'animism' that people here are talking about is [Chinese folk religion](_URL_0_). It's a fascinating subject.", "This is a really interesting topic.\n\nSo the problem right now is that you are looking at the issue through the lens of Western religious history, where Christianity really did replace the earlier religions so that only myths and superstitions remained. This did not happen in China. You should really consider the growth of Buddhism to be closer to the spread of a philosophical system. Chinese Buddhism is also profoundly different from Indian Buddhism, or Tibetan Buddhism.\n\nBefore the spread of Buddhism, there were two dominant philosophical traditions in China: Confucianism and Taoism. Because nothing in this world is perfect, Taoism also refers to traditional systems of mysticism and superstition that adopted the works of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, but they should not be considered actual practitioners of the philosophy. They considered the Chan tzu and the Dao de Jing to be mystical texts of arcane power, not profound meditations on life. Likewise, later Daoist philosophers like Wang Bi didn't spend their time looking for the elixir of immortality. When you read that x number of Chinese are \"Taoist\" it usually refers to the mystical system.\n\nThis *also* happened with Confucianism. A crucial tenet of Confucianism is that the moral character of a ruler and the health of the country are crucially linked. During the Han and probably earlier this got transformed into the idea that certain rituals could have a profound effect on the natural and supernatural world. Confucius was very specifically anti-superstition, but oh well.\n\nSo what you basically have are two philosophical systems that both have a system of superstition layered upon them. This is basically exactly what happened with Buddhism: A profound philosophical system accrued a layer of superstition.\n\nThe environment that Buddhism entered China was one of political turmoil and spiritual void, because the superstitious aspects of Confucianism had been pared back, and Taoism is far too radical to be a ruling ideology. The rise of Buddhism was accompanied by a period of decline for Confucianism, and it became the dominant ideology of the ruling court for a time during the Tang. But conflict with the court and the rise of Neo-Confucianism ended the era of Buddhist dominance, and it never regained its prominence. Buddhism's importance in Song and later China is greatly exaggerated and is the result of trying to define a dominant \"Eastern\" religious paradigm with which to contrast the \"Western\" paradigm of Christianity." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-One-World-Differences/dp/006157127X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top" ], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_traditional_religion" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cv6y90q", "cv8046m" ], "score": [ 11, 2 ], "text": [ "Just some prior discussions to get you started:\n\n[12 Years a Slave: Was life for slaves really as bad as these movies depict](_URL_1_)\n\n[How accurate was 12 Years a Slave](_URL_0_)", "They absolutely were victimized as badly or worse than film depictions. Former fugitives were marked (i.e. burnt to mark them), intentionally crippled, or worse. One slave narrative (I think it might be Charles Ball's but not sure) describes a slave who is leased by a major slaveholder for years, they develop a great relationship and he is the star worker, and after years of working together he finally buys him. What's the first thing his 'friend' and new owner does? Beats him brutally because, \"All of my slaves have to understand that I am the master.\" Southern towns had 'public whipping posts,' where masters could send slaves to get punishments while not sullying their own hands with the brutality. Just read Frederick Douglass' narrative or \"The Half has never been told,\" to get a sense of this. It was a carefully calibrated torture system that made enslaved people more productive than any free labor force and that made dangerous slave professions like railroad building or mining where slave leasing corporations ratcheted down the violence but increased the danger of the workplace seem like excellent alternatives to the master you knew." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1r9orx/how_accurate_was_the_portrayal_of_slave_life_in/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ukppx/just_finished_watching_12_years_a_slave_was_life/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5iyodj", "c5j0lew", "c5j3hrz", "c5j98hg" ], "score": [ 11, 8, 9, 2 ], "text": [ "The prerequisites are simple; No male heirs with a claim to the throne that's on par with or better than that of the woman, and the backing of a powerful group - clergy or portions of the army. \n \nAn earlier precedent in medieval England would be [Empress Matilda / Queen Maude](_URL_0_) (reigned 7 April 1141 – 1 November 1141) the daughter and heir of King Henry I of England. \n \nHer cousin Stephen of Blois also had a claim to fill the power vacuum that was created by a bit of a boating accident and their rivalry for the throne led to years of unrest and civil war in England that have been called The Anarchy. ", "Read up on Salic vs semi-Salic inheritance, as these two cases cover most of the monarchies in Medieval Europe.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nBasically, Salic was \"man only\" inheritance, and semi-Salic was \"women can inherit if there's no close male relatives.\" ", "I think there's too-heavy an emphasis on the \"rules\" of inheritance, when in many or even most contentious cases, they just decided to [change](_URL_1_) or [ignore](_URL_0_) the rules at the last minute in order to raise whomever was favored by powerful interests to the monarchy.\n\nEven today, [politicians are hard at work changing the rules of Monarchical inheritance](_URL_2_) in order to reflect changing political realities (in this case, acknowledging women's equality by eliminating primogeniture).", "In Celtic England the greatest threat to the Romans was the [Iceni](_URL_1_) Tribe led by Queen Boudica. In Celtic culture women were far more equal to men though and it's not completely relevant to the question. \n\nThe first civil war in England, though, is more relevant. It's called The Anarchy and it started when King Henry I died. He had had a son but he had died in a shipwreck a few years before. He also had a daughter, [Matilda](_URL_0_), who had a legitimate claim to the throne and had been named heir. However Stephen of Blois (her cousin) claimed the thrown and so started twenty years of civil war and public disorder. But she was the first female ruler of the Kingdom of England even if it was only for a few months. \n\nIt wasn't until 1553 that there would be another queen of England. This time it was Lady Jane Grey, known as the Nine Days Queen (no explanation needed). She was deposed by her half sister-in-law, Mary I. The next monarch, her half sister, was also a Queen, Elizibeth I. \n\nIt's not that women weren't allowed the throne but more often than not royal families were big, so women would usually be the last resort because they don't continue carrying the name of their dynasty if they get married. Monarchs would usually have many children, this caused wars though. WW1 is a perfect example of that. Kaiser Wilhelm, Tsar Nicholas and King George were all cousins.\n\nTL;DR Women don't carry the family name so men were preferred." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Matilda" ], [ "http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salic_law" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salic_law#In_France", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_proposals_to_change_the_rules_of_royal_succession_in_the_Commonwealth_realms" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Matilda#Struggle_for_the_throne_of_England", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceni" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfa7r46", "cfa8imx", "cfa9neh", "cfao5ba" ], "score": [ 14, 26, 18, 6 ], "text": [ "The first chapter of the book *Fiery Shapes: Celestial Portents and Astrology in Ireland and Wales 700–1700*, which focuses on the interpretation of astrological phenomena, may give you some ideas (though it does not tackle directly the problem, but rather tries to understand the making of the literary description of portents). Another possible lead (which I think was proposed to me in a tutorial a few years ago; it may ultimately come from Martin Heinzelmann) is that churchmen considered that it was important to record everything (even second or third-hand information) because “you never know,” and that each of these signs could become, in retrospect, an important eschatological key.", "It's fair to say that there are a number of ways one can interpret these sorts of accounts.\n\nThe first is to take them at face value and then try to find natural phenomena to explain what might be behind them.\n\nThe second is to take them at face value and find some extraordinary phenomena to explain them: having taken this approach, you can then make a 52 minute documentary of what you have concluded and it will be purchased by History Channel's Ancient Alien series.\n\nThe third choice is to accept the fact that people recount unusual phenomena, whether they existed in reality or not, and in the process of recounting them and having others carry the tales forward, the phenomena become more extraordinary in the telling.\n\nWe are constantly faced with unusual phenomena, and we interpret what we have encountered with the inventory of explanations at our disposal. A modern, scientifically-bent mind will seek natural explanations for unusual phenomena, but there are plenty in our midst who will see something strange and attribute it to the realm of the extraordinary if not the supernatural. \n\nI was just editing a passage from a book I am developing, which fits here: \"Strange and remarkable things exist in the world. Unusual events have always amazed people and beg for explanation. It is human to attempt to understand. As children of the Scientific Age, modern humanity smugly congratulates itself for not being superstitious, but less than might be expected separates the present from the past. Peculiar lights become aliens, even though technology fills the sky with all sorts of human-made hardware. Crop circles become proof of aliens, even though it may be easier to look at the bored farmer with just the right sense of humor to pull off such a prank. Seeking exotic explanations for the extraordinary is nothing new, and the sophisticated modern age has not extinguished the practice. In a pre-industrial setting, however, the inclination to see the actions of the supernatural was far greater.\"\n\nYou can handle your bizarre accounts in primary sources as you wish, but a folklorist will tell you that one need look no farther than in the soul of humanity to find an explanation. The unusual demands attention and its retelling yields elaboration. And where there is nothing at its core, the imagination of the folk creates the unusual and makes it even more remarkable. It is our nature. Which is, in fact, natural, and yet it presents a direct path to the supernatural.", "Hello! Things like this come up quite regularly in ancient literature as well, and while it is tempting to dismiss them as fantasy or ignore them altogether, we must remember that supernatural phenomena seemed real enough to most people. Of course, we might then try to rationalize these phenomena with natural explanations, but ultimately I find it more meaningful to simply acknowledge that people *believed* them to be true. \n\nThis is basically how Ramsay MacMullen addresses the issue in *Christianizing the Roman Empire, A.D. 100-400* (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984). He notes that *not* believing in miracles would have appeared utterly \"irrational\" to the average ancient, that \"people are capable of keeping nature and its law and ordinary life in one compartment of their minds and something quite different in another\" (\"Galen the true scientist, for example, who believed in centaurs and yet didn't\"), and that \"it gave pleasure both to relate to hear wonderful stories, because such is human nature...\" On his own approach, Ramsay states: \"...I report as faithfully as I can what people of that ancient time believed. On their beliefs they based their actions. Beliefs and actions together are realities. The historian who sticks to *those* sticks to his last.\" This seems pretty reasonable to me. :)", "So an important thing to consider is that many of the things that we'd consider \"weird\" wouldn't appear so to a medieval thinker. Imagine you're a relatively learned medieval thinker and you hear a report about the sighting of a unicorn. Well, you think, unicorns appear in the Bible, they're mentioned in encyclopedias, in bestiaries, in travel narratives, and in the writings of the Church Fathers, essentially all the meaningful authorities that a learned man would draw on to shape his picture of the natural world. So why wouldn't you believe such an account? Sure, you've never seen a unicorn, but you've never seen Jerusalem either, and you're pretty darn sure that it exists. \n\nLikewise an apparent miracle or wondrous event. *Every* reputable source assures you that these occur, and not only occur but occur regularly. Why on Earth would you doubt them? Yeah, you may not have ever seen a miracle yourself, but, then again, you've never seen a naval battle either.\n\n\n > I've tried looking for literature about weird stuff reported during the medieval period but couldn't find anything. \n\nI'm not quite sure what you're asking for here, can you be more specific? As a lover of all things medieval and many things weird, I might be able to help. " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "dvuncqe" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Oswald Spengler, a German philosopher who was very influential in the first half of the twentieth century, even predicted that Russia would be the number one superpower. He had a theory that the lifespan of a culture is about 1000 years and Europe lived through its heydays in 16th to 18th century. He saw North America as an extension of European culture, but acknowledged that Russia is a separate culture." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cwf1iux" ], "score": [ 20 ], "text": [ "Soviet tactics, command and control and doctrine changed a lot during the war.\n\nThe Soviets entered ww2 with an interesting mix of experience from ww1, the Russian Civil War, their own type of deep battle doctrine and a political reversal of much of this, which proved disastrous.\n\nThe Eastern Front was never as locked or entrenched as the Western Front had been in ww1. The massed attack was on several occassions more successful here - the Central Powers broke through at Gorlice-Tarnow 1915, the Russians almost broke the Austro-Hungarians at the Brusilov offensive 1916 and the Germans managed to break Russia with their Baltic offensive 1917.\n\nThe Russian Civil War had also seen armies operating mostly independently from each other with a for the time minimal logistics train. \n\nGenerally, the Soviets had experienced that the more strong-willed and politically coherent army would win but also that adding resources to a successful attack would produce excellent results.\n\nTactically, the Soviets focused on overwhelming firepower and force on the attack and tenacity, excellent entrenchment and camouflage on the defence. The Soviets had also developed their own version of the German *schwerpunkt* idea in their deep battle doctrine, in which armoured, mechanised and cavalry formations would be grouped together, force a breakthrough and then act independently by rushing through and going for the deep of the enemy territory.\n\nHowever, the 1937 and 1938 purges changed this. The idea of deep battle was lost, and armour was assigned to the infantry for support, although some dedicated mechanised and armoured formations reamined, as well as a large independent cavalry force. The purges also froze the initiative of the Red Army - NCOs and officers would not dare to do anything without orders for the risk of being accused of being a traitor. Tactical flexibility suffered heavily as a result.\n\nIn Spain, the Soviets more or less re-built the Spanish army 1937 along Soviet lines and tried to use zeal and discipline as replacements of tactical flexibility - while the Republicans had plenty of zeal, most soldiers came from the various militias and were unused to military discipline. The attempt to replace firepower and tactical flexibility with zeal and discipline spelled disaster during the Ebro offensive.\n\nThe Soviet system also proved devastatingly lousy during the Finnish Winter War. The lack of tactical flexibility, the lack of a short-range and long-range patrol doctrine in dense terrain (things the Finns excelled at) as well as operational and strategical planning failure in sending mechanised or motorised heavy formations into dense forests where they were road-bound and easy to cut up in *mottis* proved the failure of the Soviet system.\n\nHowever, the Soviets did learn a lot from Finland, lessons they would put to good use against the Germans on the Eastern Front once they had recovered from the initial shock.\n\n1941 the Red Army could in some circumstances be described as an armed mob without any real communications, leadership or even purpose. The shared leadership of formations between the commander and the political commissar, who was responsible for the loyalty and political zeal of the formation, also created problems - officers and commissars could argue back and forth on actions and officers might abstain from action that might be viewed as cowardice (a tactical retreat, for example) or going outside orders.\n\nThe 1945 Red Army was a completely different beast and one of the best armies in the world. What happened?\n\nThe losses in Finland, and especially in the first year of the Eastern Front shock the Soviets to the core and allowed them to start learning what they were good at - but especially what they were not good at.\n\nThe Soviets understood that they could not match the Germans in tactical flexibility and in the training and education of NCOs and lower officers (since they did not have the same stock of educated people to draw from and the extreme casualties they suffered required them to train new soldiers and their NCOs and lower officers quickly). So the Soviets developed that they called an operational doctrine. Specialised staffs of officers from the central command, STAVKA, was attached to sectors of the front where heavy fighting was expected. Heavy artillery, which had been attached to divisions and made them heavy and unwieldy (and hard to use since the divisions lacked the radio equipment and dedicated artillery staff as well as forward observers etc to use it well), was moved to special artillery formations under STAVKA control. Large armoured and mechanised formations were created and placed under STAVKA control as well.\n\nThese formations were attached to these staffs and used where it was deemed necessary. If an attack ran into heavy resistance and slowed down, resources was quickly shifted to a part of a front where the attack was more successful. Reinforcements, supplies and replacements were monitored closely by the dedicated staffs from STAVKA and used where they would be most effective.\n\nThe Soviets never had the same level of tactical independence as the Germans did with their *auftragstaktik* and knew they could not match the Germans in tactical skill, so they developed the operational doctrine to counter the Germans.\n\nAdding to this was *maskirovka* or large scale camouflage and deception. Hiding troops by radio silence, camouflaging large formations and especially creating the false impressions they were at another part of the front by laying phone lines, creating massive radio chatter, placing dummy tanks and artillery and have trucks run back and forth to create the impression of new roads and well-used supply lines, the Soviets concentrated overwhelming force and tricked the Germans into assigning their reserves elsewhere and then used operational flexibility to keep their enemies off their balance.\n\nThese two examples - operational doctrine and *maskirovka* is the reason for the still pervasive myth of the overwhelming avalance or human wave attack from the Soviets. For the first 20-30 years after ww2, western authors writing on the Eastern Front only had access to German officers and accounts, not Soviets. The Germans saw only a lack of tactical flexibility and the overwhelming superiority in firepower and numbers the Soviets deployed on the attack, and their conclusion was that they were drowned in men and materiel rather than being outfought. They never saw the refined planning and execution that went into *maskirovka* nor the detailed work and meticolous attention to detail that went into staff work for the operational battle.\n\nThe Soviets, learning from the Finns, also created the idea of constant small raids, patrols and infiltration for information gathering at a large scale - the Western Allies and the Germans had used patrol acticity to take prisoners and do recoinnasance on the Western Front in ww1, but the Finns taught the Soviets about long-range patrol activity, something which they used frequently and with good effect against the Germans.\n\nThe western allies developed their own version of *maskirovka* (notably by creating their false army that was to attack Calais on D-day), but the Soviets pioneered it, andit became standard tactics for all armies, although at a larger scale and more common among the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact allies during the Cold War.\n\nLong-range patrol activity is now also a very common concept in all armies - special forces usually take this duty nowadays, akin to how the British commandoes operated druring ww2." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cj89nod" ], "score": [ 17 ], "text": [ "This is a complicated question to answer. \n\nAt the outset, I must point out that Muslims and Hindus in India have been separate communities for centuries. The two communities do not mix, and ghettos exist in India even today.\n\nFor about 700 years before independence, the Indian sub-continent was ruled by a Muslim minority, whereas the majority of the population was Hindu. The ruling and intellectual elite were Muslims right from the time of the Delhi Sultanate to the last dregs of the Mughal empire. During the Revolt of 1857 too, the Muslim elite played a major role. However, after the defeat of the Revolt, the British dismantled this elite and summarily executed or exiled a large number of people who belonged to this class. These were the people who would have become leaders and representatives of the Muslim community in the years following 1857. The loss of such a large number of educated elite and potential representatives lead to a disproportionally small representation of the Muslim community in the freedom movement and in all interactions with the British. \n\nThe Muslim league was formed in 1906 as a body that would represent Muslim Landowners and Landed Gentry. This faction realised that the Congress Party that was dominated by the Hindus and held a socialist world view would not be sympathetic to their claims once the British left, especially since the Congress party claimed to represent the whole of the Indian people, even the Muslim community. The Muslim elite (or what was left of it) thus used religion to their advantage to gain a place for themselves in the ruling polity. The claim that the Muslim people were a separate demographic that could not live under Hindu rulers was put forth. Ultimately, this lead to the demand for Pakistan." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "csqotl9", "csrrtib" ], "score": [ 10, 2 ], "text": [ "Please note: this reply does not bring up the various issues associated with the description of \"most powerful man in the world\", and assumes a mostly military and economic standpoint. I'd also like to point out that the President isn't *truly* the most powerful man, as he requires the help of the rest of the government to wield the power of the U.S., especially of Congress, which issues tariffs (if I'm not mistaken) and declarations of war. \n\nI'm not particularly well-versed in early American history, but I feel that it's safe to discount most of the first century of American history- the British Empire was the real global power player at that point. However, there was never a violent usurpation of power between the two, it was a largely peaceful, gradual exchange ([this](_URL_0_) study supports that statement). With this in mind, one can look to World War I and World War II as the U.S. really arriving on the world stage militarily and economically- both wars devastated Europe economically and militarily, but the U.S. left them better off than Europe did, due to the lack of fighting on U.S. soil, when compared to Europe. After WWII, two superpowers emerged: the U.S. and the USSR. Throughout the Cold War, both sides saw large increases in nuclear stockpiles (look at the graph on [this](_URL_1_) page). Furthermore, both superpowers had similar military alliances in place, such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The complications of international relations at the time, as well as the various other economic, military, and social events during those times, make it relatively difficult to determine which nation was more \"powerful\". However, with the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the situation changed. I would, based on these facts, say that U.S. truly became the most powerful nation sometime around 1991 or 1992. ", "I've never tried to answer before, but here goes. I would say it started around the time of Teddy Roosevelt's Presidency. The US effectively bullied Colombia into letting America work on the Panama Canal, by fanning the flames of a revolt in modern Panama.\n\nAfter the Canal's completion, the Great White Fleet made it's voyage more or less around the world (I believe mostly Pacific though). That was a demonstration of the United States' new naval capabilities brought about by the two - ocean access via the Panama Canal. \n\nFast forward to Wilson's Presidency, the US distinguished itself in WWI as powerful though not the most powerful. Although, we came out of the war in better shape than most of involved Europe. However Wilson's failure to convince his own people of the importance of the League of Nations probably prevented him from taking a more central position in global affairs. \n\nBut finally, the end of WWII and the next decade to follow was the final bit of setup. The US ends the war victorious and as the USSR began aggressive expansion of communism the US takes the biggest military role (at least of the democratic side). That said, as the Korean War intensifies and Vietnam begins the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces has troops all over in a worldwide struggle against communism plus the atomic bomb. Also, the newfound US influence in Japan and West Germany gave added weight to the US's presence in Europe and Asia. \n\nTo conclude, it took around 40 years of build up which came to a head in the Cold War." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://m.cjip.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/1/83.full#xref-fn-5-1", "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e8jkxs9" ], "score": [ 32 ], "text": [ "While they don't each specifically address all of your questions I think you may find [these](_URL_0_) [three](_URL_2_) [answers](_URL_1_) by u/kieslowskifan and u/commiespaceinvader, and their sources to be helpful. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/95ubmf/why_was_bonn_chosen_to_be_the_capital_of_west/e3vnpe0/", "https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6uhzhz/why_did_west_germany_choose_the_city_of_bonn_as/dlt166t/", "https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/777o4y/on_20_june_1991_the_reunified_german_bundestag/dojnvmq/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "efvf94g" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The Guntō (軍刀) was a Japanese sword that saw use by the IJA and IJN during the Meiji period. The sword began seeing greater use following the implementation of military conscription in 1872. The Meiji period took place during the first half of the Empire of Japan, and began in 1868 and ended in 1912. The Empire of Japan lasted from 1868 to 1947. During the Meiji period, Japanese culture and society distanced itself from its former isolated feudal system and began to westernize. Inspired by many western ideals and standards, Japan introduced reforms such as the Five Charter Oath. They also made practicing Christianity legal. Overall, the Japanese allowed themselves to be more influenced by Western ideology, and began identifying with it. \n\n\nAs a result of this, the swords developed during the Meiji period, more specifically the kyū guntō (旧軍刀), had Western influences. These influences led to sword styles resembling American and European swords of the same period. The kyū guntō swords, used from 1875-1934, had things such as the D-guard (wraparound hand guard) and chrome plated scabbards. They could also include more luxurious additions such as silverworking and jade, and it wasn’t limited to just this.\n\n\nIn the early 1930’s, nationalism began to strongly increase both within the military and even the general population. This led to the introduction of the shin guntō (新軍刀) for the military in 1935 to satisfy the wanting of stronger identification and pride in Japan and it’s culture. Nearly all of these swords were produced by the Toyokawa Naval Arsenal from 1935 to 1945. These swords, in order to identify with traditional Japanese roots, were modeled after the slung tachi. The slung tachi saw use during the Kamakura Period from 1185 to 1332. Additionally, the Kaiguntō (海軍刀), the Type 94, Type 95, and Type 98 swords were produced between 1934-1945. All of these swords shared the same idea as the shin guntō, to relate back to traditional Japanese swords. \n\n\nTL;DR- From 1868-1912 Japan began to westernize and adopted western culture and ideas. This led to use of the kyū guntō which was styled after American and European swords. But as nationalism increased within Japan, the shin guntō was implemented. This is due to wanting to relate back to Japanese culture and to more satisfy nationalism. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cr4ufey", "cr59xai", "cr5dbxj" ], "score": [ 5, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "I hope the question makes sense. I was just looking at a map of the US and noticed that the West Coast states seemed so much larger than East Coast states and it got me wondering.", "There may be several factors on a case by case basis, but one seems very important to your question. (Though I will gladly defer to someone with a specialty to this era if they chime in)\n\nStates formed after the invention of the railroad would have been much easier to govern across wipe open spaces. California and Texas are unusually large a populous because they were both independent nations when they entered the union.\n\nInterestingly, Texas had the option of splitting up into up to 5 new states, which would have been theoretically easier to govern, though by 1850 the railroad system of the U.S. was already connecting cities as far away as Boston and St. Louis making the challenge of governing large states, and by default our large nation much less challenging.", "One reason that the first states are so small is the original settlement of our nation. The original 13 states strongly mimic the original colonies. Given that this was found to be easier to govern for the time. Also, the Spanish colonies were to the south (TX, CA, NM and after the Treaty of Paris, LA, AR, OK, MO, KS, NE, IA, MN, ND, SD, WY, MO, CO, and ID), the Dutch colonies to the northeast (in CT, RI, MA, NH) and the French colonies (after 1800, LA, AR, OK, MO, KS, NE, IA, MN, ND, SD, WY, MO, CO, and ID). In 1803, the Louisiana Purchase took place and America bought this land from Napoleon. However, the purchase failed to define boundaries of individual territories. \n\nThere were several reasons why western states are larger than eastern states. One is that in the northeast, there are many more geographical boundaries (rivers, mountains). As irashandle mentioned, since there were very few settlers migrating west, mapping smaller territories would mean more government bodies. There, quite frankly, was not enough manpower to satisfy these demands. Another factor was water access. Since there are fewer water sources in the west, many states shared access to the same rivers and lakes. But also as irashandle mentions, when railroads were established, some state lines were redefined because of this. \n\nIn many of the western states, we still see geographical significance in their formation. Henry Gannett is known to be a geographical pioneer and in many of his papers, he describes the importance of each state's formation. I think the one that best describes the formation of each individual territory is [*Boundaries of the United States and of the Several States and Territories.*](_URL_0_) In this, we see that geographical markers still played a large role in the formation of all states, including the western states. \n\nEconomic sources also played a role. Utah was originally the state of Deseret (a Mormon territory) but when silver was discovered to the west, it was cut in half to form Nevada and when gold was discovered to the east, it was cut even further to form Colorado. California drew its own line, cutting into Nevada to keep all the gold that they could from the Sierra Nevada mountain range. Another instance is the Idaho Territory which was once much larger than it is now. Montana took a large plot of land west of the Continental Divide to acquire more goldmines. \n\nThe Carolina Territory was also once much larger. Originally, it stretched across the country from coast to coast. It is largely [assumed](_URL_3_) that the territory was split in 1710, the territory was split in two with North Carolina being governed by Edward Hyde. However, further [research](_URL_1_) shows that Hyde likely came into office in 1711 as he was in Virginia in 1710 and pops up in North Carolina in 1711. So I would say it occurred in 1711 or 1712. Many also argue that the split resulted from the Yamasee War of the early 1700's however, this war [most likely](_URL_2_) began in 1715. The last theory (the one I lean towards) is that since the two major ports [Charles Town(Charleston) and Albermarle Sound) were roughly 300 miles apart, the cultures were vastly different (the south was mostly wealthy English inhabitants and the north was mostly populated by Quakers along with harsh tobacco farmers) and the official split probably resulted because of this difference.\n\nI am more versed in early settlement (colonial), but this is what I have learned through personal research. Each territory/state has its own unique story and I'm sure there will be others who will have far more knowledge than I on the subject. In any case, I hope this helps. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=wkAWAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en", "http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/wayne/heritage/proprietors.txt", "http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Yamasee_War.html?id=E-IiOoGJHoYC", "http://books.google.com/books/about/Celebrating_Thomas_Chippendale_250_Years.html?id=hB4ywU7G9eAC" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c89zweb" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Though it's easy to assume that names for events are applied retrospectively by historians (which certainly does happen in certain circumstances), it's worth remembering that any event of significance tends to get referred to by contemporaries through a shortened reference. \n\nAs an example from my own area - if we consider the alleged plot against Charles II that emerged around the late 1670s (a supposed Catholic conspiracy to murder the king), by later 1678 it was being widely referred to as 'the Popish Plot'. You see it appearing in scribal newsletters; in the diaries of folks like Narcissus Luttrell and Roger Morrice. It's not a collective decision to name the event, but rather - a popular and rational method of instant recognition, no doubt spread through word of mouth, as much as anything." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eg5wa7z" ], "score": [ 56 ], "text": [ "Very briefly:\n\n* Intermediate range missiles have very short flight times. This makes them ideal for \"decapitation\" attacks if they can be based near a capital: if your time to arrival is, say, 5 minutes, then your time to respond is measured as even less than that. Can you get your leadership to a safe place, much less send out a retaliatory order, in that amount of time? Maybe not, esp. if your leaders are old or sick or drunk (an issue with three of the Soviet leaders in succession: Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko). This threat made the USSR very uncomfortable, because the US was basing weapons in Western Europe that could potentially threaten Moscow with only a minute or two of warning time. This in turn made the USSR adopt potentially dangerous, \"hair-trigger\" and \"fail-deadly\" policies (like the infamous \"Dead Hand\" system, which allowed a nuclear response order to be more or less automatic) that were meant to allow them to guarantee retaliation in a crisis, and that could easily lead to misunderstanding and accidental nuclear war (see: the Stanislav Petrov incident). So they were perceive as particularly destabilizing by the Soviets, and the habit of the US to put IRBMs into NATO allies near Soviet borders had long incurred Soviet ire (see: the Jupiters that Eisenhower agreed to put in Turkey, which were part of the provocation that led the Soviets to try to put IRBMs in Cuba, to disastrous effect). The deployment of fast, highly-accurate Pershing IIs to Europe in 1983 in particular made the Soviets very uncomfortable. So this was a class of weapons the Soviets would be _very_ happy to not have to deal with, and the US had begun to appreciate how destabilizing and dangerous they might be.\n\n* From the US/NATO perspective, banning intermediate-range weapons would also put the Soviets at a disadvantage with regards to Western Europe, since the bulk of the Soviet rocket forces fell into this category an the Soviets removed far more systems than the US/NATO did. So it is sort of win-win: Soviets lost a clear decapitation threat, Western Europe lost a major existential threat. Ultimately the Soviets removed more systems, but got more strategic stability as a consequence. A true \"deal,\" one might say. This is not to say it was not controversial; the NATO powers in particular were not entirely thrilled with it.\n\n* Separately, intermediate forces can be \"use it or lose it\" weapons (they are going to be hit first in a conflict, both because of their range and because of their relative fragility compared to an ICBM), which also encourages early use. (And if you want to ask, \"how do you target mobile intermediate weapons?\" — the US approach was, \"nuke the entire forest they might be in,\" which leads to rather ghastly targeting consequences.)\n\n* The INF was never intended (and was not) to be the final arms control treaty. But it was one that could be readily negotiated by both sides as a short of good faith. Longer-range forces do not pose the same \"time-compression\" effects as intermediate range forces. Very short-range forces (e.g. tactical weapons) lack the decapitation potential, and the US/NATO was, at the time, heavily dependent on them for deterring a large conventional attack from the Warsaw Pact (in the post-Cold War, this threat dissipated, and US/NATO decommissioned most of its tactical weapons; today, Russia is heavily reliant on tactical weapons to oppose the conventional threat posed by the US, which is an interesting inversion). Submarine-based weapons _do_ have decapitation issues, but were so relied upon by both sides as guaranteed \"second-strike\" weapons that there was really no hope of negotiating them away. One could imagine negotiating away ICBMs (they are arguably unnecessary if you have SLBMs, and cause many strategic problems as they are \"use it or lose it\" weapons); it has been proposed many times but never implemented for various diplomatic and strategic reasons. \n\n* INF was one of several arms control treaties and should not be viewed in isolation. It represented a major step forward in being able to remove an entire class of weapons. Other treaties targeted specific numbers of warhead, like SALT and START. INF was not meant to resolve all possible nuclear issues (and some of the modern-day objections, like \"but it didn't include China,\" are kind of non-sequiturs — it was a bilateral treaty, these things exist). " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d0ocjlh" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "I am sorry to have to break this to your teacher and you, but most historian do not believe Adolf Hitler had a Jewish grandparent. To say so is utter nonsense and something he or she likely heard on the history channel. This was propaganda spread around due to his mother's out-of-wedlock child and naturally because nothing would be more hypocrital *if* it were true.\n\n* *Adolf Hitler: A Definitive Biography* John Toland\n* *Hitler: A Biography* Ian Kershaw" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dnygavy" ], "score": [ 14 ], "text": [ "An interesting question! It's true that no machinery of state coincided with the existence of a complicated legal system. In early medieval Ireland, kings had no recourse to police services, standing armies, established bureaucracies or forms of institutional taxation that we might associate with state societies. In contrast to a contemporary statesman who is legitimized and shored up by the innumerable apparatuses of the modern state, the Irish king drew his power and legitimacy from two sources: his ritualistic role as a sort of \"priest-king\" whose primary duty was to uphold the metaphysical well being of his kingdom and his personal power and influence, which was drawn from the same system of clientship and patronage I've described in your previous post.\n\nEarly Irish kingship was a pretty spiritual and cultish position that seems derived from pre-historic and obviously pre-Christian religious and political practices. Legal sources such as the Lebor na Cert and literary texts like the Destruction of Da Derga's Hostel depict a crucial element of kingship which betrays the office's religious origins; Irish kings were expected to abide by *buada* and *geassa* - taboos and prerogatives that kings were expected to uphold lest they break them and bring destruction and death upon themselves and their territories. These taboos depended on the title but could prevent them from allowing strife in their household, travelling clockwise around their fortress 3 times, maintaining fleets on a specific lake and so on. This is compounded by the legal expectation for a king to maintain a physically unblemished body (though there are no historical examples of kings being stripped of their office due to injury) and a cultural conception that the rule of a good king will usher in prosperity in crops, wild game, cattle and good weather, while the reign of a bad or wicked king will bring about illness, plague, unsuitable weather, poor harvests and death. \n\nRelated to this concept of a king as an embodiment of everything that's good with with kingdom is his legally ascribed role as judgement giver. Irish court procedure is basically unknown but we do know that kings were supposed to give righteous judgements in certain court cases, which actually one of the only \"state-like\" things that they were allowed to do. Kings who made bad judgements could bring about the same sorts of supernatural retribution. It's quite possible that in pre-historic times Irish kings were simply a symbolic and purely priestly figures whose sole duty was to uphold the metaphysical wellbeing of their territory. And I do mean THEIR territory literally - Irish kings are recorded to have symbolically married a female personification of their territory upon coronation at an obviously pre-Christian ritual that apparently featured animal sacrifice.\n\nSo this is where the second part of the equation comes into the mix: why exactly did kings stop becoming a purely ritualistic and ceremonial figure with no executive power (which is attested in legal texts but does not exactly correspond with the actions of kings in historical documents) to the warring regional warlords that we all know and love? It seems that this process began sometime around the fall of the Roman Empire as Irish lords enriched themselves by raiding the former province of Britain, and freed themselves from manual labour with the help of slave labour captured there. Then they were free to establish themselves and their households as mobile warrior-aristocrats who then hemmed in the lower classes into subservient client roles (which I've described in the other post) meant to sustain the aristocracy with food and labour. \n\nThis new aristocratic development of social relations became extended into the political sphere; kings were not merely just kings of their individual territory or *tuath* (sometimes poorly translated as \"tribe\"), but developed complicated patterns of overlordship between these individual territories. One king became lord and patron of a few of his neighbouring kings, but might then have been subdued by another more powerful king who we might identify as a provincial king (in reference to Ireland's 5 historic provinces). Such a king might have dozens of kings subservient to him as clients in a complicated web of personal relations. These relations were personal rather than institutional because a provincial king earned the subservience of less powerful regional kings through actual personal contracts, not because the king of so and so was legally subordinate to the provincial king of such and such (like how the Duke of Normandy was de jure subordinate to the King of France, I suppose).\n\nSo how did Irish kings rule despite existing in a more or less stateless society? Because they served a ritualistic and priestly role that had over time been overridden by a new kind of social, economic and political system: that of aristocratic clientship and patronage. Irish kings \"ruled\" despite not having a state because they drew upon their own personal relationships, which were really just and extension of the same kinds of relationships of power that existed on every level of society, and because the historical origin of their office enabled them to do so." ] }

[]

[ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/74exr8/how_did_the_early_medieval_irish_economy_work/dny1c8l/" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cc5ah7o" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "This is a question that needs definition. What exactly do you mean by globalization? Is just movement of people, goods, and ideas? Is it important economic connections between all regions of the world? Is it thinking primarily in global rather than local terms? Until you define what you mean, the question is impossible to answer." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6djfh8", "c6dk0zs", "c6dkzba", "c6dm80j", "c6dmtnr", "c6dq7jw" ], "score": [ 13, 4, 5, 4, 2, 6 ], "text": [ "This is a marvelous opportunity -- even for non-American redditors, who are absolutely welcome to enter -- and I encourage everyone here to get involved! I know I'll be sending in a question or two of my own...", "Is there a recommended character limit?", "So is the trivia over only campgaign history or can it be over general political history as well?", "Just sent the trivia list I used at a College Dems party. \n\nHere's a challenge I had at the end which I think you all might find amusing and, since it's not really a trivia question, should be able to be posted here: \n\nConnect F. Scott Fitzgerald to Joseph Stalin with five or fewer people. \n\nAnd...GO", "Ohhhh how fun!", "Thanks, /r/askhistorians! We're all really excited about this. We'll be doing the pub quizes live in [Denver](_URL_0_) and Danville the night of the debates, but we also will try to distribute it to any other groups that are hosting debate watching events (haven't figured out the logistics on that yet). We'll leave it to the wise and erudite /r/askhistorians mods to determine how to share the final quiz Q & As with the community after the events. \n\nIf any of you are in Denver or Danville, would love to buy you a beer. There's even the possibility some elected officials will be stopping by." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/Denver/comments/10h0y6/internet2012_presidential_pub_quiz_debate/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7zml1z" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Colonial America/the American Revolution has, at least in the Northeastern US, more museums than any other field of art or history. The academic quality of these museums will vary greatly, depending on a wide number of factors. One of these is the age of the staff - younger museum types, in my experience, tend to at least have some training in museum practice and public history theory. Old holdovers from the BiCi years or the bluehairs that run a great many historical societies... not so much. As such, a lot of historic house museums (where local historical societies are often based) can perpetuate a lot of the old myths that have been circulating around the field for years (such as \"sleep tight\" coming from the need to tighten the net mattresses rested on in most 18th century beds).\n\nIt my experience, most places could benefit from a closer relationship with the academy. I've seldom seen academics consulted on new exhibits or programs, and most places will maybe have a guest lecturer once or twice a year. It isn't a good idea to let academics completely run the show (they tend towards the stagnant and the verbose), but I did my thesis on ways to find a happy medium between the two." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9bcryq" ], "score": [ 52 ], "text": [ "You have to understand the 3 primary missions of the Soviet Navy. It was not a global force of projection like the US Navy. Though some Soviet Admirals, such as Chernavin, wanted it to be but as the lowest-prioritized service of the Soviet Armed Forces, funding for such a project was unavailable.\n\nSo instead of a power-projecting fleet focused around Aircraft Carriers like the US, the Soviet Navy was primary a counter-acting force. Its three primary missions during the Cold War were:\n\n1.) Anti-Submarine Warfare. This was probably the central focus of the Soviet Navy. They operated numerous classes of large ASW-focused ships during the war, and their initial aircraft carriers (the Kiev and Moska classes) were based around ASW operations. The Soviets greatly feared (correctly so) US Navy Ballistic Missile Submarines (SSBN's), as these boats had the ability to nuke the USSR into oblivion and do so while remaining relatively invisible (at least in the later stages of the Cold War). ASW is at its most effective when other submarines are at the forefront, and the Soviets built large fleets of hunter-killers to track down and destroy American SSBN's, particularly in the Arctic.\n\n2.) Strategic missions. Like the US, the Soviets also had a large fleet of SSBN's as they recognized the strategic advantage (near total immunity from losing nuclear counter-strike capabilities in an enemy first-strike scenario). The Soviets constantly sought nuclear superiority over the US in land, air, and sea-based platforms. They finally achieved parity on land and at sea in the late 70's and even achieved superiority in these same areas by the mid-80's, so they built up very large numbers of missile submarines that greatly surpassed those operated by the US Navy (about a 2-1 advantage by 1991), though this number included older models (The Golf, Hotel, and Yankee classes) that weren't as effective as designs in American use during this time.\n\n3.) Anti-Carrier. The Soviet Navy operated a large fleet of medium-bombers (Tu-16's & Tu-22's, later Tu-22M's) intended to launch nuclear-tipped cruise missiles (such as the Kh-22) at US Navy Carrier Battlegroups in the event of war. This was viewed as the best way to destroy what would be a major threat off the USSR's coastlines. Now this is the only major mission that didn't require submarines, but it should also be noted that the Soviet Navy was also extremely focused on bomber aircraft and aerial-launched cruise missiles.\n\nSubmarines and anti-ship missiles were at the forefront of these three missions, which is why Soviet naval R & D tended to focus on these areas more then the US, and why Soviet designs in these areas were consistently high-quality.\n\nAnother role that became more prominent as the Cold War dragged on was intercepting American supply convoys that would have left the US for Europe during a war (Operation Reforger), and the Soviets felt that like the Germans in the Battle of the Atlantic, this kind of supply disruption operation would have best been served by submarines, though in the Soviets case, nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines oeprating large amounts of anti-ship missiles were the weapons of choice. However the Soviet Army planned to win a war in Western Europe before Operation Reforger could have been put into action on a large-scale, so the necessity of this submarine campaign counteracts Soviet military doctrine a bit.\n\nBesides this, the Soviets also had a looser mission of maintaining local superiority in their primary areas of operation (the Arctic, Baltic, Black, and Northern Pacific seas) and direct coastal defense overseen by fleets of swift missile boats and corvettes. However the submarine was the \"capital ship\" of the Soviet Navy, as it was most closely associated with their primary missions.\n\nI advise the Naval Institutes Guide to the Soviet Navy, 1991 edition. It provides good insight into Soviet naval missions, doctrine, control, equipment, and so on." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e92khtb" ], "score": [ 939 ], "text": [ "The major factor is going to be social class, of course. I have an [earlier answer](_URL_0_) that considers primarily the case of late medieval English peasants, if you're interested!\n\n\"Peasant\" is an incredibly expansive term, encompassing everything from beggar to a family with a solid stone house and some servants. If you'll allow for a generous definition of the high Middle Ages, the English Subsidy of 1332 (tax & c law) and records of its implementation can offer a pretty good look at the minimal standards. I'm fudging a little because 14th century is generally agreed upon as the late MA, but it's still pre-Black Death and juuuust barely pre-Hundred Years War, so.\n\nThe Subsidy of 1332 was a tax on material goods (not property) imposed in London. This is useful for considering peasants because medieval cities were population sinks; they maintained and grew via immigration, and in fact (as we will see), actively worked to recruit immigrant workers (including petty laborers/servants). A lot of the people being taxed, especially outside the established artisans, had started off life as rural.\n\nThe Subsidy allows households (presuming a married couple) a certain amount of items tax-free. They are:\n\n* One dress/outfit for the woman and one for the man\n* One shared bed\n* \"A ring and a chain of gold or silver\" (wedding gifts, maybe?)\n* \"A girdle of silk that they use every day\" (~~I presume undergarments~~ a belt, per /u/chocolatepot ~~below~~ in the earlier thread)\n* One shared drinking cup\n\nImmigrants coming into London, moreover, were allowed to bring in the amount of clothing that they could fit into a backpack without paying customs on it.\n\nThis is all nice and prescriptive. Actual records of tax collection and duty collection on immigrants, however, show that about 50% of Londoners failed to meet the *minimum standard* for taxation. \n\nSo the urban poor, many of whom had started as the rural poor, were definitely dependent on their current outfit holding together, and on charity in the case it didn't.\n\nAnd, in one of my favorite medieval history tidbits for reasons that I will explain, we know clothing could very well be charity in the Middle Ages. In addition to the healthy market in secondhand clothing (really, medieval thrift shopping!), rich people often used 'free' donations of clothing as an incentive for poor people to attend their funerals (that is, to get more prayers for their soul, in theory). The reason this is so awesome to me is the modern movie stereotype of the \"colorless Middle Ages\" where everything is [brown, gray, brown, gray, brown.](_URL_1_) Well, when we look at actual wills with funeral provisions, there are examples of people who say, \"And money to purchase solid, well-constructed garments for the poor in the funeral procession, as long as they are gray.\"\n\nI've talked about the lowest (but substantial) segments of society here. The 14th century *also* witnesses what some scholars have called the 'rise of fashion,' that is, the purposeful *transformation* of clothing into new and innovative shapes and decoration for social and/or artistic purposes. This is the period that sees the earliest \"sumptuary laws,\" that is, laws designed to regulate who can own *and wear* what based on their social status. Sometimes the reasons for this are related to trade and protectionism (can't have too many people buying fancy expensive imported fabric), but they are equally designed to be markers of social status. While a lot of early sumptuary laws in particular targeted different degrees of royalty/nobility, their invention and spread suggests that among the middle classes of society as well (which would include better-off peasants), wardrobes were increasing in size, variety, and social sensibility.\n\nMiddle- and upper-class women are often recorded as leaving dresses to their family and friends in their wills, in the late Middle Ages, but that is probably representative of someone's nicest dress instead of a wardrobe inventory." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5m6ypu/do_we_have_any_idea_how_many_changes_of_clothes/dc1rvfl/", "http://www.thehunchblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/d-cg-crowd-3.png" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c4qpvg8", "c4qqzkx", "c4qrtdd", "c4qvhus" ], "score": [ 5, 23, 12, 3 ], "text": [ "the Mycenaeans to some extent ARE the more popularized ancient Greeks. 1600-1100 BCE, the Peloponnese and the Aegean. Bronze age conquest. Mycenae, Athens, Thebes. The Iliad and the Odyssey. The events and myths and mythic events from this age were the building blocks of western culture.\n\nThe Mycenaeans, along with most Bronze-Age civilization in the region, eventually collapsed, and there was a \"Dark Age\" before the Greek city-states that you are thinking of as the \"more popularized\" ancient Greeks emerged around 800 BCE. What we think of as \"Classical Greece\" existed between the 500s and the 300s BCE (the wars w/ Persia, the Peloponnesian War, Athenian democracy, etc, etc). This period is generally agreed to have come to an end with the conquests of Alexander the Great, which lead into the Hellenistic Period. ", "The Mycenaeans were the ancient Greeks only 600-1000 years earlier. They spoke a dialect of the same language, lived in mostly the same places, and believed in the same gods.\n\nBeyond that they're pretty different. Other than the names of their gods, there's essentially no cultural continuity from the Bronze Age Mycenaeans of 1600-1050 BCE to the Archaic/Classical Greeks of 750-350 BCE. Bronze Age documents give us a fair bit of information about how they administered their societies. At their height, the Mycenaeans had what we call a \"palace culture\" (ca. 1450-1200), which the *New Pauly* describes as\n\n > centralized theocracies running a redistributive economy, which required a large and complex administration.\n\nThe king of a given \"palace\" was the *wa-na-ka* (= Classical Greek *anax*). The social relationships between *wa-na-ka* and people don't seem to have been about feudalism or slavery; the *wa-na-ka* would have a *temenos* of land to himself, but the rest of the territory was *da-mo*, i.e. belonging to the \"people\". The same system seems to have been practised throughout central and southern Greece, and the major centres certainly talked to each other a lot, but there's no indication that it was all a single state. The surviving documents don't give us information about things like borders or diplomatic relations. Thanks to Hittite sources we know of one state that was called \"Ahhiyawa\" in Hittite (probably = Greek \"Achaia\", but there's still no good evidence for that) which, current thinking has it, controlled Miletos and the islands of the south-east Aegean; but we don't even know its location for sure.\n\n* Texts: we have some administrative documents from the Mycenaeans, but no historical writing and no literature. If they had any poetry, it didn't survive into Classical times; certainly the poetry we start to see in the Archaic period (like Homer, and lyric poets like Sappho) is deeply rooted in Ionic and Aeolic traditions, not Mycenaean. Mycenaean writing (using the Linear B script) faded into non-existence at the end of the Bronze Age, though a derivative script continued to be used in Cyprus. \n\n* Trade: they were a very important trading culture. Mycenaean artefacts, including metalwork and pottery, are found all over the eastern Mediterranean from Italy to Ugarit, up in the Black Sea, and even a hell of a long way up the Danube. \n\n* Their artwork is very different from that of the Classical Greeks. They didn't develop homegrown pictorial arts, but adapted them from the non-Greek Minoan culture of Crete (whom they conquered ca. 1400). It didn't reach the same heights as Classical art in terms of achieving realism and a stylised beauty both at once, but [their frescos are justly famous](_URL_0_). Their pottery comes in very clearly defined phases and is one of the most important tools archaeologists have for dating material at many sites even a long way from Greece. \n\n* They were capable of major engineering feats: the palace complexes were large and sophisticated; they built a major dam and diverted a river at Tiryns; a substantial reservoir at Mycenae; and an extraordinary subterranean drain system to reclaim land around Kopais in Boiotia. \n\n* (edit:) Myth: we know essentially nothing about Mycenaean myth, except that most of the same major gods that we see in Classical myth also show up in Mycenaean texts: Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, Athena, and Dionysos. There was some jostling of status though: Apollo doesn't show up in Mycenaean texts, while some gods who were important to the Mycenaeans lost a lot of their importance in Classical times, like Paieon and Eileithyia.\n\nWe know a fair bit about them, but perhaps not the same kinds of things that make the Classical Greeks so appealing. We do know that they were quite different, and there's very little continuity between them.", "Okay, this is going to be another long post.\n\nDisclaimer before I begin; Rosemary94 and kakistocracy have described many of the main points of the situation, so if I repeat anything they have already said then this isn't intentional.\n\nBy the 16th century BC, much of the Mediterranean world had become linked in a close trading network. This also facilitated cultural exchanges on a hitherto unknown level. Several distinctive cultural regions began to emerge, and one of those areas was centred around Anatolia. In this period, Babylon has already been a major centre for some time. Cyprus had just come into its own as a major trading culture. The Minoans were in their period of strength. The Hittites became a major power in this period. The Egyptians threw off their Hyskos rulers and again gained control over their own affairs, and in the next two centuries became the force that guaranteed peaceful trade in the Mediterranean. This is also the period in which the first alphabet was developed, in the region that became Phoenicia.\n\nIt's in this context that the culture inhabiting what we would term Greece gains in prominence, a culture we call the Mycenaeans. Over the next century, they became powerful enough to subjugate the Minoans. Until the collapse of their civilization, they dominated Mediterranean trading along with the Cypriots. Their artistic representations were quite warlike, with chariots and warriors being incredibly prominent. They also adopted writing. Unusually, we can actually read their writing, a writing script called Linear B.\n\nTheir language was an old form of what became the Greek language. Realising this was key to deciphering their language. We don't actually know their exact relationship to the Ancient Greeks; we know they spoke the same language, and that some may have called themselves a name similar to 'Achaeans'. But, and this is an important but, the *Iliad* and *Odyssey* remain the primary source of terminology to work out Bronze Age names of the Greeks. This is as flawed as it sounds, but it is nearly *all* we have to go on. Linguistic evidence indicates that the Achaean and Cypriot dialects of Ancient Greek were older than those of many other dialects in the classical world, so it may be that the Achaeans were the Macedonians.\n\nWhatever the exact relationship, both the Mediterranean world of the Bronze age and the Mycenaean civilization collapsed in around 1200-1100 BC. A combination of migrations and economic collapse meant that organised states in many areas completely collapsed, even temporarily. But the Mycenaeans were the worst affected of all of them; not only were their palaces destroyed but organised government and even writing was destroyed. This may, or may not, have been partially due to the Dorians; a Greek speaking people who eventually became a part of the Greek world later on.\n\nThe period that follows is called the Greek Dark Age, due to loss of writing and of states. It took four-five centuries for the Greek world to regain writing, during which time they developed quite a different culture to the one they had before. Because they couldn;t understand the inscriptions on the Mycenaean monuments and tombs around them, they identified them with mythical heroes. The Greek Dark Age was *so* dark, *the Greeks remembered nothing of what had come before and didn't even realise they had experienced a Dark Age*. That's so extreme I actually haven't encountered a collapse of civilization this pronounced in many other places.\n\nSo, why do we consider them related at all? Language is a big clue, the fact that they spoke essentially the same language means that they are certainly an ancestor of the Greeks. Likewise, they inhabited many of the same areas, albeit with the proviso that Greek colonies then appeared all around the Mediterranean from the 8th-4th centuries BC. Also the name of many Gods familiar to the Ancient Greeks can be found in Linear B texts- *Po-se-da-o* as Poseidon, *Di-wo-ni-so* as Dionysios, many entities found in 13th century BC religious texts of the Mycenaeans are then found as individuals in later Greek religion.\n\nBut politically they became entirely different, and culturally too. Citizens, city-states, panhellenic religion, philosophy, organised constitutions, these and many more were features of Greek life that had never (to our knowledge) been part of Mycenaean life. A complete reboot managed to occur.\n\nSo, that is my relatively cautious explanation of the evolution from the culture we call the Mycenaeans into the culture we call the Ancient Greeks.", "I'll just say, this thread is great. Thanks!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=mycenaean+fresco" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e0jhtcv" ], "score": [ 14 ], "text": [ "They would have had a third bomb ready to drop around [by August 17th or so](_URL_1_). After that they would have had enough fissile material for around 3 per month.\n\nSo they could have dropped more. Would they? And would they drop them on cities and not, say, use them more tactically? We don't know. On August 10th, upon learning about the availability of more weapons, Truman explicitly ordered that no further atomic bombs would be dropped without his express permission. He told his cabinet at a meeting that day that \"he had given orders to stop atomic bombing.\" According to someone at the meeting, \"He said the the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like the idea of killing, as he said, 'all those kids.'\"\n\nWould he have done it anyway? Or used it differently? Or what? We don't know. Because he didn't have to make that decision, in the end. And it was essentially up to him at that point, and nobody else. (There were various military folk who [speculated about future use and targets](_URL_0_), but again, Truman had seized the authority on the issue.) So you could imagine various different possibilities, when we are talking about the behavior of individuals. He did, on August 14th, right before the final surrender announcement, tell the British ambassador that he thought he might have to drop another on Tokyo if the Japanese did not surrender — but it's not clear whether he would have followed through on that (either in using it, or using it on Tokyo, or what have you). " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/04/25/weekly-document-the-third-shot-and-beyond-1945/", "https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/67.pdf" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "czfntdo", "czfu5rt" ], "score": [ 3, 4 ], "text": [ "Just one tip that I've used when looking for primary sources is to go through a journal, book, or an article on your topic, and look at the footnotes to see where they obtained their information. From this you can hunt down, primary sources through online archives. So definitely go through articles on your topic, and follow the footnotes. Also make sure not to make your topic too big. ", "I have had some experience with this, and I can tell you that a knowledge of medicine and human health can be extremely valuable when working with primary sources, particularly since most historians don't have a great background in the field. I knew a retired doctor who a made a point of dealing with all sorts of local issues from the history of doctors in the area to references to diseases and cures in local primary sources. \n\nOnce I had several nursing students who needed \"just one more upper division credit to graduate.\" They took a quick class I was offering, believing that they would bomb for want of experience in the humanities. They examined a local death record that included causes of death, and each wrote wonderful papers on various illnesses they found. With a little work they could have published their results, but they were too eager to follow their careers, saving lives and alleviating suffering rather than doing something important like writing history.\n\nI also edited a collection of Gold Rush-era letters, which had many references to health and medicine. Another of my students, another retired MD, was extraordinarily helpful in helping me understand the uses being described.\n\nThese are just a few examples of the sorts of things that can be done. I would be asking what sort of primary sources are in your backyard - historical societies or archives. These are the places one is likely to find unexplored gems, and you stand a good chance to cast these documents in new light with new understanding - even if they have been discussed by historians who looked for other insights. I assure you that you could do great work with your background.\n\n/u/TravellingTroubadour has some excellent suggestions about how to get started, so I needn't repeat those insights.\n\nBest wishes" ] }

[]

[ "http://dohistory.org/on_your_own/toolkit/research.html" ]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dg2ha4s", "dg2jaqb", "dg2r9y3", "dg32sco", "dg33k48" ], "score": [ 38, 42, 2, 28, 17 ], "text": [ "As a follow-up​ question, how prevalent was Libertarian type thinking at the time, and was there any opposition to this law from a specifically Libertarian perspective?", "Follow up / related question: as I understand it, this was used to force the legal drinking age in states up to 21. Was there much resistance to this, particularly from a state's rights perspective? ", "I'd also be interested in knowing what kind of resistance the people who had businesses along the older highways put up considering the interstate system basically put them out of business. Did they forsee this or did they think the interstate system wouldnt be a problem? ", "Socially there was great debate over the route of new Interstate Highways. With the U.S. Numbered Routes in the 1920s, the routes were built in the counties who could afford to contribute. For instance, Bedford County, Tennessee was bypassed when US 41 was built because they were too poor to pay for the construction. Likewise, the routes of the roads were debated based on practicality. A man built a garage in Hebardsville, Henderson County, Kentucky because the original plan was to run US 60 through there. The route was changed to eliminate a river crossing, and the garage had virtually no customers. \n\nLikewise, the Interstate Highway system was ran through areas that would benefit from the increased traffic and justify the costs. Many interstates simply supplanted existing numbered routes. I-24 runs with US-41 through Southern Kentucky then I-75 runs with 41 from Chattanooga to Tampa where 41 goes east on the Tamiami Trail. It's a rare example of a North South road being signed differently.\n\nRemember, US-91 was in the West and US-1 is in the East. The Interstates are reversed to prevent confusion. Odd numbers run North and south, evens east and west. There are some exceptions though, like 24, which runs diagonally. Also, if the second digit is a 1 or 0 it's a main route. 2,3,4 and so on are arterial. A three numbered route is a loop is the first number is even and reconnects to the parent road. A first odd number is a spur that doented reconnect. Think about I-264 in Louisville.\n\nThere was great social upheaval due to some routes being planned to cut out certain population centers. US-31, I think it's 31, ran through Huntsville, AL. It received no interstate coverage. Once an interstate was built, the town exploded. Interstates were very valuable to a region, and there were plenty of Congresional battles to route them in certain places. Kentucky was completely cut of a major East/West interstate for instance, which led to the construction of the Parkways system which is now being redesignated as part of the interstates.\n\nGenerally, the biggest battles were over the routing of roads, but in some places US-Routes are still used. 31 is a major long haul route, for instance. Generally, the decommissioning of US-66 was kind of the end of the US Numbered Routes System", "The main fight in Congress was over financing. The motorist and trucking lobbies objected to raising the gas and other excise taxes, and elements in the Eisenhower Administration were still toying with the idea of all-toll financing, which was unlikely to build a complete national network. The breakthrough on financing came from Hale Boggs (D-La.) and George Fallon (D.-Md.) in spring 1956, after three years of discussion. \n\nI’ve never heard of any organized opposition that was part of congressional debate on environmental or social grounds, though commentators like Lewis Mumford, Christopher Tunnard, and others were philosophically concerned with how additional high-speed highways might affect big cities. But the Interstate system was primarily thought of as serving intercity traffic, and the need to accommodate increased volumes of big trucks and to improve highway safety was foremost in the minds of most. Superhighways were already being built all over the country, usually as improvements to existing US highways or as toll-financed turnpikes. \n\nGeneral routes for the network, including urban segments, had been set out in the [1955 Yellow Book](_URL_0_) but those weren’t specific enough to concern (or delight) specific landowners. The “freeway revolt” of the late 1960s began with concerns about harm to specific inner-city neighborhoods or parks, and eventually became part of more general 1970s concerns about the environment and about who makes decisions regarding disruptive public works projects. In a few places, objections and legal actions from businesses that would be bypassed were said to delay opening of the new highways temporarily, but I’ve never researched those cases to see what legal claims were made and whether the highways were, in fact, delayed.\n\nI like Earl Swift’s *The Big Roads* as the most readable history of the Interstates, but Mark Rose's *Interstate: Express Highway Politics 1939-1989* is the more scholarly source on the congressional machinations. A more recent book by Joseph DiMento and Cliff Ellis, *Changing Lanes: Visions and Histories of Urban Freeways,* recounts the history of how traffic engineers and city planners wrangled with this new force reshaping the city." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [ "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:1955_Yellow_Book_maps" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmhqspw" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The system of binomial nomenclature, in which every species is described by two names--first genus, then species--was created by Carolus Linnaeus. He named as many species as he could, and also came up with a branching division of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species (KPCOFGS). He worked on this from the 1730s to his death in the 1770s. His naming of and division of species was so excellent and made so much sense that it came to be adopted by all scientists, eventually. Prior to this, there was a much less systematic way of naming animals, where you might use 4 names, or just one name, or a combination. The two name system just worked really well. And the KPCOFGS system also was really helpful in figuring out where various living htings fit in the general scheme of things. This was a time when many new species were being encountered and described by European scientists, and Linnaeus fit each of them into his system, which set the stage for everyone to start using it whenever anyone talked about any species. There have been adjustments of the names over the centuries--for example, he originally put humans in their own family, separate from other species, but now we are in a family with chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. He also put into the system creatures which we would now consider to be mythological and have removed from classification. He chose the names of species to be of Latin or Greek origin, as those were the languages of science at that time. When new species are discovered, we still use Latin or Greek language for them." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d3zmfau" ], "score": [ 16 ], "text": [ "The British only slowly became active in South Asia in the 17th century. Up until then they were in competition with the Dutch and French. Only after the Battle of Plassey in 1757 did the British began expansion in India. This is the date that is taken to be the beginning of the colonial period. \n\nAs to why they did not import slaves, they did not have to, there were already local slaves and indentured labourer. For the most part the British did not overthrow local governments but rather co-opted them. Even after 1833 and the abolition of slavery in the rest of the British Empire, slavery in India was allowed to continued as it was seen as an [\"indigenous institution\"](_URL_0_) see p.43ff.\n\nBefore and after the abolition of slavery in India and South Asia debt-bondage was used in place of slavery, and has in fact been referred to as \"A New System of Slavery\" in the[ literature](_URL_1_). There were even Indian indentured labourers exported to the West Indies, in fact after the end of slavery indentured labourers were exported from India [all over the Empire](_URL_2_).\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://books.google.ca/books?id=Qq-GuJKf35wC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false", "http://serialsjournals.com/serialjournalmanager/pdf/1366710198.pdf", "http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/indian-indentured-labourers/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8c7pzl" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "Ooh, a Grant question. Nice, I don't see enough of these, despite him being, IMO, the most fascinating figure of the American Civil War.\n\nFirst of all, the view of Grant as not a brilliant tactician is wholly false. Major-General J. F. C. Fuller described Grant's career in *Grant and Lee* as **\"One continuous blaze of genius seldom seen in military history\".** \n\nJean Edward Smith too criticizes this view - **\"Grant's victories were attributed to a simple willingness to sacrifice troops in battle. That view, on and off, has permeated civil war historiography, despite the fact that Grant's casualties were considerably lower than Lee's.\"**\n\nAt Vicksburg, Grant cut himself off from the supply line to assault Vicksburg's rear - a daring but brilliant tactical move. At Fort Donelson, he won the first major Northern victory. Chattanooga really proved his skill - James Marshall Cornwall writes **\"Chattanooga was perhaps Grant's greatest tactical victory. He had taken over command of an army which was not only defeated, demoralized and starving, but also occupied a tactically impossible position. Yet within a month he had reorganized it, restored it's morale and led it to victory\".** \n\nWilliam S. McFeely also writes **\"His conversion of defeat into victory at Chattanooga proclaimed his military genius.\"**\n\nGrant was resolute, stubborn, daring and relentless, with a keen tactical mind that has James Marshall Cornwall in particular often compares to Napoleon. \n\nBut it is true that Grant's understanding of the politics of war was also impressive. James Marshall Cornwall said **\"Grant possessed sound political sense as well as strategic ability.\"**\n\nOne could definitely wonder why he was such a poor president with that in mind. Before I start, I must first say that I know significantly more about Grant the general than Grant the president, but I have enough sources to hopefully answer this. Jean Edward Smith suggests that it was a **\"Reflection of military discipline\"**, and that Grant was **\"overly loyal\"** to those accused of corruption. In the military, the loyalty of the men to the commander and the commander to the men was important in having a cohesive unit. Unfortunately, in the presidency, this meant that he allowed corruption to flourish. He also, William S. McFeely says, was reluctant to send soldiers South to enforce the laws protecting blacks, as he was afraid of how it would look in light of his Civil War campaigns. In the end, it was his skill at working with people as a general that doomed him in working with people as president.\n\nIn truth, though, it is my own view that he has been unfairly demonised by history. A lot of his policies in presidency are worthy of more praise - this [wikipedia article](_URL_0_) sums a lot of it up, discussing his attitudes to native americans and blacks (both admirable) though it is arguably a bit biased in his favour. He tried to be a good president. Ultimately, though, I think he is a general, not a politician, but that is my own opinion. McFeely and Smith give a detailed account of his presidency, and both take a fair attitude to Grant, even though they approach it from opposite views - McFeely is rather condemning while Smith clearly admires the man. I'd recommend them wholeheartedly.\n\n*Sources: Grant as Military Commander, by James Marshall Cornwall; Grant and Lee: A Study in Personality and Generalship, by Major-Generaly J. F. C. Fuller; Grant: A Biography, by William S. McFeely; and Grant, by Jean Edward Smith.*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Domestic_policies" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dlqw2l3", "dlqw4g8" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Honestly, if you're looking to understand the issue as a whole, you'll have to go back to before the Troubles.\n\nStart with *The Two Irelands*, by David Fitzpatrick.\n\nAlso check out *The Glory of Being Britons*, by John Bew.\n\nYou may also want to check out *The Fenian Ideal and Irish Nationalism*, by M.J. Kelly.\n\nThose three are a good start to understanding the underlying issues. Particularly Bew's work. Fitzpatrick's theory in *The Two Irelands* is a bit dated, but it's still some food for thought, and a worthwhile read. Kelly's book will help with the \"southern\" perspective. ", "in the absence of any other replies, you might try these. Caution is needed as both writers are a little too close to the situation:\nRosita Sweeten 'On Our Knees' 1972 Pan Special ISBN 0 330 23320 3\nMaria McGuire To Take Arms' 1973 Macmillan ISBN 333 14506 2\n\nFor fiction there is always Lionel Shriver 'Ordinary Decent Criminals' 1990 Harper Collins \n\nBut look, there is a whole genre of Irish history and literature which is referred to local as 'troubles writing'. Hundreds of books. Try to search through Irish sites." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f9pq05b" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Well there are several questions in here and as such several answers. \nFirstly, in regards to the wild and somewhat (in my opinion) drug induced theories as to Shakespeare NOT being the author of the works, I respectfully direct you to u/Taxpare answer to a [similar type question here](_URL_2_) and u/Harmonia [here. ](_URL_2_) \n\nBut you crucially ask a question as to the worth of knowing it was the work of one man from Stratford. What do we gain?\n\n\nInsurmountable treasures. \n\nAllow me to elaborate:\nShakespeare grants us a unique view not just into the Elizabethan mindset, but also the wider world of ideas, concerns and fixations. \n\nFor my own part I cannot even begin to measure the little insights and revelations he gives us of his world. What follows are just personal areas of interest in a many decade passion for the man all driven by his works. \n\nI was drawn by the way he uses Greek myth to directly address Southwalks sex workers, which given The Globes proximity to the London Stews, no doubt made up a significant part of his regular audience. \n(Troilus and Cressida Act 5; Scene 10; Panderus speech). \n\nIt makes us ask- what was the relationship between the Winchester Geese and the Playhouses? And their players?\nIt makes us wonder if the rumours of some kind of venereal disease afflicting him in later years was true?\n\n(A more detailed link to prostitution in Shakespeare’s era is to be [found here). ](_URL_3_) \n\nIs it the fact we know so many glove making terms because he mentioned it in almost every single one of [his plays? ](_URL_1_) \n\nWe ask- What can we infer from his final history play (Henry VIII) being not only written and performed after Elizabeth’s death, but staged in Blackfriars (the actual location of Henry VIII’s divorce depositions) and making Catherine of Aragon out to be such a sympathetic character?\nWhy did he leave Fletcher to write the conclusion which hails Elizabeth as the saviour of the Tudors?\n\nWe have many questions about his religion (albeit ones which are hard to answer given his amazing studied ambivalence towards religion), but his purchase of the gatehouse at Blackfriars in March 10th 1613 (next door to the Blackfriars theatre), witnessed by the owner of The Mermaid (the Vinter John Jackson) and basically given to one John Robinson (who was a member of the recusant Fortescue household and possibly a young catholic priest); a house which two years after his death was given to John Greene and Matthew Morris ‘in accordance with the true intent of Mr Shakespeare’s will’- one wonders what said true intent was; (given that several years later this House, long identified as being a place where Catholics came together to celebrate mass, was infamous for its warren of tunnels and secret places for priests to hide in and above all some years later when a floor collapsed some years later in the adjacent building, killing 90 Catholics secretly gathered in mass (including some folks from Warwickshire) we begin to wonder about his religion, and the way Catholics hid their faith). \n\nI must point out that the idea he harboured Catholic sympathies and it remained Catholic is the source of an absolute barnstormer of historical debate; I for one do subscribe to it BUT must concede the case is far from conclusive. \n\nAnd these are only a handful of elements that I personally find fascinating. \n\nThere are literally hundreds more. And hundreds of thousands of scholars more learned and expert on these than I will ever hope to be. \n\nBy knowing those mighty works were the product of one man; by tracing his life, what deeds we see, what traces he left behind, we begin to gain a unique insight into his world. \n\nWe appreciate the vigour of his education at his local grammar school (then known as Kings New School); we begin to value how he impacted upon the world and it impacted upon him. \n\nMore importantly (and I say this as someone who moved to Stratford upon Avon once so I could utilise the resources of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust) we can study his indelible impact upon the town; can trace him from childhood (son of a glove maker and former mayor) through success (the purchase of the largest house in the town, the mighty New Place in 1597), to death. \n\nThe fact that in records of Chapel Ward (where New Place was located) shows how his success in London related to his expenditure in Stratford. We know he had the wealth to buy land in Shottery and Old Stratford (including spending the not inconsiderable sum of £320 to purchase 107 aches of open fields outside of the town). We can match his success in London to his purchases in Stratford and this interest between his home (in Warwickshire) and his workplace (the capital) is an endless source of insight for exploring the relationship between he expanding city and the regions. \n\nHis is a fascinating, intriguing life; filled with many questions (as he was by nature it appears or perhaps for other more pertinent reasons, a private man) but his authorship of his works is not in doubt, nor the importance of the man himself. \n\nOnline resources (beyond the ones liked to in the above):\nA brief guide to the resources available from the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust- a phenomenal bunch of people, whose passion for the Bard is equalled only by (in my experience) their expertise.\n_URL_0_\n\nReferences:\n*Donnelly, Ann & Woledge, Elizabeth; Shakespeare Work, Life and Times; 2012; Shakespeare Birthplace Trust\n\n*Wood, Micheal; In search of Shakespeare; 2004; BBC Books. \n\n*Duncan-Jones, K; Ungentle Shakespeare; 2001; Bloomsbury." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://collections.shakespeare.org.uk/search/archive/page", "https://observer.com/1998/07/glove-me-tender-shakespeare-in-the-skin-trade/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1f0fvh/is_there_any_solid_evidence_that_shakespeares/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf", "https://analepsis.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/shakespeareprostitute.pdf" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "caimlnn" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The legislature of each state called a \"ratifying convention\" in which the eligible voters in each state were supposed to be able to come and learn about the proposed new constitution. Citizens of each state were to debate the pros and cons, and then I'm pretty sure the members of the state legislatures voted, knowing the opinions of their constituents, on whether to approve the Constitution or not.\n\nDelaware is of course notable for being the first state to ratify the constitution. And as I recall, it was more notable for a 30-0 vote in favor, which would of course be the 30 votes of the state representatives.\n\nTherefore the assertion that property requirements for voting were not important strikes me as particularly false. You would not have been able to vote for those state representatives in most states without meeting certain property requirements. And free blacks also had very, very limited voting rights. Changes in laws to property requirements for voting eligibility did not start to change until the first few decades of the 19th century. " ] }

[]

[ "http://video.pbs.org/video/2365010643" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ctpar19", "ctpav4k" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Well, I haven't seen anything that does but for lack of a better word, for good reason.\n\nForts of the 17th century, such as the Vauban fortresses, served two purposes; they served as garrisons and storehouses or they acted as a barrier which an invader had to take before marching in. These fortresses were expected to last eighty days by Vauban's expectations. As a result, a 17th century siege would have been a long and boring affair for both the attacker and the possible viewer of a film about it. Battles are more dashing because they have movement, sieges rarely have movement.", "\"Last of the Mohicans\" ? " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ce3mszm", "ce3r56s" ], "score": [ 6, 5 ], "text": [ "The Dutch did not contribute any troops to aid the Americans in during the Revolutionary War. In fact, unlike France and Spain, the Netherlands never formally allied with the United States, so there would have been no cause to send direct assistance.\n\nWhat the Dutch **did** contribute, however, was an open port for American goods in the form of St. Eustatius. There, the Americans could trade for weapons and gunpowder to supplement the massive shipments of arms and ammo they were already receiving from the French. Admiral Rodney, commander of the British Caribbean fleet, was well aware of the effect the island on the war effort, and made [capturing it](_URL_0_) a top priority.", "I can not speak for \"The Dutch\", but one (in)famous Dutchman went out of his way to help the fledgling United States: Johan Derk van der Capellen tot den Pol. Now largely forgotten.\n\nThe Dutch Republic had received the right from the English crown to recruit soldiers in Scotland. This \"Scottish Brigade\" technically still belonged to the United Kingdom, and could under certain circumstances be recalled to fight for the UK. The UK wanted to deploy the \"Dutch\" Scottish Brigade to Gibraltar, in order to free the troops there for combat in the States. Van der Capellen managed to prevent this. In later years, he anonymously attempted to incite the Dutch against the Orangist stadholders, and was perhaps the only recognized leader of the Patrios during the short-lived *Patriot Revolution*. \n\nHe also set up a fund to help finance the rebels, and helped Adams gain legitimacy in influential Dutch circles. Their letters to one another can be found in the provincial archives of Overijssel. \n\nThe United States' congress awarded him a memorial plaque in recognition for his services to the fledgling United States of America. The plague still hangs on the outside of his house in Zwolle. A remarkable piece of history." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ile_de_Saint_Eustache_en_1781.jpg" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cj4mw4g" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "It is most likely that most of these photographs depict Denmark during the later stages of WWII and during liberation. \n\nThe first picturing, showing men of the Danish resistance, shows three individuals from left to right: The man in civilian clothing with the beret is holding an M1 Carbine, the man in the middle is wearing a M41 Danish helmet and is armed with a Sten gun while the man on the right is wearing the large M23 Danish helmet. All three men are wearing [the brassard of the Danish resistance](_URL_0_).\n\nPhotograph 3 and 8 seems to show resistance members during some sort of training in winter time. The men are armed with British Lee-Enfields and in picture 8 appear to be in recaptured modified Danish FP4/5 (please correct me if I'm wrong on this since I had a hard time identifying them).\n\nPhotograph 4 and 5 is most likely Denmark during its liberation in 1945. The soldiers depicted in these photographs are all wearing British issued uniforms and are presumably British soldiers." ] }

[]

[ "http://imgur.com/a/QZtXN", "Denmark.My" ]

[ [ "http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib/223/media-223449/large.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cb4zg2o", "cb52q65" ], "score": [ 53, 2 ], "text": [ "Like the the Free French, the Belgium government was forced to operate in exile after the Nazis invaded. The Belgium government retained administrative control over the Congo and continued to export goods to aid in the Allied war effort:\n\n > The Belgian Congo became a principal supplier of strategic material to the Allied war effort, especially after the Japanese invasion of the Far East (Martin 1985, 423).\n\nThere was actually a huge amount economic reorientation going on during this wartime period as thousands of Congolese laborers were mobilized to help increase output of strategic goods:\n\n > The success of government policy in drawing local populations into the labour market is shown by the dramatic rise in the number of wage-earners from 480,000 in 1938 to 800,000 in 1945 (Martin 1985, 423).\n\nA lot of rubber was exported but also a tons of different minerals including copper, tin, gold, diamonds, uranium:\n\n > In both the quantity and wide range of forest and mineral products which it supplied, the Belgian Congo contributed more to the Allied strategic raw materials drive than any other African country (Dumett 1985, 389).\n\n\n\nAs far as actual military participation is concerned:\n\n > The Belgian Congo's actual military participation in the Second World War was limited to an expeditionary force sent to the Ethiopian campaign and to soldiers seconded to the Allied army, for example, to serve in Rhodesian and South African units (Martin 1985, 423).\n\n[Here is an interesting article](_URL_0_) from the Washington Post talking about the experiences of Congolese soldiers during WW2.\n\n\nCitations:\n\nRaymond Dumett. *Africa's Strategic Minerals During the Second World War* \nThe Journal of African History , Vol. 26, No. 4, World War II and Africa (1985), pp. 381-408\n\nThe Commission for History of the Academie Royale des Sciences d'Outre-Mer. \"The Belgian Congo in World War II.\" Review by: Phyllis M. Martin\nThe Journal of African History , Vol. 26, No. 4, World War II and Africa (1985), pp. 422-424\n\n", "Abaum2020 thoroughly answered the question. The Belgian Congo was administered by the (Allied) Belgian government-in-exile in London.\n\nI'm reminded of one of the episodes of Band of Brothers set during the Battle of the Bulge where one of the nurses treating American casualties is a Congolese woman." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-08-04/world/36907432_1_colonial-officers-congolese-soldiers-world-war-ii" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d4wlcre", "d4wwd4i" ], "score": [ 198, 11 ], "text": [ "Lords and knights did attempt to attack each other on the battlefield, but this was because for practical reasons, not personal animosity (although personal animosity might well exist). In medieval combat, a lord or king would not simply be standing on his own. He would be surrounded by his personal men and quite possibly be in charge of a large formation of other troops (medieval armies were often divided into three groups called \"battles\"). When Philip VI attempted to charge the Black Prince's position at the Battle of Crecy, he did not do so out of spite towards the Prince, but because killing the commander of the English vanguard might have helped turn a losing battle around. To draw a crude analogy, think of the way that a marksman in modern combat might shoot at an officer to throw an enemy unit into confusion. Remember also that medieval officers were not only military commanders, but also politically and socially important people. If a leader of a body of men was killed, his troops might decide to leave the field.", "I hope this follow-on question is kosher here, but are there fictional representations of European Medieval battles that are considered most accurate/realistic?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "du76odi" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The *Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi*, translated by Helen J. Nicolson is what you'll want. \n\nThe *Itenerarium* is, according to John Gillingham (a specialist in the reign of Richard I) \"the most comprehensive, near contemporary history of the Third Crusade\". It was compiled in around 1220 by Richard de Templo from two separate manuscripts, the first covering the events of the crusade up to 1190 and the second is the *Estoire de la Guerre Sainte* by Ambroise.\n\nIf you're interested in eye-witness accounts of the Crusades, try Jean de Joinville's *Life of Saint Louis.* It's a remarkable work that includes a striking ground level account of the battle of Al-Mansurah. If you're interested in primary accounts of the Crusades, I highly recommend it.\n\nFor Muslim texts, *Arab Historians of the Crusades*, translated by F. Gabrieli has an entire section on Saladin and the Third Crusade.\n\nI'm super curious about the rationale for skipping the Third Crusade considering it's prominence in the historiography?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cn6qr42", "cn6v9ym" ], "score": [ 6, 3 ], "text": [ "Question to go with this: when people first settled Britain, was Doggerland below sea level yet (i.e. did they even need boats)? ", "[Saxons, Vikings, and Celts by Bryan Sykes](_URL_0_) is a fascinating book that explores this topic using extensive DNA testing of modern inhabitants of \"The Isles\" (term Sykes uses for the British Isles throughout the book). Some of of the DNA stuff gets a touch technical but he tries very hard to not overdo the hard science speak. All of your questions are addressed in some fashion. Available on Audible with a very enjoyable reader. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/Saxons-Vikings-Celts-Genetic-Britain/dp/0393330753" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "derg6he" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Don't go at it this way : I have to prove her wrong. All the burden is on you. \nDo it like this: I don't believe their claims, from everything that I've learn it's not how it happened. \nThe burden of the proof is on those making the claim. They have the minority view. \n\nIf she firmly believes this, she has to do the research. \n\nI would also look into that show(film? Book? I'm not familiar). What sources are they citing, and are they credible? \nThe absence of scholars, peer-reviewed sources, etc should sound an alarm bell. \n\nRemember, even familiar and popular sources can be mistaken. I recently bought a copy of a National Geographic that falsely claimed the people of the Eastern Roman Empire just started to call themselves byzantine. So a familiar source is not a proof of fact. Get the source, see the context of the quote. In my case, it was clearly a case of poor review. A mistake like this is common. \n\nBe careful with conspiracy theories, they always ask you to disprove their own claims. They have to support their theory, and being challenged when proven wrong doesn't mean something is hidden or that there is a secret to uncover. History is not that exciting. \n\n\nAlso, if you yourself don't know the answer doesn't mean their argument is right. \n\nHistory has been recorded by many, many people, not just \"the winners\" as it's often perceived. People with varying point of views wrote about the same event. There is also physical evidence that inform us. \n\nStay focused on given her the burden of the proof. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dbylb29", "dbylcjj" ], "score": [ 29, 354 ], "text": [ "A lot of them are fake. The one about Caligula is more certainly not true. [Here is a good post about it](_URL_0_) from /u/Bathman1902", "\"Propaganda\" is probably not the correct word, as it is difficult to say that, say, Suetonius was trying to influence mass opinion towards a particular position when he wrote that Tiberius liked to bathe with naked boys. But I get what you are saying, and the answer is, broadly speaking, we don't. To take a pretty prominent example, Nero is widely derided in the sources for being an effeminate, homicidal Hellenizing girly man, and you get the sense that nobody likes him. But after his death, there were a number of provincial rebels claiming to be him and seeking to restore his position--why would they do this if everybody hated him? (of course you could argue that the particular emperor didn't really directly effect conditions in Achaia, and so the pretenders were just articulating local grievances in an idiosyncratic way, or perhaps displaying support for the Julio-Claudian line generally rather than Nero specifically--this can go around and around). Anyway, the dispute about Nero's memory is something that exists today, and there are a number of scholars who argue in his favor.\n\nCaligula is a bit more complicated, so there isn't really much of an active apologetic cottage industry for him as there is for Nero but there are a few dissenting voices(the early twentieth century classicist John Balsdon being an example). We know that there were some ancients who wrote favorably of him whose works are lost, and it isn't super difficult to construct alternate explanations for his more lurid deeds--for example, perhaps the (proposed) elevation of the horse Incitatus was not a sign of insanity, but rather a public rebuke of the Senate, a way of saying a horse could do this job.\n\nI can go into a few more examples (for example, Pliny did not really care for Domitian, even though Domitian did nothing wrong) but I think in general \"propaganda\" is the wrong way to think of it, rather that our sources have particular perspectives on matters." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2r8597/was_caligula_crazy_subquestions/cndg9w6/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cczefko", "cczfi6f", "cczolbe" ], "score": [ 20, 28, 2 ], "text": [ "Actually, the Maginot Line worked as intended. It wasn't supposed to block the German advance, it was supposed to funnel it through Belgium where it'd be met with mobile French and British forces. The problem was that the Germans went through the Ardennes - which wasn't really expected - and that they were able to advance faster and further than was expected in a short period of time. \n\nSo the Maginot Line wouldn't have worked as it was intended if you extended it through Belgium. As it was built, it basically tried to set the battleground for the oncoming German advance - by controlling the German approach, you had yourself one huge advantage in any coming battle. Shame it didn't go down that way. \n\nNow, if you stretched the Maginot Line to the sea, it'd be an entirely different beast. Would it have held back the Germans? I doubt it. And above all, the Germans would've had more control over where they would attack... so once that line was breached, it'd be game over. No way you could respond fast enough. ", "Well here is the thing, the Maginot Line mostly worked the way it was expected to. \n\nEarly on, there was some hope that the Belgians would extend the line up to the border of the Netherlands, but that never happened, and Belgium eventually returned to a policy of stated neutrality in 1936.\n\nBut the expectation was never that the Germans would plan on a frontal assault of the line. The plan had always been: A, to present a defensive posture of the French and demonstrate they didn't wish to be the aggressor and B, to funnel German forces into a smaller area, Belgium most likely, to be dealt with (and this also might help draw the UK in like it did in WWI, so... bonus). The moment the Germans entered Belgium, the plan was for the French (and hopefully British) to move in and fight them there.\n\nAnd the Maginot Line did that. It forces the Germans to concentrate their attack north of the line. The problem was that French planners assumed a similar line of attack as in the First World War, with the forces sweeping north. When Germany entered the Low Countries on May 10th, the best units of the French and British military crossed into Belgium themselves, intending to meet the force and defeat them. But the allies were mostly too far to the north! The Germans, defying expectations, concentrated their advance in the Ardennes, which French military planners had assumed to be essentially impassable, and that any German attempt through there would take weeks. Instead, the Germans crashed through quite quickly, and in little more than a week, had reached the coast, trapping most of the BEF and the cream of the French military in a pocket to the north, cut off from the rest of France. We all know how it played out from there, with the retreat to Dunkirk and Operation Dynamo, and the rest of the British forces outside the pocket quickly began an evacuation as well.\n\nBy early June, the British had mostly left the continent, and the French surrendered after little more than a month of fighting. the Maginot Line actually held out to the end in most places, even with the Germans attacking the weaker rearside. Many commanders were unhappy that they had to lay down their arms when the armistice came about. And compare the German invasion - avoiding the line - to the Italian invasion, which was head on against the Alpine Line. The Italians suffered extensive losses, despite the garrisons of the Alpine Line being second rate troops compared to those sent into Belgium. The feeling of many was that they could have held out nearly indefinitely had the Germans not forced a surrender.\n\nNow, is that to say that the Maginot Line was a good idea? Probably not! The huge downside was that the Maginot Line was a huge money pit taking up a large segment of the French military budget. That's money that could have been spent on other things which would have served France better. Although the French outnumbered the Germans in tanks and guns, they hadn't concentrated as much on mobility, nor modern armor tactics. For instance the 2.5cm anti-tank gun was heavy, unpopular, underpowered, and often still horse drawn, yet most divisions were still issued with it. The much better 4.7cm gun had only been issued to 17 divisions of ~100 French divisions at the time of Battle of France. They had nearly twice the number of artillery guns as the Germans, but they didn't have *mobile* artillery, and it proved to be not nearly as useful and decisive as they had hoped. The Germans, which much less, made much more effective use of their guns.\n\nThey had a few superb examples of tanks like the SOMUA S35, but there were less than 500 made, they were outnumbered by stuff like the Hotchkiss H35, or the super slow Renault R35. And regardless, their tactics were outdated - leaning towards the infantry support role instead of fast, speedy things, and the tanks lacked even radios in most cases! Likewise in the air, awsome stuff like the Dewointine 520 were in much smaller numbers than the flying target known as the M.S.406.\n\nNow, had the French spent more time and money on building awesome stuff could they have repulsed the invasion? dunno... thats /r/HistoricalWhatIf territory, but I can say for certain that they could have done more to prepare, and give themselves a better chance.", " > The fortifications were very strong, and the Germans would probably have needed something like their massive railguns, right?\n---\n\nAre you aware that Maginot line was broken thru by germans? Do you know that Belgian fortresses (which were also billed as impregnable) were taken rather quickly?\n\nWere Maginot line extended north, it would be penetrated at cost of 2-3 days delay. Germans found and exploited weak links in both Maginot line and belgian border fortifications. When forced to assault fortresses head-on, they were still successful. Surprized belgians by landing storm troops on top of forts and using shaped engineering charges (which were novelty at a time).\n\n\n **Storming of Eben-Emael Fortress in Belgium:**\n\n *On 10 May 1940, 78 paratroopers of the German 7th Flieger (later 1st Fallschirmjäger Division) landed on the fortress with gliders (type DFS 230), armed with special high explosives to attack the fortress and its guns. Most of the fort's defenses were lightly manned and taken by complete surprise. Much of the fort's defensive armament was destroyed in a few minutes. The attackers were unable to penetrate inside the underground galleries, but the garrison was unable to dislodge them from the surface of the fort. The fortress surrendered one day later, when the German paratroopers were reinforced by the German 151st Infantry Regiment.*\n\n **Penetrating Maginot line at Rhine:** \n\n *The myth of the natural barrier of the Rhine fell quickly. French planners, reasoning that their riverside pillboxes would be immune to attack because heavy artillery would breach dikes in the\narea, had failed to take into account the flat-trajectory 88s. Small enough to pose no danger to the dikes, their shells nonetheless blasted bunkers to smithereens.\nThe combination of the terrible 88s, Stuka dive-bombers and troops with hand-carried charges then subdued the small forts behind the river, sometimes within minutes. German gunners developed a simple but deadly tactic for dealing with the exposed machine-gun and observation turrets of smaller fortifications. Repeatedly firing shells from their 88s at exactly the\nsame spot, they burrowed holes, jackhammer-like, through the turrets’ 12 full inches of solid steel. Eight shots were generally enough to do the trick, each hit showing in a spectacular spray of\nsparks and “ringing the bell” by sending massive, head-splitting reverberations through the turrets. \nThe invaders had enjoyed an earlier measure of success by overpowering the small ouvrage of La Ferté, the Maginot Line’s westernmost fortification, located just a few kilometers from Sedan. One lucky shot scored a direct hit into the observation slit of a turret, killing the three men inside. \nUnder cover of an artillery barrage and smoke screen, infantrymen then shoved grenades, smoke bombs and explosive charges into the opening. Over the next 24 hours, those among La Ferté’s 106-man crew who survived the initial assault asphyxiated in their spent gas masks.*\n\n **Sources:**\n\n \n1. [Battle of Fort Eben-Emael](_URL_1_)\n\n2. How Maginot line at Rhine was penetrated - [Chelminski, Rudolph - June 1997. \"The Maginot Line\". Smithsonian: 90–100, pp 4-5](_URL_0_)\n\n\n\n\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://web.archive.org/web/20071202110359/http://www.dushkin.com/text-data/articles/23427/23427.pdf", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Eben-Emael#Fort_Eben-Emael" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cii5tyt" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Depends on how you define \"artifact.\" Do buildings count? What about mosaics? Aqueducts and other functional works of engineering? The Pantheon in Rome, continually used, has existed in more or less its current form since the second century, CE, for instance." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8xkn9i" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Morally, Rosa Parks garnered support and attention to the problem. Financially the boycott caused the company to back down. This moral and financial victory over the bus company and its policies showed that some victories were within the grasp of the movement and encouraged the fight for others." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cf8hi9n" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Well - what do you mean by super heroes? The idea of people living with strength/powers etc beyond the scope of mankind has been around for millennia - since Gilgamesh really!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cc96txo", "cc96w4s", "cc98kc8", "cc9bjsq", "cc9book", "cc9cabq", "cc9cmyn", "cc9d85m", "cc9dhnj" ], "score": [ 163, 417, 61, 8, 5, 3, 5, 3, 5 ], "text": [ "I can't speak to *all* the former Royal families, but I can speak to a few of them.\n\nIn the case of Michael of Romania, he was successful in having a former residence - Savarsin Castle - that had belonged to the Royal Family and was seized following the communist takeover and his abdication in the 40s returned to him. Additionally, the government allows him to maintain residency in his former palace in Bucharest, but my understanding is that he did not regain actual ownership, and instead is there under an arrangement with the government in honor of his former position as head of state.\n\nLikewise, Simeon, the former Tsar of Bulgaria, was able to reclaim a number of his former estates that were taken during the Communist period. He also holds the interesting distinction of being a former monarch who returned to power in the country he once ruled through the electoral process, serving as Prime Minister in the early 2000s.\n\nSo, those are the two that I know of, an in both cases they were able to regain control of at least some of their former properties. They also had the distinction of being the monarch at the time of the communist takeover, and still alive following the fall of the Iron Curtain, which may have made the process easier than in the case of a country like Russia, where the Monarch at the time has been long since deceased, and the proper heir is less clear (a brief search would indicate there are two claimants to the Russian throne), but I will let someone with a better understanding of those countries to weigh in on them.", "Shortly after the collapse, the Lobkowicz family returned to Czechoslovakia to reclaim their lands and castles. They have also managed to reclaim a lot of their art that was stolen by the Nazis in the Second World War.\n\nWilliam Lobkowicz was fairly successful in regaining their lost property. Some of their castles (they had 10 when they were seized) were sold to finance the restoration and maintenance of the four that they currently run (including Lobkowicz Palace in Prague) and some were turned into hotels and restaurants. \n\nThey also recovered the family brewery in 1992 (which was founded in 1466) and continues to be run by the family.\n\nTheir titles were abolished officially within Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1918/1919, but many of members of the family retain the titles personally (i.e. Prince William zu Lobkowizc or Erich Prinz von Lobkowicz).", "In the case of the Soviet Union, they mostly can't legally. More time has passed (1917ish versus 1945ish) and the official and legal opinion of the status of the Soviet Union and communism is different in Russia than that in the Eastern European countries that are returning the most.\n\nI did recently read of an interesting case illustrating this. A noble family fled their palace in Petersburg shortly after the revolution, and that palace was confiscated by the state and became a museum. The family does not contest this seizure now. What they do contest is the seizure of valuables hidden in the walls by the ancestors and only recently found during museum renovations. The family claims that these items remained in family possession because the state only learned of their existence recently, and so could not have confiscated them decades ago. The effort to add them to the museum collection now is therefore a current and illegal confiscation. The museum argues that the goods were part of the house's general contents that were confiscated decades ago, and are therefor not a current confiscation, so it should keep them. No one is arguing against the initial confiscation of the palace, just when the hidden goods would be considered confiscated.\n\n I'd include a link but I'm on my phone. However, I did read the news report of the case in English so if you are interested you may be able to google it.\n\nThere is one notable exception to this - the Russian Orthodox Church. The church plays a stronger role in politics and with politicians in Russia than in the West, and has been able to get most of their assets back (minus farmland and forests). Other traditional religious communities also report some successes in regaining community and religious property. ", "In Romania a lot of the old noble families reclaimed and received their properties. Mostly in Transilvania, the old hungarian princes, counts, and so on got back forests, lands, castles, mansions.\nEx-king Michael got back at least 1 castle ( Savarsin ), the most beautiful palace in Romania ( Peles ) , he can use the Elisabeth Palace in Bucharest.\nThere's a difference between Crown properties ( they belong to the State ) and the Royal House properties ( belong to the ex Royal family ).\nAlso the well known Bran castle ( on which Dracula's castle legend is based on ) was reclaimed by Dominic of Habsburg - archduke of Austria, grand duke of Tuscany , son of Princess Ileana of Romania.", "What was done with these castles during Communist rule? Communist officials live in them or something else?", "A follow up question, After the collapse of USSR, descendants of any of the old Russian nobility claimed their assets ? Any titles given back to members of the House of Romanov ?", "As some other people in the thread pointed out already it's the legal thing. The answer is no, basically.\n\nOfficially and legally, Soviet Union did not collapse as, say, Russian Empire collapsed before it. Soviet Union was a federation of republics and the federation was simply dissolved according to initial union agreement (1922 I believe). The separate republics continued to be the same states that were established in 1917-1922, with the same parlaiments, governments and legal frameworks. They undergoed some further transformations, but it was evolutionary process, nothing was abolished at once. For example, Ukraine had Criminal Prosecution law from 60s in effect until last year, when new law was introduced.\n\nThe only exception to this was Baltic republics, I think, as they treated Soviet period like an occupation and \"restored\" their pre-WWII sovereignty.\n\nSo according to the \"new\" state, same as the old state, all of properties of nobility remained in then current ownership - state-owned (sometimes subsequently privatised in the open market).", "I can speak to the case of Hungary. My uncle is a lawyer who helped a number of families get compensated for their losses. The compensation consisted of a capped monetary reward (capped at something like $100k US). Either way, it was not equivalent to what was taken and the nobility that was left in the country never bothered with taking titles back (at least those that I know).", "In Estonia, most of the property in the hands of nobility were already nationalised in 1920s, during the Estonian republic, so after 1991, not many Baltic germans had claims to lost property (although there still has still been many cases), they were mostly treated the same way as all the now-to-be privatized property was dealt with, they were returned to their pre-war owners. If the owners were German, than it went to them, if they were Estonians, it went to them.\n\nIt did cause problems, since many people had lived for decades on the nationalised land and after regaining independence, they didn't get the right to buy it for themsleves.\n\nFrom here _URL_0_ \n > Troublesome political and juridical discussions also arose regarding whether the real property of the Baltic Germans who left Soviet-occupied Estonia in 1941 (the so-called post-settlers - die Nachumsiedler) should be returned to them on equal grounds with Estonian nationals or not. The problem has technically been settled for the time being. In October 2006 the Supreme Court decided that the former post-settlers must be treated equally to other subjects entitled to restitution – i.e. all persons who were citizens of Estonia on 16 June 1940 and whose property was illegally expropriated. The Court also stated that their restitution claims must be reconsidered by the local commissions and addressed by local governments." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://estonia.eu/about-estonia/history/restitution-in-estonia.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "duqgmki" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "This is a really good question - of course the samurai will have left a mark on Japan – but not one I can directly answer: 20th century Japan is not my *thing*. However, I can tell you it’s going to involve unlearning what you’ve already read about the samurai themselves. Nitobe and his concept of “Bushido” are *the* biggest pitfalls in Japanese history. To quote Cameron Hurst in his essay, *Death, Honor, and Loyalty: The Bushido Ideal*.\n\n > One wonders whether the modern Japanese themselves, let alone those of us in the West, would ever have heard of bushido had it not been for the efforts of Nitobe Inazo (1863-1933). In almost every way imaginable, Nitobe was the least qualified Japanese of his age to have been informing anyone of Japan's history and culture.\n\nThere are some good posts already on Ask Historians about Bushido, so I won’t reproduce them. Check out \n\n[Was the way of Bushido ever documented in a book, if so what should I read?]( _URL_2_) answered by /u/bigbluepanda and /u/ParallelPain . They recommend some good journal articles and books on the subject, but I’m going to link to some open-access versions of articles on Bushido, in case you can’t access JSTOR or a quality library.\n\n-\t[Bushidó or Bull? A Medieval Historian’s Perspective on the Imperial Army and the Japanese Warrior Tradition]( _URL_3_) By Karl F. Friday. This addresses the question of whether there’s a continuity over all those years from medieval samurai to WWII, so it should be interesting to you.\n-\t[Death, Honor, and Loyalty: The Bushido Ideal]( _URL_4_) By G. Cameron Hurst III. Gives the full story of how Nitobe and others misread and cherrypicked sources to create a new modern ideology of Bushido.\n-\t[The Historical Foundations of Bushido](_URL_0_) by Karl Friday. I like this one because it’s actually an archived version of a post Karl Friday made on a martial arts board answering members’ questions. A historian who is out there dealing with the public and writing in plain, readable language: my hero!\n-\t/u/ParallelPain mentions Oleg Benesch’s book, [*Nationalism, Internationalism, and Bushido: Inventing the Way of the Samurai*](_URL_6_), as *the* book on the modern development of Bushido, but if you want to check Benesch out but can’t access his book, his entire PHD thesis is open-access: [Bushido : the creation of a martial ethic in late Meiji Japan](_URL_5_)\n\nBushido's an invented tradition, but one with real influence on 20th century society. In pre-Meiji Japan, most people weren't samurai, and didn't idealize samurai honour or aspire to follow such a code themselves. Modern Japan often does idealize samurai honour and continuously redefines \"Bushido\" as an aspirational code for everyone. In Imperial Japan, samurai honour was redefined as unquestioning loyalty to the Emperor. Today \"Bushido\" in Japanese pop culture is often about being true to your values, even when it means going *against* authority. It's an interesting transformation.\n\nIt doesn’t fit in with the rest of the discussion about Bushido but directly regarding your question, /u/white_light_king [posted some hard numbers on percentages of samurai background in the Imperial Army]( _URL_1_) in the late 19th century into the 20th century." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://koryu.com/library/kfriday2.html", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6v62wo/were_japanese_officers_in_ww2_disproportionately/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/52sewz/was_the_way_of_bushido_ever_documented_in_a_book/", "http://ejmas.com/jalt/jaltart_friday_0301.htm", "http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew26464.htm", "https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0071589", "https://books.google.ca/books?id=xc1LBAAAQBAJ" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6spxvb", "c6sq853", "c6sqgse", "c6sr8sr", "c6sslnu", "c6st26j" ], "score": [ 118, 45, 6, 58, 19, 2 ], "text": [ "No expert here, but I have \nheard that it has to do with traditionally who was doing the buttoning. \n\nWomen having their attendants button them up vs men being expected to button their own clothing. As to why men generally button right into left, more people being right handed.\n\nEdit: you should search Reddit: \"men women button\" for more answers.", "I like the old explanation that it's so men could draw their sword from the left hip without the pommel getting caught in their shirt. \n\nAlmost assuredly apocryphal, but undoubtedly cooler than the legitimate reason--whatever it may be.\n\n...Plus, it helps you remember which gender is associated with which button style.", "Along with the assistance received to button the shirt, side was also dictated by swordplay. A majority of people were / are right handed, and it was intended that the seam would be created so that the blade strike from a right handed man, if sliding across the surface of the armor, would go over the seam, glancing off, not be pulled into the seam and then directed into the body. This was used with metal armor, then leather armor, and continued with the fashion below, to make any blade strike more difficult. Plus the drawing of the weapons from the left. Plus who was assisting in the dress. Plus more right handed people Plus.....etc, etc, etc.", "This may help: buttons being used as common *fasteners* for clothing is [**a fairly recent development**](_URL_0_). Most European garments--until ~300 years ago--relied on lacing. Up to then, buttons were more for decoration and showing off one's wealth. Even today, the Amish try to minimize their use of buttons because of the button's association with status and pride. \n\nThis makes me more inclined to believe that buttoning direction is more related to social status (most importantly tight-fitting ladies garments that needed attendants to help with) than to anything utilitarian (drawing of swords etc.).", "I see no one is making the argument that having men and women's clothing fasten from opposite directions makes undressing members of the opposite sex in a hurry significantly easier.\n\nI like to think this is the reason the tradition has stuck around into modern times.", "I remember this being on a radio segment in my home town not too long ago and it was apparently something to do with your sword hand? According to them.\n\nEdit:\n > \"While we didn't manage to isolate a definitive answer for this question, we learned plenty about the tricky relationship between exigency and style. For example, this lengthy article on button conventions suggests that in the 19th century, well-heeled Victorian women generally didn't dress themselves, so their buttons were designed to be handled by right-handed servants. Although wealthy men may have had servants to lay out their clothes, they generally dressed themselves, and so the buttons on the right side of men's garments made more sense.\nA Yahoo! Search on \"button history\" also led us to Benjamin \"Good Advice Is Timeless!\" Dover of the Dallas Morning News. Mr. Dover notes that the first button jackets for men were modeled after the latching designs of armor, which were designed to stop a right-handed opponent from jamming a pike through the seam. He also suggests that the left-side buttons on women's clothes may have been intended to facilitate nursing an infant on the side closest to the woman's heart.\n\n > Jeff Elder of the Charlotte Observer (who has one of the greatest byline photos we've ever witnessed) suggests that men's coats were designed to make it easier for them to unbutton their coats with their left hand while drawing their swords with their right.\n\n > In general, we gleaned that European men tended to take their plumage cues from the military, while women's clothing arose out of domestic concerns. For more facts about couture and where it came from, check out the Fashion History category in the Yahoo! Directory\"\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://www.slate.com/articles/life/design/2012/06/button_history_a_visual_tour_of_button_design_through_the_ages_.html" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "enrbmpt" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "Wrapping comes with a cost: it makes the limbs heavier, and therefore reduces the efficiency of the bow. Thus, unwrapped limbs are often preferred. But some traditional bows had/have wrapped limbs. Wrapping can be for four purposes:\n\n1. Reinforcement of the bow.\n\n2. Weather-proofing.\n\n3. Ornament/display.\n\n4. Magic.\n\n**Reinforcement.** Sometimes limbs are wrapped to reinforce the bows. For self-bows, wrapping can help prevent splintering, or stop splintering/splitting from getting worse. For composite bows, wrapping can help stop de-lamination and can reinforce joints in the structure (e.g., where limbs join handle, where ears/siyahs are attached to the limbs). In both cases, wrapping can help hold the pieces of the bow together in case of major failure, making it safer in such an event.\n\nReinforcement can be restricted to the parts of the bow that are most likely to fail, or can cover much or all of the limbs. An example of a minimally-wrapped bow:\n\n* _URL_2_\n\nThis composite bow (19th century, Bashkir) has wrappings at the string bridges, and the base of the ears/siyahs, and on one side of the grip (perhaps the other side of the grip was once wrapped, too). More extensive wrapping can be seen on this bamboo bow:\n\n* _URL_3_\n\nwhere there are multiple wrappings along the limbs, and a fairly large section of wrapping on the lower limb. On this self-bow from Tanzania:\n\n* _URL_1_\n\nmuch of each limb is wrapped. More common on African bows is to have wrapping restricted to the limb tips, either the very tip, or the limb just below the nocks - these are the most important locations to reinforce to prevent splitting. The wrapping can be cord or leather thong (and I have seen one example where the limb tips were wrapped with iron, in a manner similar to wrapping of spear butts and hafts around tangs). African bows with limbs completely wrapped in leather thong are the main example of leather-wrapped limbs I know of.\n\nJapanese bows (of laminated bamboo or bamboo and wood) often feature wrapping along the length of the bow. These are often discrete bands of wrapping along the limbs, and can be few or many. Sometimes, they are completely wrapped. The wrapping is often rattan, or silk thread (sometimes, silk ribbon). One example with closely spaced bands of wrapping:\n\n* _URL_0_\n\nComposite bows are often wrapped, but invisibly. The entire limb is often wrapped with silk thread, and lacquered (which waterproofs the bow and also covers the wrapping string).\n\nOther bows are wrapped with thread, too, such as South American cotton-wrapped bows (e.g., bow 201 in Grayson 2007). Silk and cotton thread provide a lightweight but strong wrapping, and are an efficient way to reinforce the entire length of the limbs.\n\n**Weather-proofing**\n\nComposite bows are often wrapped in birch bark. The main function of this is weather-proofing rather than reinforcement. The bows are often painted or lacquered as well. Weather-proofing is important for composite bows, since the organic glues that are used are susceptible to moisture. Self-bows can be efficiently (i.e., with less weight) weather-proofed with wax/oil, so wrapping for weather-proofing is usually not done.\n\n**Ornament/display and Magic**. It can be difficult to distinguish between these, and indeed a wrapping can serve both purposes (and can also help reinforce the bow - for example, the cotton-wrapped bow referred to above (bow 201 in Grayson 2007) is decoratively wrapped in alternating black and white bands). In many cases, the wrapping serves no physically functional purpose, and can sometimes add sufficient weight to impair efficiency. Some examples:\n\n* A Somali bow with many bands of giraffe hair, with each band supposedly represented a killed elephant: _URL_5_\n\n* A bow (South-East Asian?) with cloth wraps on the limbs: _URL_4_\n\n* A Melanesian bow with the limbs covered in plant fibre woven in an ornamental pattern: _URL_6_\n\n* An African bow with lizard skin wrapped around one limb.\n\n\nReference:\n\nCharles E. Grayson, Mary French, and Michael J. O’Brien, *Traditional archery from six continents: the Charles E. Grayson Collection*, University of Missouri Press, 2007." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=771115&partId=1", "https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=581094&partId=1", "https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=3486607&partId=1", "https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=549937&partId=1", "https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=553000&partId=1", "https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=597234&partId=1", "https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=504811&partId=1" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6o8vxf" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "The [Roaring Twenties](_URL_0_) probably qualify." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cf7wnok", "cf85vpj", "cf8akvg", "cf9ajn2" ], "score": [ 10, 3, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "hello, I believe I can assist in answering a few of these questions. The economy of the polis would depend on what resources they have access to, and these varied depending on which polis we are discussing. What may be abundant in the Peloponnese may not be as available in Boeotia, or Attica, and vice-a-verse. I will use Athens as an example because, as far as I have read the sources describing the Athenian economy are most abundant when compared to some of the other poleis. \n\nThucydides and Herodotus both make mention to the economy of Athens. Herodotus accounts the discovery of a large silver mine at Laureium in late 483 BCE. Laureium is 60km SE of Athens, and as a result of this, silver became one of the main sources of revenue for Athens. Themistocles convinced the Assembly to use this silver initially to build a large Navy, with Persia in mind, but using Aegina, a small island that had always contested Athenian maritime interests as the excuse. Essentially the silver made Athens very wealthy and susceptible to trade.\n\nThucydides also points out that (and I'm paraphrasing here) - Attica, suffering from the poverty of its soil soon grew too large in population that they had to send out colonies to Ionia. So from this we can see that Attica, generally speaking, had poor soil for irrigation. Political implications aside, we cannot ignore that part of the reason for Athenian imperialism was for access to greater resources. The Athenian colony of Amphipolis is direct proof of this. The Black sea is considered the \"Bread Basket\" of the ancient world, because of the fertile soil. As you can see from [this map](_URL_2_), Amphipolis is of strategic importance for access to the Black sea, and throughout the entirety of the Hellenistic period Athens had always placed huge emphasis on maintaining this colony. Even during the hegemony of Philip II of Macedon, the Athenians were ruse'd into making concessions with the intent of retaking the colony. \n\nFor your second question, as far as the geography was concerned of Attica, the Peloponnese, and Boeotia, wood was a scarce commodity, but again there was a lot of trade that made it readily available. It should be noted that Alcibiades, who had been ostracized from Athens due to a scandal regarding vandalism, had escaped to Sparta and explained that a main focus of the Sicilian expedition was to gain access to the forests of Southern Sicily. However, Macedonia was the key to providing lumber for Greece. There are numerous treaties that we know of that had made Macedonia one of the key sources of lumber for the southern Greek poleis. In 389BCE, several poleis on the Chalcidice made a treaty with king Amyntas of Macedonia, in which they provided pitch and fir timber([Source](_URL_1_)). Thucydides states that following the Sicilian Expedition, the majority of the Athenian navy had been destroyed. Hundreds of ships and manpower were lost in the expedition. However, he explains that the navy had been rebuilt remarkably quick due to trade with Macedonia for lumber. In fact, the rise of Macedonia's neighboring polis of Olynthus was a result of it's location, where she stole prominence of the lumber trade with southern Greece. When Philip II came to power he sieged Olynthus and completely destroyed it.\n\n-Currency and banking: I can only really comment on Athens and Macedon, but perhaps the trend is similar for the other poleis. For Athens, the silver from Laurium was used to make coinage. So for them, they had their own currency that was accepted throughout the whole of Greece. Everybody likes silver. Though it might not answer your question too well, I like this story of Macedon under Alexander which demonstrates personal coinage. The Macedonian conquests had brought in massive sums of gold, much of which were obtained after capturing Persepolis. As Alexander continued to conquer and travel further East, he left governors in his acquired territories. His appointees, thinking Alexander would never return began to exploit their power. The appointee of Babylon was Alexander's childhood friend, Harpalus, who actually began to produce coinage with himself pictured on the coins and not Alexander. Alexander was obviously furious, purged his governors, and Harpalus had fled to Athens to attempt to raise a mercenary army with the wealth he had stolen, but he was instead arrested by the Athenians and his currency was seized. \n\nSome good sources that might be of interest, and are free on Amazon Kindle:\n\nHerodotus, *The Histories*\n\nThucydides, *History of the Peloponnesian War*\n\nXenophon *Anabasis*\n\nI also recommend Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch, and Quintas Curtius Rufus and their books on Alexander the Great.\n\nAnd finally, the speeches of Demosthenes on the threat of macedon highlight many economic issues:\n\n_URL_0_ ", "Greece? Why Greece!? That aside, I suppose the standard \"textbook\" will be *The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World* (ed Scheidel, Morris, Saller). If you are looking for more social sciency approaches, particularly urban development, Ian Morris (esp. *Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity*) is a good bet. Unfortunately I am kind of reliant on broad surveys, but I will try to mark my sources for each section.\n\nEDIT: A quick note is that things definitely change in the Hellenistic (roughly Alexander to Augustus). If i don't qualify the period, I am probably talking about the Classical period (a bit squishier, but about Marathon to Alexander, with extreme squishiness on the earlier date). This also means that, unfortunately, this will be Atheno-centric. That damn city does seem to dominate conversation.\n\n > What was the basis for the ancient Greek economy? What were the main productive units? Family farms, large estates, market-driven plantations? I know that barley and livestock were major products--from the excellent question about Greek food earlier today--but did they have to import food? How important was fish in their diets?\n\nMy understanding is that the “classic model” Greek agricultural economy was based on what some scholars call \"agro-towns\", that is, villages/towns/burghs/whatever that housed an overwhelmingly agriculturally based population, and the villa never really caught on in the East. However, there were areas where dispersed settlement (ie, single farmsteads) predominated, and there would have been people who lived part of the year in town, and part of the year in a farmstead—even just within Attica. When you step outside of Attica, it varies even more, and Boeotia, for example, seems to have mostly been hamlets and homesteads. So I am not sure how far the “classic model” can hold, as there was enormous variation both between and within regions, but it might be nice as a “base”. Source is *The Archaeology of Ancient Greece* (James Whitley), which was published in 2001, and given the popularity of the topic will no doubt be very out of date.\n\nAthens, at least, had to import food, but it was unusual, and I can't say to the others. Imports would have largely been from the Black Sea region, although Sicily was also important. Don't know anything about fish. Cool question, I'll look into it.\n\n\n > Materials: What were the main building materials? Was wood a scarce commodity (reserved for ships, perhaps)? Were stone or marble common for buildings other than large monuments and public structures? Were iron and bronze in widespread use, or reserved for military purposes? I assume that wool and leather were their main cloth-like materials; were there others?\n\nBuilding material is going to be primarily stone because, as anyone who has been to Greece can tell you, there is an awful lot of stone lying around. Marble, as you say, is primarily going to be for monumental public structures, so instead you will mostly have [local stone](_URL_1_)--this is an image from Rhamnous, which was a *deme* of Attica (I believe the wall is Hellenistic). Fired brick is largely a Roman innovation in the architecture of Greece, and I do not believe mudbrick was heavily used. For wood, I can't really say. Much of the wood for Athens' navy came from the Chalkidike in northern Greece, so it is possible that local montane wood was still used. Or, on the other hand, it could have been totally farmed out. It is worth noting that even Olynthus on the Chalkidike seems to have used [primarily stone archetecture](_URL_0_), although I still suspect that the use of wood grows increasingly important the farther north you go.\n\nClothing will mostly be wool and to a much lesser extent leather, which would mostly be things like cloaks, tents, shoes, etc, were the animal fibers. Plant fiber was mostly flax (ie, linen), which formed a major component of Egypt's export economy. Cotton from India and silk fro China would be a valuable luxury good in the Hellenistic period (I'm getting this from *The Oxford Handbook of Technology in the Classical World*--the chapters are pretty short andcover a bewildering array of topics, so it may be a good resource).\n\n > Currency and banking: Is it roughly true that each city minted their own coins, while Athenian currency was sort of a default standard? What metals did they use? Where did the minerals come from?\n\nUgh, this is tricky. Greek currency was bimetallic—that us, specie was in gold and in silver. Bronze, I believe, was an innovation of the Roman period, as was an economy that can be usefully thought of as \"monetized\" (although the Hellenistic is definitely getting there). It is true that the Athenian obol was a sort of standard in the Classical period, but there were a great number of currencies for each polis (and, of course, later Hellenistic kingdoms all produced their own coinage). This, in part, explains the existence of “trapeza” or banks/money-lenders. Much like early modern Europe, the need to change money would would been a major impetus for the formation of a banking system. That is probably too elevated of a term for the Classical period, but in the Hellenistic you do get a financial system of sorts, which I am baselining at the use of scrip. Temples, which had both the liquid wealth and imposing defenses were deeply invested in banking, but there are plenty of references to \"trapeza\" that seem to more or less be ephemeral stands.\n\nGreek banking is really not my thing, but /u/Daeres is one of the weirdos who likes numismatics.\n\n > Internal divisions of labor: How was labor divided within the family and/or polis? Were there certain jobs or professions reserved for men and women? How important was slavery? Do we have any good ideas what the slave-free demographics were?\n\nThere is an article by Saller about the household and an article by Scheidel about slavery in the Cambridge book I recommended above, which will be much better than any half-assed answer I can give now. Your library almost certainly will have it, but on the offchance it doesn't let me know and I will scrounge up a few papers on this that are online.\n\n > External divisions of labor: We know that maritime trade was important, but exactly what was being traded? Different regions must have produced or specialized in different things, or else there's not much point in trading, right?\n\nHaha, oh man, the question of the role of comparative advantage in Greco-Roman commerce is still a live one. One school of thought essentially goes with your interpretation—commerce was driven by comparative advantage and thus was essentially respondent to market forces (this is the so-called “formalist” position). Another school, however, says that maritime commerce was never extensive enough for market forces to be a true driver, as it never reached a large enough economic base, and thus commerce was essentially driven through status networks (this is the so-called “substantivist” position). Implicitly, most scholars doing economic research, at least in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, work with the former. However, there are still scholars, particularly those who take a broader view, that argue for the latter. I can talk all day about this with Rome, but I can't with Greece, unfortunately.\n\n > Does it make sense to think of the ancient Greek world as a \"Free Market\"?\n\nHere is an obnoxious answer: What do you mean by \"free market\"? That being said, I don't think you can see much in the way of interference in day-to-day economic activity by the state or political forces.", "Olive oil has been mentioned, but perhaps not emphasized enough. Judging from the numbers of amphorae found in shipwrecks, I guess that olive oil and wine were major agricultural products and also traded.\n\nFrom the number of pictures of fishermen on pottery it would also seem that fishing was an important source of food.", "Since this is a large question I will answer the One Big Question at the end of your post. Does it make sense to think of the ancient Greek world as a \"Free Market\"?\n\nI think market exchange would be the better way to describe the commodity exchange occurring in the ancient Greek economy based on the relationship between the city merchant and the rural farmer, or hoplite. After doing a reading of Moses Finley's *The Ancient Economy* and other monographs of Greek trade, I learned there is a more capitalistic relationship between the countryside landowners and the city merchants. \n\nHowever, it is hard to use the term use the terms \"Free Market\" and \"capitalism\" for the Greek poleis besides classical period Athens, the period after the Persian Wars. Solely because a lot more trade was done with commodities for commodities rather than commodities for money in ancient Greece before Athens flourished economically. And since \"capitalism\" usually constitutes trading products for money, it is suggested that Archaic Greece was not principally capitalistic in nature.\n\nSo after reading dozens of books about the ancient Greek economy, I would say that most Archaic Greek poleis overall ran their poleis on a local subsistence economy and traded when necessary. Cities like Corinth, Athens, and Greek Island poleis traded with each other in Athens, Samos, Ionian Cities, and Naukratis in Egypt. Trading that they did via the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Athenians, Corinthians, or other merchants stationed off the Ionian Coast.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0072%3Aspeech%3D11", "http://books.google.com/books?id=6pU4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=Sicilian+expedition+trade+with+Macedonia&source=bl&ots=JGvohBObqz&sig=wP9tXhY-RIAu0j_oLPUx36gy55g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HJTyUsfkMuH4yAH7hIGoCQ&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Sicilian%20expedition%20trade%20with%20Macedonia&f=false", "http://www.welcometohosanna.com/PAULS_MISSIONARY_JOURNEYS/Map/2ndJourneyGreece.jpg" ], [ "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Ancient_Olynthos_Chalkidiki_-_Greece_-_048.jpg", "http://i.imgur.com/E4s74l7.jpg?1" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5021lq" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "In short, Japan did attack Russia, but was beaten so badly they decided attacking the US was better.\n\n[Battles of Khalkhin Gol](_URL_0_)." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "ddmuajk" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "Hi, there was a thread on this subject last week. Please check out this post \n\n* [How were the children of the Hitler Youth Denazified ? Was there any fear that, with their childhood indoctrination, try to reinstate Nazism? ](_URL_0_) featuring /u/kieslowskifan " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5rnwe1/how_were_the_children_of_the_hitler_youth/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5k1fvd", "c5k9gfw", "c5kaz43" ], "score": [ 6, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "I know that in Edinburgh, Scotland during the Middle Ages it was punishable by death (starting at the age of 8) to be homeless, which led the poor to move underground into the vaults of the city. ", "A good place to start would be learning about the system of [Poor Laws](_URL_0_) which were implemented in England in the early modern period (and were the main way the indigent were dealt with through the Victorian era). Contrary to the premise of your post, \"vagrancy\" was considered a very important social problem for most of modern English history, and there were a variety of different schemes attempted to address it.\n\nPrior to the Poor Laws, the Catholic Church provided for the care of the poor, and the laws developed to fill the void when England split away from the Catholic Church under Henry VIII.", "[I think think might be relevant.](_URL_0_)" ] }

[]

[ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/q6uci/reddit_at_what_point_in_history_did_social/" ]

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

{ "a_id": [ "ck8120b" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "Yeah, in a way. We can find graffiti in Pompeii that records the win/loss ratios of different gladiators, so while we don't know if particular gladiators were praised for particular traits, we know that the gladiators' skill was broadly well known." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dyotb8r" ], "score": [ 77 ], "text": [ "If you don't know much about guns it can be easy to think that they are all kinda similar, especially in the modern context. However the reality is that modern pistols are very different from older pistols and that has many implications in regards to their adoption or lack thereof by either police or military forces. And the requirements for the police are very different from the requirements for the military, especially historically.\n\nFirstly it's worth noting that historically the police have not been expected to use their firearms in the line of duty on a regular basis, that's a more modern phenomenon in the US. That means that for the most part officers were not overly concerned about how much \"firepower\" they were carrying, their revolvers were instead defensive weapons for extreme cases (the preponderance of shootouts in popular media to the contrary). Additionally, whereas on an active battlefield it may be necessary for a soldier to fire many shots, reload quickly, and have his spare ammunition in a convenient magazine, the same was not true for police officers in their line of duty throughout most of the 20th century. If they needed more firepower they could call in backup (including SWAT teams), retreat to their vehicle and make use of their shotguns, etc.\n\nThe Colt 1911 has many features that make it desirable on a battlefield. It fires a large caliber bullet (.45\") so it has a considerable amount of penetrating and \"stopping\" power. It is semi-automatic so it can fire an entire magazine of rounds with single action (light) trigger weight, making it easier to fire controlled, well aimed shots. It uses magazines so it is quick to reload and be able to maintain cover or to keep up suppressing or defensive fire. It shares the same round with the Thompson sub-machine gun which was issued to US soldiers starting in 1938, which is a significant logistical simplification. Other militaries issued semi-automatic pistols for much the same reasons. The Luger used a 9mm round which was also used by the German submachine guns such as the MP40 et al. The Soviets used the 7.62 Tokarev round for both the PPSH-41/43 and their TT-30 service pistol. Of necessity a submachine gun needs to use a cartridge designed for automatic/semi-automatic fire, if a service pistol is chosen that shares the same cartridge then it too will be a semi-automatic design.\n\n(Edit: I should clarify here that semi-auto pistols were adopted original by armed forces on their own merits, it was the logistical synergy with submachine guns that were adopted years later which helped to cement those pistols as standard issue sidearms for decades.)\n\nHowever, the Colt 1911 also has some features that make it undesirable, particularly for police officers. While .45 ACP is a powerful round it also has a lot of recoil, which can make firing accurately more difficult. The 1911 is a single action only design with a manual safety, the only way to fire the gun is to cycle a round into the chamber and then pull the trigger after the hammer is cocked and the safety has been released. This added some complexity to firing the gun depending on how it was carried. If one carried a 1911 with an empty chamber (the safest way to do so) then it was necessary to cycle the action (which would also cock the hammer) before shooting, something that requires two hands and is potentially easy to forget in the heat of a fight. It could also be carried with the chamber loaded. If the gun was normally carried uncocked then it would be necessary to cock the gun (with the thumb) prior to shooting. If the gun was carried with the safety off (\"locked\") then it would be necessary to release the safety before firing. If the gun was carried both uncocked and with the safety on then both would have to be actuated before use. For police officers who were not expected to continually train in shooting (unlike today) all of these extra complexities led to more points of failure in highly stressful situations. The 1911 is also a large and heavy pistol, especially when fully loaded and with an extra magazine, which is undesirable if you need to carry a gun 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for decades. Additionally, pistols have failure modes that revolvers don't. If a round is a dud then it needs to be manually cycled through the action, depending on ammunition and how a pistol is held when firing the round might fail to cycle properly resulting in a need to clear the action manually and cycle the next round. These failure modes reduce confidence in the gun and also add a burden of extra training (to understand and be familiar with them and to know how to recover from them).\n\nIn contrast to all this, 20th century revolvers were much more \"user friendly\". The standard round was the .38 special which was less powerful than a .45 but had much lower recoil and was easier for most people to shoot accurately without extensive special training. The standard revolver of the time was a double action design, the gun could be carried around with the hammer down and yet the only thing necessary to fire the first and subsequent rounds would be to unholster the gun and pull the trigger. The added safety margin of having the first firing require a full double action pull (which is a larger force than the single action pull) meant that extra safeties weren't really necessary, as it was difficult for the gun to be unintentionally discharged. The extra trigger pull force would reduce shooting accuracy but the police officer always had the option to manually cock the revolver so that the next shot was single action and could be fired more accurately.\n\nAdd to all of this the fact that a 1911 was significantly more expensive than a standard service revolver (the difference being around $100 or more in today's dollars, adjusted for inflation). More so once you factor in the higher cost of ammunition and extra magazines. Without extra magazines the value of magazine loading is negated, whereas with a revolver there's nothing particularly more that needs to be purchased for the gun other than a holster and ammunition (extra of which can simply be carried however is convenient, even in a jacket pocket).\n\nOutside of the unique conditions of the battlefield semi-auto pistols were considered to be less reliable, more complicated, harder to carry, and more costly to own. Once big police departments (such as New York City) started to choose the .38 special revolver it became the de facto standard police issue sidearm across the US.\n\nIt was not until the 1970s that pistol technology would finally advance to the state where many of the drawbacks of the 1911 had been mitigated. A major innovation was firing pin blocking safeties built into the trigger or the grip (as on the SIG P220) and the advent/refinement of striker fired pistols (such as the Glock 17). The \"wonder 9s\" were designed such that they had integrated safety systems and the main safety was simply that the only way to make the gun go off was to intentionally pull the trigger, making them as simple to operate as revolvers without compromising safety. Improvements in manufacturing of ammunition and in the design of pistols meant that they could be expected to feed reliably as well. Use of new materials such as polymers in the pistol frame also made it possible to reduce the weight of these pistols, making them about as easy to carry as a revolver. The advent of double stack magazines (as with the Glock 17) meant that a pistol could carry many more rounds than a revolver. A Glock 17 with a full magazine and a round in the chamber can fire 3x as many rounds without reloading as an ordinary 6 chamber revolver, and with a single spare magazine can fire as many rounds with a single reload that takes around a second as would require 5 reloads of a revolver. Use of the lower recoil 9mm cartridge also meant that most modestly capable shooters could shoot such pistols fairly accurately, even if they did not train at the range rigorously.\n\nAll of this meant that by the early 1980s pistols had become as reliable, practical, and easy to carry as revolvers had been, but with the ability to carry vastly more rounds and to stay in a firefight for much longer than with a revolver.\n\nEven with all of the advantages of the new and better pistols of the late 20th century it was still quite an uphill battle for them to become adopted as service weapons for US police departments. Glock especially had a very talented sales team that used basically every trick in the book to get police departments to adopt Glocks as their service firearms. Combined with the panic caused by the rise in violent crime through the mid 1980s due to the crack epidemic there was essentially a \"perfect storm\" of conditions that enabled rapid turnover in terms of the types of guns that police departments were issuing." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpyoiwe" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The Roman term for a dictator was an actual political office and was *somewhat* a common occurrence. Sulla was certainly not the first! During the early Republic, dictators were often appointed. Now, this is a wikipedia chart, which you know, isn't a great source! But it will serve its purpose here.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThat is a list of Roman dictators. For the reason they were appointed you will see many instances of Rei gerundae causa. This translates to for the matter to be done. These men were often appointed for wartime duties. Many of them, almost all of them, resigned willingly. A particularly famous dictator was Cincinnatus, who was made Dictator twice in his lifetime for the position of dictator, once to war waith two other tribes on the peninsula the Aequi and Sabine and the second time for another one of the reasons you see listed, Seditionis sedandae et rei gerendae causa, though that article lists it wrong, it isn't an or clause, it is all together. This means the putting down of rebellion and for the matter at hand. He was appointed this second time to deal with a man who was attempting to become king. Every time at the finish of his duties he retired back to his farm! Cincinnatus was a model for civic virtue and I like to call him the Roman Washington, or perhaps it should be the reverse! Livy has quite the love affair with him (like most Romans) and writes about him in some of his historical works. \n\nNow, after the Civil War period later emperors shied away from the using the term because of Sulla and Caesar. As you can see there were also other reasons dictators would be appointed, often for religious or civil things. Now as for why people would say that about Sulla, look at the dates! Sulla was the dictator during the Social war. I won't get into all that as its a whole other thing but Sulla sort of seized the dictatorship which made his a bit different, it also had been a long time since the last dictator. \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cg3aqbk" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "We used \"A Brief Survey of Austrian History\" by Rickett in my (Austrian) history classes, it's been awhile since I've read it, but it probably would work for what you're looking for" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d43i4zm" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "The Germans did build two such submarines, named *Deutschland* and *Bremen* (Six more were converted into warships during their construction). They were constructed in 1916 by a private company, a subsidiary of the North German Lloyd shipping company. *Bremen* would sink on her maiden voyage, in August 1916. The cause of her loss is unknown, with some speculation that she was rammed by one of the auxiliary cruisers of the British 10th Cruiser Squadron - both *Alsatian* and *Mantua* reported collisions with submerged objects at about the right time. *Deutschland* was far more successful. For her first voyage, she departed Kiel on the 23rd June 1916, with a cargo of dyes and precious stones. She arrived at Baltimore on the 9th July - some footage of this arrival can be found [here](_URL_1_). She returned to Bremen on August 24th, carrying a load of strategic materials, including copper, zinc, nickel and rubber. She made another trip to New London in November, again carrying dyes on the route out, and strategic materials on the way back. Shortly before this voyage, the submarine U-53 visited Newport. U-53 was to have supported *Bremen* , but after her sinking, U-53s captain was ordered to make a visit to the American coast. This may have been an attempt to demonstrate to the US that German submarines could threaten the Eastern Seaboard, should the US enter the war. U-53 sank five ships off Nantucket, before returning to Germany. Following the entry of the United States into the war, *Deutschland* would be requisitioned by the navy and converted to a submarine-cruiser, as her long range and large size made her very suitable for such a role. She made several war patrols, sinking 43 ships and damaging a further 3 over the course of three patrols. One of these would take her back to the American coast, while the other two were to the region of the Azores. At the end of the war, she was seized by the Royal Navy as part of the armistice terms. After a thorough examination by the RN, she was opened to the public as an exhibition ship, touring the ports of the British south and east coasts.\n\n*Deutschland*'s mercantile voyages were the source of much legal wrangling. While merchants of belligerent powers were allowed to trade in neutral ports, it wasn't entirely clear how submarine merchants fit into this. Given that all other submarines of the time were armed, and it wasn't clear to the Allies that *Deutschland* wasn't, the Allies felt she should be treated as a warship. This view was bolstered by the fact that, especially when submerged, that she was almost impossible to tell from a warship. Such ships were legitimate targets, and could be sunk on sight. The Germans, of course, held that she was a legitimate merchant vessel, and subject to prize rules. \n\nSources:\n\n*The German Submarine War 1914-1918*, R H Gibson, Maurice Prendergast, Constable & Co 1931, reprinted by Periscope Publishing, 2002\n\n*The Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 and Synthetic Drugs*, Dale Cooper, Pharmacy in History, Vol. 47, No. 2 (2005), pp. 47-61\n\n*VICTIM OR PARTICIPANT? ALLIED FISHING FLEETS AND U-BOAT ATTACKS IN WORLD WARS I AND II*, found at _URL_2_\n\n*Zimmermann Telegram: The Original Draft*, Joachim von zur Gathen, Cryptologia, Vol 31, No. 1 (2007), published online at _URL_0_\n\n*Fighting the Great War at Sea: Strategy, Tactics and Technology*, Norman Friedman, Seaforth, 2014\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01611190600921165", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af0FqNh4bKg", "http://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol01/tnm_1_4_1-18.pdf" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cxubsv2" ], "score": [ 131 ], "text": [ "You may want to take a look at these previous threads on this topic:\n\n- [How did the Basques maintain their language through Roman occupation and influence, and up until the modern era?](_URL_0_)\n- [What are some explanations for why the Basque language has survived to this day?](_URL_1_)\n- [Considering the length of time the Basque area was under Roman rule why is their culture/language so different from their neighbors?](_URL_2_)\n\nThe consensus seems to be that the mountainous geography of Basque Country played a large role. In the first thread, /u/Tiako and /u/keyilan note that mountainous regions are historically good at preserving linguistic diversity, and compare Basque to Paleo-Sardinian, another non-IE language and possible language isolate spoken in a mountainous area that became extinct in the 2nd century AD or so." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ir0b2/how_did_the_basques_maintain_their_language/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/14t5yf/what_are_some_explanations_for_why_the_basque/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19h9wp/considering_the_length_of_time_the_basque_area/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6urpp0" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Depends where you're living. If in Rome, the Roman calendar; anywhere outside Italy - even in Magna Graecia or Sicily - one Greek calendar or another. Details are unclear: there were various calendars in use (variations were introduced in honour of state gods, Hellenistic rulers, or Roman emperors) so it's very hard to tell which calendars were applied where.\n\nBasically, it seems that use of a standardised calendar just wasn't very important on a supra-regional scale. Calendars were not often written down other than for propaganda purposes, which is pretty telling. Various regions had their own calendars - the Judaic calendar is probably the best-attested - but standardisation just wasn't a high priority for most people's purposes." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cj1pl4l", "cj1qw1i" ], "score": [ 4, 8 ], "text": [ "This is not an answer, just a comment on the presumptions of the question, but high numbers of Jewish Arabs definitely existed in the area at Muhammad's birth, as well as Christians. Pre-Islamic Arabia was a diverse mix of traditional polytheism and Abrahamic religions, so Muhammad definitely would not have been without exposure to Judaism and Christianity, especially as the traveling trader that he was.", "As /u/smackaroo said, Arabia was very diverse in religious terms in the early seventh century, with many Christians, Jews, polytheists and Zoroastrians calling it their home. Indeed, the three confederations that were the most powerful tribes within the peninsula in the sixth century, the Ghassanids, the Kinda and the Lakhmids, were respectively ruled by Christians, under the domination of the Jewish state of Himyar in Yemen, and pagans (though they had to deal with the many Nestorian Christians under their rule). The Jewish kingdom of Himyar was long gone by the time of Muhammad, but it is notable that three of the clans in Medina (Muhammad's first power-base) were Jewish. These clans were exiled/enslaved in the following years for political reasons, but the initial settlement between Muhammad and the Medinans, the *Constitution of Medina*, effectively treated the Jews as equal members of the Muslim community. As for why Muhammad was inspired to create a new Abrahamic religion, I don't think there is a definitive answer, simply because of a lack of evidence, but from the context, any religion emerging from this part of the world must surely be influenced by Judaism, so Jewish influence on Islam should not at all be surprising. \n\nMy current view on this is hovering between 'Islam is a new Abrahamic religion that is tolerant of other Abrahamic faiths' and 'Islam was initially an ecumenical movement that was inclusive of all Abrahamic faiths from the start'. Contemporaries drew similar conclusions and had the same debate, as we have a Byzantine anti-Semitic propaganda leaflet and an Armenian history that both referenced the rise of Islam as akin to a Jewish messianic movement. Evidently, some people saw the initial conquests as something like a Jewish crusade, rather than a completely new religion. It has to be said though that even the propaganda hinted that many Jews disagreed with this view, for in the pamphlet's words 'the prophets do not come armed with a sword'.\n\nLet me know if you have any questions :)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ci7unen", "ci7ydex" ], "score": [ 7, 9 ], "text": [ "To start with, neither epistle to Timothy was written by Paul; secular historical scholarship on that point is unanimous or nearly so. Those books were written sometime in the middle of the second century, on the order of one hundred years after Paul's death, and attributed to Paul. Why they became associated with Paul is unknown; it might be an honest error by some early copyist, or outright fraud by someone who wanted Paul's authority to lend credence to his own views, or anything in between.\n\nSecondly, the fact that the author of Timothy felt it necessary to specifically prohibit women from leadership roles suggests that he knows of women who are in leadership roles. Otherwise, why would he find it necessary to argue against it?\n\nThirdly, there's one early church \"mother\" that you probably haven't ever heard of, despite the fact that Paul calls her out by name as being \"of note among the apostles\" and says that she was a convert to Christianity before he was. That's Junia, from Romans 16:7, and the reason you might never have heard of her is that in many Latin and English translations, her name is rendered as the masculine \"Junias\". There isn't a good scholarly reason to masculinize her name, and virtually all modern historians agree she was a woman. Still, she was specifically changed to a man in Catholic and Protestant translations for centuries.\n\nAnd finally, Christianity in the first, second, and third centuries was a loose collection of wildly different sects, who disagreed with each other on nearly any point you could imagine. The first college class I ever took on the topic was called \"Early Christianities\" specifically to highlight this point. To say that in no early Christian sect did women ever consecrate bread and wine is probably incorrect just because of how many different sects there were.\n\nI'm using Ehrman's \"The New Testament: A historical introduction to the early Christian writings\" as a source. It's definitely a college textbook, but it's the least dry textbook I've ever read, and I'd recommend it.", "/u/appleciders is correct in saying that the weight of secular scholarship is against treating the Epistles to Timothy as genuine. However I cannot agree that they are dated so late, given that Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Marcion all show evidence of knowledge of the books (Marcion rejects them, which lets you know that by 140 they were accepted at Rome).\n\nWhile there was diversity in Early Christian(ities), I'm not sure saying there were 'wildly divergent sects' is accurate either. This is Ehrman's take on the Bauer hypothesis, that there was indeed wildly divergent 'brands' of Christianity, and only a later 'orthodoxy' would label those others retroactively 'heretical'. However there is little evidence to suggest that these groups thought of themselves as distinct, competing, or had very divergent practices; the emergent contests over legitimacy often contain appeals to what is publically taught in all places; this is how Irenaeus attempts to defend against Gnostics. An appeal to publically verifiable, widespread teaching is only going to work if there is some kind of mainstream to appeal to.\n\nAs for what's going on in 1 Timothy, N.T. Wright is broadly well-regarded, and considered both a brilliant thinker and voluminous writer. But the 'terrain' of 1 Timothy chapter 2 is a hotly contested one, even in confessional and conservative scholarship. What Wright is offering is one reading of the socio-historical context of the passage, but it would be a mistake to think there was anything approaching consensus on the issue.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d5fwlvo" ], "score": [ 28 ], "text": [ "I don't think PTSD is what you think it is. PTSD is an anxiety disorder. It doesn't make people evil or crazy or radical. In World War 1 it was called Shell Shock, and many soldiers were executed for desertion because of it. \n\nI've never heard of any symptom that Hitler had that sounded anything like PTSD. Antisocial personality disorder or something similar, perhaps, but there are serious problems with trying to diagnose people in the past with mental disorders. He spent half his time in World War 1 at regimental HQ in any case, far behind the front lines.\n\nTake a look over _URL_0_ and the symptoms of PTSD. You can see that most of them aren't very conducive to running a major belligerent in a world war. \n\nFinally, things like anti-semitism and the belief that the treaty of versaille were humiliations weren't exactly radical beliefs. Many of Hitler's ideas were fairly mainstream in the groups he ran with.\n\nI'd recommend Hitler: A Biography (Kershaw 2008) if you want to know more about how Hitler came to his beliefs and ideology. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Post-traumatic-stress-disorder/Pages/Symptoms.aspx" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cleq4uv" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "There are plenty of sources throughout the late antique/early medieval period. Even ignoring letters, poems and other literary evidence, just for the sixth century, I can think of:\n\n* John of Biclaro and Isidore of Seville's *Chronicles/History* in Spain from the late sixth century\n* Gregory of Tour's *History of the Franks* from the same time in southern Francia\n* Victor of Tunnuna's *Chronicle* from Africa a bit earlier\n* *Liber Pontificalis* from Rome, which began to record contemporary lives of popes in the sixth century. Very focused on the papacy of course, but lots of incidental details are mentioned and we have actual documents from Ostrogothic/Roman governments to supplement our knowledge of Italy in this period.\n* Theodore Lector, Zosimus, Marcellinus Comes, John Malalas, Procopius, Agathias, Menander Protector, John of Ephesus, Evagrius and more from the Eastern Roman Empire, covering everything from Africa/Spain to Mesopotamia. \n\nSome of them are obviously more reliable than others, but even if they are not accurate, they are still useful sources as they are examples of how certain people thought in a certain period, which can be very rewarding when looking at cultural history. These historical traditions continued everywhere but the Eastern Roman Empire in the seventh century, but even so there are plenty of surviving letters, hagiographies and later histories to fill in the gaps. Admittedly many historians don't tend to treat religious texts as sources for 'secular' history, but the trend right now is to move away from that. There might be less contemporary historians writing in the mould of Tacitus/Ammianus Marcellinus, but we have more people writing about local saints and many, many surviving charters, both illuminating a different part of society compared to traditional secular narratives, so it's a case of losing some details but gaining more knowledge in other areas. In any case, by the Later Roman period secular histories were quite rare, so it wasn't a dramatic change when people started to write mainly ecclesiastical histories/chronicles in the post-Roman world." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6f93x7", "c6f9jmo", "c6faceu", "c6fdgbm", "c6fdgn8" ], "score": [ 2, 9, 5, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "I was taught in high school that once steam trains and ships were invented, wealthy Europeans would travel to Africa, Asia, and South America to enjoy the weather and see/shoot animals. Things like safaris in southern Africa and people travelling to India started once the rich could move quickly and comfortably. Hence, we see many stories of rich British nobles killing tigers and elephants in India and lions, elephants, and other large fauna in Africa; they were on vacation.\n\nNot sure about this but common people travelling probably began with the invention of the car. Once cars were cheap enough that common people could afford them, common people could travel great distances quickly. ", "[Thomas Cook](_URL_0_) started organized travel in the UK in 1841, at first only day trips, but soon longer journeys too. In 1865, the agency organised tours of the United States, picking up passengers from several departure points. John Mason Cook led the excursion which included tours of several Civil War battlefields.\n\nIn 1890, the company sold over 3.25 million tickets. \nBecause of the prices involved, this was mostly a middle class phenomenon. After the first world war, unions and parties started organizing travel for their members, with the shared goal of promoting members welfare and promoting the organizations views, resulting in the end in large state-sponsored tourism organizations like Kraft durch Freude in Germany and Opera Nazionale Dopolavoro in Italy. These aimed at bringing leisure travel to the working classes, for example through the fleet of cruise ships that Kraft durch Freude owned. Soviet Russia had their own system of vacation camps.\n", "Romans of the late Republican period (146BC - 27BC) did travel for leisure. Of course, this was restricted to upper-class Romans, but it was normal for them to go to their country estates in various parts of Italy during summers, to get away from Rome. Other Romans would travel to Athens for a combination of education and sight-seeing. It was expensive and time-consuming, so it wasn't common, but upper-class Romans did see it as normal for some travel to occur for the purposes of sight-seeing and leisure.\n", "It has been an [upper class tradition](_URL_0_) since the 1600s. Before then traveling was certainly done, but usually the incredibly wealthy or royalty.\n\nFor most people it was the beginning of having \"free time\", which is really a middle class thing. The real growth of the tourism industry started with the advent of the Bank Holiday in the UK in 1871, although they mostly went to places like Blackpool or Wales, if you can call that a vacation.", "I read this as \"At what point did time traveling for leisure become normal\"?\n\nI was all excited there for a sec." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cvbkroz" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Well, yes, in a way - the Confederate States of America had a formal government located first in Montgomery, Alabama, and later in Richmond, Virginia. This government had a constitution, president, and elected representatives. There wasn't any need of a government in exile during the war, per se, since the CSA had a huge swath of territory south of the Mason Dixon line to operate (on both a military and civic level). There was no possibility of a CSA representative in the Senate or Congress, as any person in D.C. professing loyalty (and acting as such) to the Confederate government would have been arrested for treason. Lincoln's administration steadfastly refused to enter into any talks or negotiations with representatives from the Confederate government precisely because to do so would mean that he recognized them as representatives from a sovereign nation (which he did not). Therefore, official U.S. policy was to treat any civic representative from the CSA as an individual actively operating in a treasonous fashion against the United States, subjecting them to prison and trial before a military court. \n\nAny position held by a CSA official would have yielded power only within the Confederacy itself, and not on any stage larger than that. The diplomats the Confederacy sent to France and England were largely ignored (and did nothing to bring foreign intervention into the mix), so to answer your question, no, these officials wielded no real power (outside of the Confederacy). \n\nI hope this helps, and that I haven't misunderstood your question. \n\n[Sources - Bruce Catton, 'Mr. Lincoln's Army,' James McPherson, 'Battle Cry of Freedom']\n**EDIT - CSA capitol was originally in Montgomery, not Mobile**" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e3be7aq" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "This submission has been removed because it violates the [rule on poll-type questions](_URL_0_). These questions do not lend themselves to answers with a firm foundation in sources and research, and the resulting threads usually turn into monsters with enormous speculation and little focussed discussion. Questions about the \"most\", the \"worst\", or other value judgments usually lead to vague, subjective, and speculative answers. For further information, please consult [this Roundtable discussion](_URL_1_).\n\nFor questions of this type, we ask that you redirect them to more appropriate subreddits, such as /r/history or /r/askhistory.\n\nWhile the John Brown portion of your question is fine, the rest of it is closer to a call for opinions than anything else. If you would like to, you may re-phrase your question and resubmit." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_.22poll.22-type_questions", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/48hjn0/rules_roundtable_6_the_no_polltype_questions_rule/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "do83fp8" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "My 14th edition of the *Chicago Manual of Style* has the following example for census records:\n\n > 119. Bureau of the Census, *Median Gross Rent by Counties of the United States, 1970*, prepared by the Geography Division in cooperation with the Housing Division, Bureau of the Census (Washington, D. C., 1975). \n\nThis version of the *CMoS* does not have any guidelines for genealogical records, so you're best bet is to treat it like an archival or unpublished document without a publication date. This is my idea of how it would look for a genealogical document:\n\n > 119. Entity that produced document, \"title of the document,\" File number if available, Entity which holds the document.\n\nAs with many things in citation, consistency is key.\n " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdcr2ad", "cdcrx3f", "cdcsh1y", "cdcvon8" ], "score": [ 5, 2, 31, 6 ], "text": [ "South Africa was apart of the Allies. Men were conscripted and sent to fight against the Axis in North Africa and in Italy mainly. \n\nSure some Afrikaners had issues with the British, but it was either serve or be jailed for twice as long. Not all Afrikaners were against the British, some did in fact fight alongside them in the Boer War. There were Afrikaans groups that sympathized with the Germans, they weren't really in a position to doing anything major though. \n\nI'm South African, part Afrikaans, my grandmother served in African doing admin and grandfather fought in Italy.\n\n*Edit: Extra info and format.", "Some Afrikaners saw German victory as a way to liberation from the British. However, South Africa was a self governing part of the British Empire, and there were big political differences and discussion in South Africa when the British declared war on Germany. The result were that the current pro-neutral, nationalist Prime Minister, were deposed, and SA declared war on Germany. _URL_0_", "**TL, DR: Not really; the SA military remained volunteer (among whites) and so self-selected, and there was no repeat of the [1914 Maritz Rebellion](_URL_0_) (or Five-Shilling Rebellion) in 1939, so the issue didn't really arise in the field. It had stronger repercussions at home, though.**\n\nA wide range of Afrikaners remaining in South Africa did have misgivings about SA fighting for Britain, particularly among the Hertzogite wing (formerly the National Party) of the United Party, and among more conservative highveld Afrikaners. In fact the unwillingness of PM Barry Hertzog to alienate those nationalists and declare for Britain led directly to the vote of no confidence that removed him as Party leader and put Jan Smuts back into office on 5 September 1939. So there was a serious wing of neutralist, and sometimes outright pro-German, sentiment among Afrikaners. Nothing was however strong enough to provoke open revolt or overthrow, even though Afrikaner nationalist sentiment (against the war but also \"for\" other things) was pretty lively throughout.\n\nIt wasn't all connected directly to enmity with Britain or the SA War. It also drew on racial ideology and a sympathy with Nazism (although not with its genocidal \"answers\"); the pro-Nazi *Ossewabrandwag* (see Christoph Marx's 1994 article in the *Journal of Southern African Studies*) and other organizations had significant activist followings. See, for example, Patrick Furlong's excellent *Between Crown and Swastika*, but also pieces of Saul Dubow's *Illicit Union: Scientific Racism in Modern South Africa* and Giliomee's general history *The Afrikaners: Biography of a People*. The relationship between ideas, affinities, and actions in SA by World War II was a lot more complicated than World War I and a lot more was in play. There wasn't really any issue with fighting alongside British troops; if you look at nationalist writing and film from before the war, like *Building a Nation* (1938), it does not seek to vilify the English (and Scots, and Irish) as individuals. Other things, like the prospect of armed black soldiers from elsewhere in Africa (SA nonwhite levies were not armed), were much more objectionable but even that was not a point of objection among those who actually served. Much more visible were \"republican\" demonstrations during the war by German-sympathetic nationalists within South Africa or opponents of carrying out British policy. Because the SA military during World War II remained an entirely volunteer force, those objectors did not actually have to go and fight anyway, so the \"alongside British troops\" thing wasn't an issue.\n\nThe neutralists and nationalists (including not a few openly symapthetic to Germany) made out quite well from the war; Daniel Malan's *Gesuiwerde Nasionale Party* (Purified National Party) made a lot of hay over Smuts sitting on the Imperial General Staff during the war and kowtowing to what they saw as poisonous British ideas of liberalism and assimilation. The mobilization of the country for war and the departure of whites to fight also relaxed movement controls and the colour bar (reservation of certain skilled jobs for whites), which made for a real mess by the end of the war, and arguably tilted the 1948 elections just enough to give the \"reunited\" National Party coalition--and the platform of apartheid--a majority they kept until 1994. But in the context of the war, any distaste among the soldiery was kept to oneself, and if someone did object, they could be rotated to garrisons in SA.\n\n[edit: TLDR, reworded a bit of nonsense; linkage]\n\n[edit 2: See /u/WillyPete 's link below--it's really enlightening, and talks more about the level of the individual enlistee, and points both to the incentives and oaths used in the enlistment process.]", "Afrikaners have long been derided as \"pro-nazi\" for the actions of a few during WW2, but the truth is that many of them volunteered for service. \nSmuts was himself an Afrikaner hero of the boer war.\nMy own grandfather served in El Alamein. \n\nHis background is Afrikaner, although (and perhaps pertinent to this conversation) his lineage is one of three brothers caught in the boer war, who demanded the brother on my family's line to declare his allegiance for or against the british. \nHe couldn't go against them, as he was married to the daughter of a Scottish officer. \nThus the family ousted him and demanded he change his surname, from which he dropped a letter to comply. (Making my father's genealogy research pure hell)\n\nThis type of \"bad feeling\" perpetuated during and after the war and so you won't hear many Afrikaner families boasting of their ancestor's participation.\n\nAs mentioned by others, the UDF was volunteer based, but veterans were promised a land grant after the war to both encourage settling of the countryside and increased farming, but also as an incentive for poorer afrikaners to join.\nMy grandfather was given land near Bloemfontein, a bastion of afrikanerdom.\n\nAs an aside, he was a \"windtalker\", using bantu languages to communicate in relative security against German eavesdroppers in North Africa.\n\nSome interesting Reads: \n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Africa_(1910%E2%80%9348)#Political_choices_at_outbreak_of_war" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritz_Rebellion" ], [ "http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71639?oid=284445&sn=Detail&pid=71639" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "czfmajf" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "There is a lot of conflicting speculation about the origins of the Titans, not least because the stories themselves were understood differently by different people in antiquity, and the details varied from region to region within the Greek world. \n\nSome people want to see a naturalistic or euhemeristic explanation; others want to see them simply as entertaining stories. The most plausible explanation, in my view, and the one that best fits the ancient texts as we have them, is the cosmological one. That is to say, the titans (children of Ouranos and Ge) represent primordial measures of time; a kind of 'deep' cosmological order that is superseded by the anthropocentric Olympian gods.\n\nHomer and Hesiod both characterise the Titans as gods of Tartaros which is opposite to Heaven, - that is to say, the 'underside' of the Earth (the invisible stars), as opposed to the hemisphere of the visible stars, where the Olympian gods reside.\n\nIt's widely accepted that elements of Greek cosmology were adopted and/or synchretised from Near Eastern religions, in addition to whatever common Indo-European roots Greek religion shared with neighbouring cultures. But as to whether the titanomachy represents a separate pantheon of gods assimilated into Greek religion for political reasons, there's no evidence... So: we'd need to establish first of all a.) [who these conquered people were](_URL_0_), and b.) that they did in fact worship deities similar to the Titans, preferably with the same (or similar) names. As it stands, the names of the Titans fit very well with the cosmological interpretation of the Greek myth as we know it, so it seems a bit inefficient (*vis-a-vis* Occam's razor) to postulate additional, political or acculturative explanations.\n\n[Edits: added more detail, 'cause the first half of my post didn't really get to your question.]\n\nP.S. Also, found [this earlier thread](_URL_1_?) that asks your same question, and has some good discussion." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_invasion#Invasion_or_migration", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pw0un/were_the_titans_the_gods_of_a_pregreek_society/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9kihsk" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Im not an expert on this topic, I would just caution you a bit as to \"nationalism\". It, as we conceive it, is a relatively recent idea stemming from the French Revolution and Napoleonic period. Before then, the loyalty to the King and Crown formed a major part of the national identity. The King was England, and England was the King, that sort of thing. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cprgygc", "cprhc81", "cprll1g" ], "score": [ 9, 69, 29 ], "text": [ "Kind of an add-on question: Given the accuracy and ease of use of the early gunpowder weapons used by Europeans, how many people actually owned them for individual use? I can understand the value of mass-firing in formation on a military scale, but it seems like it would be hard to use one for hunting or something like that given how cumbersome and slow early guns seemed to have been.", "I don't have a huge amount of time now, but if I'm free later I'll try and add more. The general answer is: pretty expensive. Personal firearms, meaning firearms that could be held and fired by a single person, existed in the Fifteenth Century but were not widely used. Gunpowder weapon was still primarily in the form of artillery, usually used in sieges rather than battles. T.F. Tout wrote an article at the turn of the Twentieth Century that is still an excellent breakdown of the cost of firearms in England in the fourteenth to early fifteenth centuries. England in particular has great records for this kind of information. The Valois Dukes of Burgundy were the most famous advocates of gunpowder artillery in the late Fifteenth Century and while their records are excellent they have not been fully published anywhere and so are difficult to access. \n\nI don't have exact figures in front of me, unfortunately, but I do remember that Tout explained that early guns were roughly priced by the pound, so the bigger the gun the more expensive it was. Guns on their own, though, were not too expensive, at least when compared to other examples of warfare equipment. Meaning they would be well out of the price range of a common peasant but probably affordable for a mid-level noble (an Earl/Count for example). What was prohibitively expensive was gunpowder, Saltpeter in particular. Saltpeter was insanely expensive at the start of the Fourteenth Century but went down in cost over the Fifteenth as Europeans developed effective methods of making it. Still, it was never cheap and gunpowder weapons used an awful lot of it. A local noble might be able to afford a firearm but he would likely not be able to afford the gunpowder to shoot it very often, as an example. \n\nThere's a lot of great material out there on medieval gunpowder at the moment. Kelly DeVries has made some great contributions in particular but he's hardly alone. ", "Interesting question with varying answers depending on your angle; what do you mean by value? Are you talking about monetary value or cultural value?(I think I might have misunderstood the question you asked, but I'll take a go at it regardless, since you said \"I'm more looking for a *general idea of value*, rather than exact numbers\")\n\n\n\n\nI'll try to answer of the cultural value of firearms, and I'll try to answer this from the point of view of an average Anatolian (Ottoman) citizen, as firearms are ingrained into the very consciousness of the people living there; as demonstrated by a very popular folk saying; \"At, Avrat, Silah\" , translating to \"Horse, Woman, Gun\". I'll also go bit over your specified timeline, from 1443 to mid 1500s. I've picked 1443 as it saw the start of the crusade of Varna and the aftermath of the conflict saw the start of usage of firearms in the Ottoman military. \n\n\n\n\nThe cultural value of firearms within the region stems from two things, which are tied together, the male identity and bandits, and bandits can be viewed as a personification of the male identity. In terms of male identity, firearms directly relate to the concept of honor, power, dominance and untouchability (Elvan Ozalp).\n\n\n\n\nUsed at least since 1421 with the Düzmece Mustafa rebellion, firearms would become a part of the Janissary entourage by the late 1400s (although from what I have read they seemed to prefer bows as bows were move accurate than the arquebus), with pistols being integrated much later.\n\n\n\n\nAs for banditry and guns;\n\n\n\n\nFirearms in the Ottoman empire were readily available to two groups, the military or the Eşkıya, the bandits. Coincidentally, the rise of banditry has its roots within the military of the Ottoman empire as it would often integrate vagrants, young villagers who left their village for various reasons, into the military, swelling the numbers of the musket bearing \"sekban\" who would turn to banditry after the end of hostilities. Banditry is nothing new to the region, but, according to Halil Inalcik in his \"Military and fiscal transformation of the Ottoman Empire\", saw a huge increase with the armament of peasant levied soldiers with firearms. Also, as stated, much later, by Koci Bey, a pamphleteer for the State, a peasant levied into the army would never return to his village, as he would value his gun and horse too much, and since the peasant is not worthy of military status, he would turn to banditry.\n\n\n\n\nFirearms were not that uncommon in the countryside; Beginning with the rebellion of Prince Beyazid, firearms would become quite common in the countryside, peasants could acquire firearms cheaply from artisans manufacturing a surplus. Beyazid would go on to persuade many of these to his cause (to become Sultan), which would become a common practice (hiring vagrant peasants and letting them acquire firearms). An interesting document from the late 1500s paints this phenomenon quite nicely; a sanjacbeyi from Aydin was able to confiscate 1500 firearms from the peasants in his district (Ilgurel, Atesli Silahlarin Yayilisi).\n\n\n\n\n\nIt is also very important to look at Turkish literature, folk legends, and folk music and its portrayal of guns and bandits, which, in the eyes of the commoner would increase the social value, and glorify, both firearms and bandits. Such a folk tale would be the Epic of Koroghlu and for an example in music, \"Hekimoğlu\".\n\n\n\n\ntl;dr Firearms had high social value and were relatively cheap in the Ottoman Empire, making them a relatively cheap investment for wanna be vagabonds\n\n \nSources;\n\nBandits and Bureaucrats: The Ottoman Route to State Centralization, by Karen Barkey\n\n\n\nHalil Inalcik, \"Military and fiscal transformation of the Ottoman Empire\" (Halil Inalcik has quite afew wirintgs about firearms in the Ottoman Empire)\n\n\n\nMücteba İlgürel, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Ateşli Silahların Yayılışı”\n\n\n\nElvan Özalp and Hande Karakiliç, \"Gun Ownership in Turkey: The Legal Dimension and Mental Health Practices\"\n\n\n\n\n\nP.S. This is the longest answer I've given in Reddit, I am not sure if this answer would be considered off topic, or does not obey this sub-reddits rules, if so, I'll delete it\n\n\n\n\nP.P.S. You said European, I sure hope you consider Ottoman Empire to be European..." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccwfpa0", "ccwhl0u", "ccwk45y" ], "score": [ 13, 8, 6 ], "text": [ "This is probably just one of many reasons, but the intelligence agency of the Wehrmacht the Abwehr was lead for most of the war by Wilhelm Canaris whom was secretly a staunch anti Nazi and is believed to have sabotaged at least some of the agency's intelligence operations from within.\n\n_URL_0_", "There were many localized successes by German intelligences, but the ULTRA hype overshadowed these not to mention the Abwehr was very bureaucratic and rigid and Canaris' unwillingness to yield to Himmler and the SS proved to be troublesome. \n\nI can remember Erich Gimpel who uncovered the progress of The Manhattan Project, but was betrayed by an American traitor who proceeded to use the money he was paid for to go partying. Gimpel died in 2010.", "I'd say there were two main reasons. First, it was just not considered as very important. The idea was to rapidly advance, break up the plans of enemy and totally seize the initiative. There is little value in knowing what the enemies plans were, if you expect that they will not even be able to put them in practice. Therefore, \"defensive\" intelligence, keeping own plans secret, was of greater importance, but even than was hardly considered crucial. Early war experience seemed to confirm such views, and nazi system was not very quick to adapt. \n\nAnother was that is was very hard to recruit sympathizers and keep their own from defecting, due to the nature of ideology. Even if someone in let's say Britain did consider nazism to be the best thing for Britain, it would be British type, not German. It can hardly be in nationalist interest to help another nation during the war. It's much easier to get sympathizers around universal ideologies, for example communism or liberalism, both of which nazis were fighting against. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/wilhelm_canaris.htm" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dtfruq3" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "First, to some extent, we do. For example, people do talk/write about Ming China, Qing China, Han China, etc. Often, it is obvious from the context that one is talking about China, and this is abbreviated to Ming, Qing, etc. \"Ming\" could refer to the time when the Ming Dynasty ruled China (e.g., \"Ming vase\"), the Ming government, the Ming Dynasty (as a dynasty), or China during Ming rule. If it is obvious which is meant from the context, then \"Ming\" by itself is sufficient.\n\nSecond, dynasties give a convenient periodisation of Chinese history:\n\n* pre-Qin\n\n* Qin/Han (about 440 years)\n\n* the bit between Han and Sui (about 460 years)\n\n* Sui/Tang (about 330 years)\n\n* Song (about 270 years)\n\n* Yuan (about 100 years)\n\n* Ming (about 270 years)\n\n* Qing (about 270 years)\n\nCompare with typical periodisations of Roman history:\n\n* Kingdom\n\n* Republic (about 480 years, not dividable into dynasties)\n\n* Principate (about 310 years, 4 dynasties)\n\n* Dominate (about 110 years, 2 dynasties)\n\n* Western Rome (about 80 years, 1 dynasty and assorted emperors)\n\n* Early Byzantine (about 490 years, 8 dynasties)\n\n* Middle Byzantine (about 360 years, 4 dynasties)\n\n* Late Byzantine (about 250 years, 2 dynasties)\n\nChinese dynasties had a slower rate of turnover, and dynastic periods gives useful chunks of time to divide Chinese history into periods. Roman dynasties had, on average, a faster rate of turnover, and division of Roman history into periods by dynasty would give too many periods with too little difference between many of them. The use of Chinese dynasties to separate historical periods is what gives rise to the illusion of \"different\" Chinas you refer to. There are real and important differences between these periods, which is why this division is useful." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dvw9qfx" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "When you search, try looking by church denomination instead of country--Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc. I also found \"religion empire africa\" a productive search of my own school's library catalog, although there were some Roman Empire results to skip over.\n\nIt's often helpful to find a very recent book related to your topic, and comb its bibliography for more sources." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e5zcusr" ], "score": [ 13 ], "text": [ "Much of the dating of Shakespeare's plays comes from information in the [Stationer's Register](_URL_3_) of London. The Stationer's Company was a trade guild granted the right to maintain a list of all printed materials in London. So, if you wanted to print your poetry, plays, other writings, have a book bound, etc., you'd have to pay a fee to have it listed in the Stationer's Register. Many of Shakespeare's plays are registered with the Stationer's Company. So it's an invaluable resource for understanding when Shakespeare (or members of his company) had his plays *published*. While the publishing date is not the same as the authorial date or the performance date, it does give historians a picture into the order in which Shakespeare likely wrote his plays; thereby, also providing a narrative for Shakespeare's artistic endeavors over time. It also gives insight into potential contextual clues that inform the intents behind the plays he wrote--especially since Shakespeare's career spans two different monarchs of England. Furthermore, Shakespeare was attached to several theatres in Elizabethan England--namely, the Theatre (1576), the Globe (1599), and the Blackfriars (1608). The Theatre and the Globe are both open-air theatres similar in style and construction. But the Blackfriars was an indoor space that was converted into a theatre (using a layout that predates the pit, box, and gallery arrangement but is nevertheless quite similar). So, knowing when a play may have been written helps us understand the intent behind its writing according to current events of the time; the space and audience (since the Blackfriars was a venue accessible to those able to afford a more expensive ticket) he imagined for its performance; and when the play was published in relation to its performance.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nAllow me to provide a quick case study to show how all this can come together to better inform one of his most well-known and enduring plays: *Hamlet*. The Stationer's Register entry for *Hamlet* is dated July 26, 1602. But, historians mostly agree that the play was written and performed before this date, and probably closer to 1600. Because the Stationer's Register lists it in 1602, we can be very certain that the latest date for a first performance of *Hamlet* would be in that year. Because we know that the Globe was constructed in 1599 and Shakespeare (and others) didn't take over use of the Blackfriars until 1608, we can also be very certain that the first performance took place at the Globe Theatre in Southwark. We can also be certain about who performed what roles, with Richard Burbage the likely candidate for the titular Hamlet because he was a prominent member, and leading actor, of the Lord Chamberlain's Men (Shakespeare was a member as well) in and around the year 1600. The c. 1602 dating also helps frame the historical context from which the play originates. It was written in the last years of Elizabeth I's life and rule, during a time of English ascendency across Great Britain and the European continent; allowing English Protestantism to take deeper root across the country as the state-established religion--perhaps informing some of Shakespeare's choices about where the play is set, the time period in which it's set, and the mention of places of study such as Wittenberg, etc. But that's beyond the scope for my answer.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nBUT! (And this is the fun part.) 1602 is not the only date associated with *Hamlet.* The very next year, in 1603, there is a register for publication of the play by Nicholas Ling and John Trundle in a format that has come to be known as the \"First Quarto\" (a quarto was, essentially, the size of the document upon which the play was printed). So Ling and Trundle published *Hamlet* in a quarto, but if you read this edition, you'll find that it has striking and numerous differences from the play that we're all familiar with today. So where did the edition of the play that we read in high school come from? It wasn't published until the First Folio edition of 1623 (the famous one compiled and published by Shakespeare's fellow actors John Heminges and Henry Condell after his death). Furthermore, James Roberts (the person who originally registered the play in 1602) had a second quarto edition printed in 1604. All of these editions of the play have recognizable variations. So, which one are we to believe is more authoritative and/or representative of what was performed at the Globe? Well, the best answer is that we don't know. But, all of these editions of *Hamlet* do tell us one thing for sure: the play was very popular in its own time. And it's likely that each publication represents an attempt to capitalize on the its popularity because the Stationer's Register is essentially an early attempt to provide documentation surrounding the publication rights to a literary work (a lot of the history of today's copyright laws have roots in this period of English history through the work of the Stationer's Guild). We don't know much, if anything, about the individuals that published the early quartos and whether they had any connection to Shakespeare. But we do know that Heminges and Condell were Shakespeare's peers and colleagues who compiled his plays in as authentic a way as they could. So, that's why historians and literary critics tend to view the First Folio as the likely authentic representation of what Shakespeare wrote and what was performed.\n\nSo, to wrap this up, knowing the dates for Shakespeare's plays helps us provide a more complete picture of the world in which Shakespeare was writing as his career spans about 20 years. It also helps us put together a picture of Elizabethan and early Jacobean London that tells us something about the cultural place of theatre for the city and England at large.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nSources:\n\n\\- Digitized Stationer's Register Entry for *Hamlet* (with bibliography): [_URL_2_](_URL_2_)\n\n\\- Richard Corum, *Understanding Hamlet: A Student Casebook to Issues, Sources, and Historical Documents*, 1998.\n\n\\- Paul Menzer, *The Hamlets: Cues, Qs, and Remembered Texts*, 2008\n\n\\- Zachary Lesser, *Hamlet after Q1: An Uncanny History of the Shakespearean Text*, 2015\n\nEDIT: You can find the differences between the *Hamlet* publications in the famous \"To be, or not to be\" speech here: [_URL_1_](_URL_0_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_be,_or_not_to_be", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To\\_be,\\_or\\_not\\_to\\_be", "https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/exhibition/document/stationers-register-entry-hamlet", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationers%27_Register" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cx2o4tf" ], "score": [ 14 ], "text": [ "Terrorism in its modern, recognizable form has existed since the late 1800s. Broadly speaking, there are three phases that terrorism went through, first the \"private\" phase, second the \"state-sponsored\" phase and finally the globalized phase.\n\nIt was first used by various anarchist revolutionary groups against the state. Anarchists of the late 19th century believed that they were committing what they called \"propaganda of the deed\" and that just as gunpowder ended the feudal era, the dynamite will end the capitalist one. They believed that the general population was a gunpowder barrel of potential revolutionaries and that their violence would be the spark to ignite this potential: and hence to the downfall of the state. Anarchists carried out bombings of cafes, government buildings, and symbols of financial/business interests. The most infamous example of this in the United States would be the bombing of Wall Street in 1920. Anarchists also carried out assassinations, killing dozens of heads of states including the Russian Czar Alexander II and American president William McKinney. By and large, those were committed by private individuals and organizations.\n\nIn the 20th century terrorism was used as a tactic by both left and right wing political groups, however they were most prominently left-wing which became widespread during the Cold war era. State sponsored terrorism became common as the cold war superpowers sponsored groups with ideological affinity to their side. In Europe, you had Soviet support of groups such as the Red Brigades in Italy and the Red Army Faction in Germany. In Latin America, various left-wing revolutionary groups, such as FARC in Colombia, the Shining path in Peru, the ERP in Argentina etc all used terrorism against both military and civilian targets. In Asia, you had Maoist groups such as the Naxalites and Japanese red army. In the US, you had groups such as the weather underground which bombed the Pentagon and the SLA which kidnapped the heiress Patty Hearst. In Canada, you had the FLQ (a left-wing Quebec nationalist group) which kicked off the October Crisis by kidnapping 2 government officials. They caused the only instance when martial law was proclaimed in Canada since 1945. The issue of Palestine also became important and many of those groups committed airline hijackings in the name of Palestinian freedom.\n\nIslamic terrorism came into prominence at the end of the 1970s with the Iranian revolution and the Grand Mosque Seizure in 1979. In the 1980s however it was broadly Shiite militant groups which were at odds with the west.\n\nAll those groups used broadly similar tactics: bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, hijackings and sometimes a big seizure of a major site or symbol like the Grand mosque seizure in Saudi Arabia or Palace of Justice siege in Colombia. Those groups which resided in the countryside also committed mass executions at times in order to terrorize the peasantry into supporting them.\n\nAfter the end of the cold war terrorism became globalized, groups like Al-Qaeda carried out attacks in the US, and it is suspected that Hezbollah carried out bombings against Synagogues and Israeli embassy in Argentina. Funding for those groups also became globalized, with money and personnel flowing through international financial systems and airlines. \n\nTerrorism in many ways is an outgrowth of the economic and political developments in the world. It is an inevitable consequence of easily available weapons which are capable of inflicting disproportionate amount of casualties such as explosives, and of mass literacy which give certain people the motivation to commit politically motivated attacks. Terrorism underwent 3 phases paralleling economic development in the industrialized world, first it was private, then it was state sponsored, and finally globalized. The ideological motivation behind terrorists also changed with the times, in the 60s-70s it was motivated by left-wing beliefs which has since fell out of favor. \n\nHowever, terrorism, while an ever present threat, should be kept context, terrorists have rarely manage to win a victory against a government throughout their existence. A determined government can almost always defeat a terrorist groups even if it takes decades." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "deo3lng", "deo6180" ], "score": [ 43, 29 ], "text": [ "One thing to note is that container shipping fundamentally changed the definition of what is a good port -- now you want someplace with large, flat areas behind the port to park the container farm. You don't need to be in/near town since those containers are getting onto trucks and trains not getting manpacked into markets in town. On the flip side the ships are much, much larger and much hardier. Large enough that they will oftentimes weather storms at sea rather than need a protected harbor. And definitely too large to go up many rivers.\n\nIn pre-modern times your port had different functional requirements. First, a protected harbor was very, very important as ships were smaller and lack of engine power makes weathering storms at sea much more challenging. Second, the ships were small enough to use rivers effectively. Third, moving goods overland is much harder so getting the port closer to the people makes more sense.\n\nIn the cases you give these ports aren't many miles from the coast effectively -- they are a few miles upriver from the coast on what were, at the time, easily navigable great rivers. In Bruges case the river access was opened by a storm in the 12th century. By the 1500s the same channel had started silting and the trade moved down to Antwerp -- another Flemish city on a bigger river but not directly on the sea.", "I can't speak to Bristol, but with regards to Bruges and other Flemish ports, the answer is quite simple: the Flemish coastline used to look drastically different to what it looks like today and was subject to heavy human-induced and natural changes throughout the years. Heavy floods, changing sea-levels, the destruction of the dune ecosystem by human encroachment, the construction of harbours and dykes, etc all had their impact. \n\nA good example of this is Ostend, which was originally constructed on a small island called Testerep off the coast of Flanders, along with Middelkerke and Westende. Although the town bloomed throughout the 13th century, it was partially built on dune land and the dykes meant to protect it were poorly maintained. Come the Saint Clemens flood of 1334, parts of the town were submerged and had to be rebuilt. After the Saint Vincentiusnight of 1394, it became clear the town couldn't survive another flood - so it was moved further south, away from Testerep and behind sturdier dykes. Eventually, the entire island slowly sank beneath the waves, following the Saint Felix flood of 1530. \n\nBruges used to have a direct connection to the sea, being a coastal settlement during late antiquity. As the sea retreated, however, Bruges remained connected to the sea via various inlets. The main inlet turned into Het Zwin after the storm surge of 1134, opening up access to the city even further. It's worth noting, however, that while Bruges still functioned as a port at this point, the city of Damme was constructed during the 13th century as a sort of pre-port to Bruges. Large ships weren't able to get through the final stretch to Bruges, so Damme was built so they could transfer their cargo to barges which *could* reach Bruges itself. Bruges' infrastructure, reputation and connection to inland trade routes guaranteed its relevance for the time being. \n\nSubsequent floods would not be as benefitial, however, as throughout the 12th and 13th century (and onwards) the dunes that shielded Flanders from the worst of the storms and the floods were encroached upon, mainly for exploitation as grazelands. The growing demand for meat, leather and butter in the emerging cities, as well as the financial gain to be had from doing so, led to the counts opening up the dunes and although strictly regulated at first, by the 14th century these regulations were barely enforced and the dunes were irrepearably damaged and had lost their function as a sea barrier. \n\nThe results were pretty catastrophic and most of note to Bruges was the loss of Wulpen, an island at the end of the Scheldt estuary and Het Zwin, north of Cadzand. You can see it on this map - Bruges is just off-map south of Damme:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n(that's a different Oostende and Westende than the ones I mentioned earlier, by the way)\n\nWulpen was lost to the Saint Elisabeth Flood of 1404, slowly being washed away over the next century and cutting off a significant part of Het Zwin. The new estuary mouth of Het Zwin was now much narrower, reducing the eroding effect of the tidal flow. This led to the silting up of the water course, made worse by the development of sand banks in the area. Economic decline and political instability led to the city being unable to reverse this evolution. The coastline, meanwhile, was stabilised by the construction of various dykes (most notably the Graaf Jansdijk) and polders, leading to the current situation where Bruges is about 15km from the shore. \n\nTo sum up: the shifting of the shoreline due to natural and human intervention throughout the years have led to some historic port cities being somewhat oddly located to modern eyes. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://i.imgur.com/uTzSRRE.png" ] ]