Datasets:

Pavithree

/

askHistorians_9381_18762

like 0

{ "a_id": [ "cbbl1z9" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "I can only speak to your final question about the UK at the moment. \n\nIn some part, rationing continued after the war in the UK due to the destruction wrought by the war. Beginning in 1944, the UK went into a sharp recession that didn't end until around 1948. There was also the dislocation of decolonization. The UK lost control over many vital colonies contributing to the disruption of production. Despite all of this, the Labour government at the time had still committed the British army to the occupation of Germany and to rebuilding other parts in Europe. The government was still exercising the significant war-time controls over most of production and ended up over-committing what was a shrinking pile of resources, necessitating rationing. \n\nIf you're looking for more serious scholarship on the matter, I suggest [Post War](_URL_0_) by Tony Judt. It captures what is was like for many of the Western European countries to endure conquest, outside liberation, and then the difficulty of rebuilding as they were severed from their empires. It's a good book if you want to understand the dismal state of affairs that produced the shortages and continued rationing in the UK, as well as its context within the rest of Europe. " ] }

[ "NONE" ]

[ "NONE" ]

[ [ "http://www.amazon.com/Postwar-History-Europe-Since-ebook/dp/B000SEGSB8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374959724&sr=8-1&keywords=post+war" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ek9egzf" ], "score": [ 40 ], "text": [ "Excellent question!\n\nWhile there’s a fair amount of variety, depending on the context of the capture, the timing or the nationality of the volunteers in question, there’s no doubt that Franco’s Nationalists could be quite brutal towards the foreigners they captured. Such brutality, of course, might extend to whether or not they were taken prisoner in the first place: there are numerous indications that foreign volunteers were sometimes shot immediately if captured in battle. A group of British volunteers, captured during the Battle of Jarama in February 1937, were convinced that they were going to be shot by their captors. One of their officers, an Australian named Ted Dickinson, was indeed shot – allegedly crying ‘Salud!’ with a clenched fist salute, although this has never really been verified. Another, Phil Elias, was shot on the spot when he reached for a packet of cigarettes. The others feared meeting a same fate, but were saved by the intervention of a passing Spanish officer. Whatever doubts there were about their survival were resolved when a *Daily Mail* reporter managed to get a picture of them in captivity. While the *Daily Mail* soon published a predictably scathing story about the 'misguided and hapless' prisoners they had seen, with their photos in print it became unthinkable that the Nationalists would be able to quietly make them disappear.\n\nIn another account from March 1938, a Spanish conscript serving alongside the foreigners recalled their captors separating out the (American) foreigners from the Spaniards by asking them questions, in Spanish, about their homes. The foreigners were marched off together, and the remaining Spaniards eventually heard gunfire in the distance, though whether these shots in fact came from the execution of the captive Americans has never been verified. I personally don’t doubt that execution, particularly in the early months of the war, was the common fate of most international captives. Tellingly, Franco himself issued an army-wide command in April 1937 that foreigners should not be shot, ordering that:\n\n > \\[Foreigners\\] lives be respected so that they can be repatriated to their country of origin, since a large number of those enlisted in the International Brigades want to defect if they know that their lives will be safe.\n\nThe necessity of issuing such an order is, to me at least, a strong indication that up to that point, executions of captured foreign fighters had been common practice. I also doubt that this order ended the practice entirely: the lack of foreign captives taken in a number of major battles is, I think, an indication that summary executions were fairly common, particularly for smaller groups of prisoners or individuals. The only British prisoner, Robert Beggs, taken at the Battle of Brunete, for instance, appears to have survived by convincing his captors he was seeking to defect having been deceived by the tricksy communists into coming to Spain – he was however a well-known member of the Communist Party of Great Britain in Glasgow!\n\nFor those that were captured alive, the process was not all that different to what Spanish prisoners of war experienced. Most ended up in a prisoner of war camp, where the regimes were generally harsh, conditions poor and violent treatment at the hands of the guards common. Yet although the prisoners themselves made the comparison with German concentration camps, it’s worth noting that the conditions were not so bad as that: there were few deaths among the prisoners, and they were often able to receive packages and money from home. Some governments were able to make representations on behalf of their nationals – the British, for instance, were fairly effective at ensuring that British prisoners were treated relatively well, although there were in practice limits to such diplomatic efforts to shield prisoners from harm. British diplomats, for instance, were somewhat too willing to trust to the ‘gentlemanly’ commanding officers’ good intentions, and were predisposed to disbelieve the generally left-wing, working-class volunteers’ claims of mistreatment. Such mistreatment was certainly a reality though – the aforementioned Beggs learned this the hard way, when he ran afoul of a guard sergeant, who beat him so severely Beggs ended up in the camp hospital for weeks. This incident, among others, earned the sergeant the nickname of ‘Sticky’ among the English-speaking prisoners. This was less a remark on his adhesive qualities, but reference to his apparent fondness for carrying around and using a large stick to beat the prisoners with.\n\nFor volunteers from fascist countries such as Germany, the reach of the secret police was an added danger. At the camp of San Pedro de Cardeña, where just about all foreign prisoners had been concentrated by early 1938, there was a ‘Gestapo’ presence that paid particular attention to the German prisoners, subjecting them to especial interrogations. All prisoners, however, were interviewed extensively. Aside from the usual pursuit of intelligence, there were some truly bizarre efforts to analyse the captives. Many prisoners of war were subjected to detailed physical and psychological examination by the Spanish psychiatrist Antonio Vallejo Nágera, who sought to discover the psychological causes of Marxism. Vallejo Nágera subjected groups of Portuguese, American and British prisoners to an array of strange and often humiliating tests, seeking to prove the latent inferiority of ‘Reds’ and connect their deviancy with their lack of exposure to Christian religion and traditional values. Interestingly, Vallejo Nágera’s experimental results are the best source of some key demographic data about the foreign volunteers, as the International Brigades themselves neglected to record volunteers’ religion or marital status.\n\nThe volunteers made efforts to mitigate their circumstances. Senior communists managed to form secret committees in an effort to organise the prisoners, though their efforts were hampered by the belief that the Nationalists would execute anyone suspected of being a Political Commissar or officer. It also didn’t help that many of the volunteers were extremely demoralised, even going so far as ‘openly declaring their preference for Fascism’ and ‘applaud\\[ing\\] the Italian officers.’ Tensions also came to the fore in the various ‘sharp divisions’ that cropped up throughout their imprisonment, on issues as varied as whether they should agree to shout ‘Franco’ on parade, or if they should campaign for better food. While the organisers boasted of their efforts to set up a camp ‘university’ to give lectures and teach inmates new skills, privately they admitted that it ‘had to be discontinued due to the activities of informers and the attitudes of the officers.’ Despite this, they were able to establish a camp fund that was used to buy luxuries such as extra food and cigarettes.\n\nFor those with governments able to intercede on their behalf, eventual repatriation was the most common fate for those in such camps. The first large group of British prisoners, taken at Jarama in February 1937, were released by May the same year, though not before they had gone through what amounted to a ‘show trial’, and handed down sentences ranging from execution to varying spells of imprisonment. While these were obviously not enforced, they were required to swear an oath not to return to Spain and take up arms again. Several chose to ignore this promise, and re-enlisted in the International Brigades. One, Jimmy Rutherford, had the misfortune of being captured again in March 1938. He was eventually recognised by one of his interrogators, and sentenced to death – a sentence which this time was carried out swiftly. British official protests at the execution were muted – as the Foreign Office privately acknowledged, the Nationalists had a fairly watertight case. Yet Rutherford’s fate was unusual, and most British prisoners had been sent home by the end of 1938, with the final few repatriated by February 1939. Those with no nationality, or were from countries which didn’t want them back, could languish for far longer in Franco’s camps – some were still imprisoned five years after the end of the civil war in 1944.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n**Sources**\n\nThis is one of those posts where I could draw on my own research a lot - the above manages to cram in references to primary sources held at the National Archives and the Marx Memorial Library in London, the *Archivo General Militar* in Avila, Spain, the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History in Moscow, as well as some oral testimony and Antonio Vallejo Nágera's publications in *Semana Médica Española*.\n\nThese secondary sources also have some useful info in them:\n\nRichard Baxell, *British Volunteers in the Spanish Civil War* (2004)\n\nCarl Geiser *Prisoners of the Good Fight* (1986)\n\nOn Vallejo Nagera: Michael Richards, ‘Morality and Biology in the Spanish Civil War: Psychiatrists, Revolution and Women Prisoners in Málaga’, *Contemporary European History* 10:3 (2001), pp. 395–421. \n\n\n**Edit: I had to finish this up a little quickly, so have gone back and added a couple of details, and some more sources.**" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7sigxr", "c7slj5n" ], "score": [ 8, 2 ], "text": [ "We can temper our expectations of human behavior with history. We can see the heights of human kindness and the depths of human evil. We can see how crowds have behaved and how others have behaved regardless of contemporary standards and options. \nIndeed, we can even see people accurately and inaccurately predicting the future with history. One of the hardest emotional hits I've taken from reading ancient documents are from Thucydides, the ancient Athenian historian (and one of the first historians we have to attempt neutrality), as he imagines walking through the ruins of Athens and Sparta, comparing them to the ruins he himself had already walked through. He remarks how impressive Athens would seem, and how weak Sparta, as Athens had more marble to leave behind, and it would be hard for future generations to believe that Sparta which left so little behind was the stronger power. \n\nIf you are interested in science fiction, Isaac Asimov's Foundation series deals with your premise.", "From another thread:\n\n > ... History isn't a social science like economics or sociology where one looks to simplify and separate independent from dependent variables in processes that are mind-blowingly complex to be able to predict the future. Instead, we recognize the interdependence of variables; history isn't the kind of field where you look at the past as a series of blueprints for the future. We only think this way because we have the power of hindsight, because looking back we can see how historical processes played out and we try to explain why. You can't do that with the present, because there are so many variables that we don't know, and even more whose significance we don't know either.\n\n > Think about the Hitler's decision to launch the Second World War: in 1939 and later in 1941, everything seemed as though it would go in Germany's favour, but variables that were unknown to the German government (like the level of industrialization in the USSR and the USA, Britain's will to fight, Stalin's control over his bureaucracy and population etc.) were what ultimately decided who won. Things the Germans thought would be most significant in order to achieve victory, like nifty tanks, guns, aeroplanes and rockets were ultimately proven not to be a deciding factor - things we think of as significant in affecting change today might be proven to be insignificant by the way history plays out. Most of these things can only be seen with hindsight, so claiming we can change the world by looking at what happened in the past only seems possible if we have access to every variable related to that change, and if we know which of those variables are more significant than others.\n\n > It should be noted that I'm not arguing against social change (I'm actually quite for it), I'm just pointing out the flaws in trying to change the future by using the past like a road map.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d4b3mz7" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "To be honest I really like the idea, engaging with the lay community seems to be one of the big goals to AH and this seems a great way to go about doing that. Though I'm sure there'd be issues with timing, security, et al." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5lub79", "c5lzwlu", "c5m1h5v", "c5m7k7h" ], "score": [ 9, 9, 333, 2 ], "text": [ "I would recommend that you read Legionary: The Roman Soldiers Unofficial Manual by Philip Matyszak. It's humorous, but contains some surprisingly spot-on information about the daily life of a Roman soldier and goes into extensive detail on training and fighting. ", "You probably should be more specific. The training that Roman soldiers received depended a lot on the time in which they lived.\n\nAlso, read Vegetius' [De Re Militari](_URL_0_)", "**EDIT: I'm going to shameless plug [this](_URL_0_) thread. If you enjoyed this and wish to learn more about the ancient peoples I love the most. Read it please, comment and ask questions! ;)**\n\nLike reginaldaugustus said Vegetius wrote about the doctrines of the Roman Legions.\n\n**Some relevant sections about infantry training;**\n\n*\"Right at the start of their training, therefore, recruits should\nbe taught the military step. For on the march and in the battle line\nnothing should be safeguarded more carefully than that all the troops should keep in step. This can be achieved only if through repeated\npractice they learn to march quickly and in formation. An army which\nis split up and in disorder is always in grave danger from the enemy.\nSo, 20 miles should be completed with the military step in five hours,\nbut only in summer. With the fuller step, which is quicker, 24 miles\nshould be completed in the same time… The soldiers should also be\ntrained in jumping so that they can leap over ditches and surmount\nany height blocking the way, and consequently when difficulties of this\nkind appear, they can cross them without trouble\"*\n\n*\"All recruits without exception should during the summer\nmonths learn how to swim. For they cannot always cross rivers on\nbridges, but during a retreat or pursuit an army is frequently forced to\nswim\"* \n\n*\"Recruits should be compelled frequently to carry a burden\nof up to sixty pounds and to march with the military step, since on\ntough campaigns they face the necessity of carrying their provisions as\nwell as their weapons\"*\n\n*\"The younger soldiers and recruits normally were\ntrained in the morning and afternoon with every kind of weapon. Veterans\nand experienced troops had one uninterrupted arms drill session every\nday… It is excellent to train them at a fencing post using wooden sticks,\nsince they learn how to attack the sides or legs or head with the point\nand edge (of the sword). They should also learn how to strike a blow\nwhile simultaneously leaping up, to spring up with a bound and crouch\ndown behind the shield again, to charge forward with one rush and then\ngive way and charge back to the rear. They should also practise hurling\ntheir javelins at the posts from a distance in order to develop their accuracy\nand the strength of their throwing arm\"*\n\n**Vegetius also wrote about some cavalry training regiments;**\n\n*\"An ancient practice has survived, for which provision has also been\nmade in the enactments of the divine Augustus and Hadrian, that three\ntimes each month both the cavalry and infantry should be led out for\nmarching exercise; for this word is used to describe this type of drill\n(ambulatura). The infantry wearing their armour and equipped with\nall their weapons were commanded to march for 10 miles and then\nreturn to the camp at the military pace, although they had to complete\npart of the route at a quicker speed. The cavalry, drawn up in squadrons\nand equipped in the same way, completed the same distance and\npractised cavalry drill, sometimes pursuing, then giving way, and then\nrenewing the attack vigorously\"*\n\n**Arrian also has something to add to this discussion;**\n\n*\"(The Cantabrian manoeuvre) works as follows. A cavalry formation,\nfully equipped, is drawn up in the usual way on the left of the platform,\nexcept for the two cavalrymen who are to receive the direct barrage of\njavelins. They charge from the right as before (?) and wheel to the right.\nBut while they are charging another charge begins on the left of the\nplatform and wheels in a circle. These cavalrymen use not light javelins\nbut full-size spears though with no iron tip; but their weight makes them\nawkward for the throwers and not without danger to the men who are\nthe targets. They have orders, therefore, not to aim at the heads of the\ncavalrymen riding past or to throw a spear at the horse, but before the\ncavalryman wheels his horse and exposes any part of his flank, or his\nback becomes exposed while he is turning, to aim at the shield and strike\nit as hard as possible with the spear. The skill of this manoeuvre lies in\nthe fact that the man in position in the Cantabrian formation should get\nas close as possible to those riding past and hit the centre of the shield\nwith his spear, either striking a resounding blow or piercing it right\nthrough; then the second man attacks the second in the other formation,\nthe third man the third, and so on in the same way\"*\n\n**Josephus explained why all this training was important**\n\n*\"Indeed, as if they had been born fully armed they never take a holiday\nfrom training and do not wait for crises to appear. Their training\nmanoeuvres lack none of the vigour of genuine warfare and each soldier\npractises battle drill every day with great enthusiasm just as if he were\nin battle. Therefore they sustain the shock of combat very easily. For\ntheir usual well-ordered ranks are not disrupted by any confusion, or\nnumbed by fear, or exhausted by toil; so, certain victory inevitably\nfollows since the enemy cannot match this. Indeed one would not be\nwrong in saying that their training manoeuvres are battles without\nbloodshed, and their battles manoeuvres with bloodshed.\"*\n\n**Emperor Trajan Hadrian Augustus tell's us about some battle manoeuvres that must have required some intense training, these are excerpts of his commendations for the legates of his legions**\n\n*\"Military manoeuvres have their own rules so to speak and if anything\nis added or taken away from them the drill is made either less effective\nor more difficult. Indeed the more complications are added, the less\nimpressive it appears. Of the difficult manoeuvres you have completed\nthe most difficult of all, throwing the javelin while wearing metal corslets.\"*\n\n*\"You did everything in order. You filled the plain with your exercises, you\nthrew your javelins with a certain degree of style, although you were\nusing rather short and stiff javelins; several of you hurled your lances\nwith equal skill. Just now you mounted your horses agilely and yesterday\nyou did it swiftly. If anything had been lacking in your performance I\nshould have noted it, if anything had been obviously bad I should have\nmentioned it, but throughout the entire manoeuvre you satisfied me\nuniformly. Catullinus my legate, distinguished man, shows equal concern\nfor all the units of which he is in command.*\"\n\n*It is difficult for cavalry attached to a cohort to win approval even on\ntheir own, and more difficult still for them not to incur criticism after a\nmanoeuvre by auxiliary cavalry; they cover a greater area of the plain,\nthere are more men throwing javelins, they wheel right in close\nformation, they perform the Cantabrian manoeuvre in close array, the\nbeauty of their horses and the splendour of their weapons are in keeping\nwith their pay. But, despite the heat, you avoided any boredom by\ndoing energetically what had to be done; in addition you fired stones\nfrom slings and fought with javelins; on every occasion you mounted speedily. The remarkable care taken by my legate Catullinus,\ndistinguished man, is obvious from the fact that he has men like you\nunder\"*\n\n**Note that the Romans also trained their legions with building excersizes, not to mention the near daily routine of having to build fortified camps when on the march**\n\n*\"that two years ago you\ncontributed a cohort and four men from each century to supplement\nyour colleagues in the third legion (III Cyrenaica or Gallica), that many\noutposts in different locations keep you far apart, that in my own\nmemory you have not only changed camp twice but also built new\nones. For these reasons I would have excused you if the legion had\nbeen dilatory in its manoeuvres for any length of time. But you have\nnot been dilatory in any respect at all\"*\n\n**Please let me know if you have more questions =)**\n\n\n\n", "Thanks for writing that. Hollywood always gives us certain impressions on how historical battles were conducted. so reading this was extremely interesting because i could make the comparisons" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Re_Militari" ], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/xh64d/can_anyone_describe_to_me_vividly_the_mayhem_that/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "em300ck" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Here's an update to where I am at,\n\nI've switched from closing doors to the assimilation-pluralism dichotomy debate, and have chosen the following literature to support it through three paradigm shifts.\n\n1st Paradigm\n\nBecoming American : an ethnic history / Thomas J. Archdeacon. New York: Free Press ; London : Collier Macmillan, [1983]\n\nSincerity and Authenticity / Lionel Trilling. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, [1973, c1972]\n\n2nd Paradigm\n\nAssimilation, American style / Peter D. Salins. New York: Basic Books, [1997]\n\nBeyond white ethnicity: developing a sociological understanding of Native American identity and reclamation / Kathleen J. Fitzgerald. Lanham: Lexington Books, [2007]\n\n3rd Paradigm\n\nDisciplinary Spaces : Spatial Control, Forced Assimilation and Narratives of Progress since the 19th Century / Sophie Wagenhofer, Andrea Fischer-Tahir. Bielefeld : transcript-Verlag, [2017]\n\nBlood will tell: Native Americans and asimilation policy / Katherine Ellinghaus. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press, [2017]\n\nThe first paradigm indicates a approach for inclusion for assimilation, whilst the second paradigm gives the reasoning that they combine there culture and the naturalization process. The third revisits these, but also shows that these things were implemented through the altering of behavior and dis-empowering of these individuals to allow for assimilation." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbkqaln" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "/r/AskAnthropology is a better place to ask \"What was daily life like during X time and Y place?\" questions." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cu5q6ol", "cu5rfef" ], "score": [ 10, 39 ], "text": [ "The only Axis nation I know of that felt the effects of the Garand and decided to implement a version like it were the Japanese. They created a ten round rifle called the \"Type 4\". It was essentially a carbon copy but with a magazine inserted underneath, rather than a \"clip\" inserted at the top.\n\n\nThe Germans had not experienced the M1 in combat until 1941/2, but after France Hitler understood the practical benefits a semi-automatic rifle could have in infantry units. He ordered the production of the \"Gewehr 41\". This was a complete failure, regularly breaking due to an overly complex design. This was manufactured with a bolt action and semi-automatic system in place, so it could be used as both if one failed. This was also capable of being loaded with a magazine underneath or with two Karabiner 98K \"stripper clips\" directly into the top. Being a complete failure, it was later redesigned as the \"Gewehr 43\", a much better weapon.\n\n\nSo, although they originally designed a semi-automatic weapon before American's fought them, the German's definitely realized the implications of having a rapid fire rifle in combat.", "No other nation equipped their armies with semi-automatic rifles to the extent of the Americans - this was due to a multitude of reasons.\n\nThere's a fundamental difference in European and American infantry rifle squad tactics during ww2. \n\nThe Americans believed the rifle squad could provide its own covering fire with semi-automatic rifles and neglected machineguns, light, medium and heavy. A German 1943 Grenadier battalion had 44 MGs (MG 34 and/or MG 42) while a US infantry battalion had 8 (35 if you count the BARs, but without interchangable barrels, they were not capable of sustained fire). All the US machine guns were mounted on tripods, making them heavy and hard to move with the infantry. Generally, I feel the sentiment both by historians and the US army post-war was that this doctrine was wrong - a rifle squad was generally unable to provide its own coverering or supressing fire, and the US army introduced MGs on the squad level.\n\nThe US did introduce the M1919A6 as a belt-fed bipod mounted squad MG for its paratroopers, but not for the general infantry. Immediately after the war, the they started to develop a squad MG and introduced it in the belt-fed M60 in 1957.\n\nAs you can see, the Germans focused on the belt-fed MG and the sustained fire it could provide. The British focused on heavy watercooled HMGs (Vickers) and light magazine-fed LMGs (Bren). They used their heavy MGs with advanced tactics developed during the latter part of ww1, setting them up to fire indirectly and cover areas with fire to deny them to the enemy (they could not move in the bullet-riddled area) or keep enemy soldiers down while their own soldiers advanced.\n\nThat said, while the Germans were impressed with the quality and performance of the M1 Garand, it did not fit into their own unit tactics - they did supply sharpshooters with their own semi-automatic Gewehre 43 rifles but did not aim to supply the general infantryman with a semi-automatic rifle. Instead they, from experience saying the combat distance of infantry was almost always below 300 meters, they attempted to merge the SMG and the rifle into the assault rifle - their MP 43/StG 44. \n\nOnce the Germans encountered large amounts of US troops equipped with semi-automatic rifles, they had already focused on the heavy general purpose MG (MG 34/MG 42) and SMGs and later merged the rifle and the SMG into the assault rifle.\n\nThe full power semi-automatic rifle as a general armament for all riflemen remained a US curiosity, even after the war with the US M14.\n\nThe British focused on Bren LMGs (up to two per squad) and SMGs ot increase the firepower of their squad. After the war, they eventually replaced the rifles and the SMGs with the L1A1 assault rifle in 1957.\n\nThe Germans focused in general purpose MGs (MG 34 and MG 42) and SMGs and then merged SMGs and rifles into the MP 43/StG 44.\n\nThe Soviets focused on SMGs, creating an entire company in each rifle regiment equipped with only SMGs and LMGs. They also used a lot of LMGs (DP-28). After the war, they went the same way the Germans had, merging the SMG and the rifle into the assault rifle, in their case the AK-47.\n\nAs you can see, while other powers might have been impressed by the M1 Garand, it did not fit into their infantry tactics and doctrine, and viewed over the world and historically, it was a dead end only used in the US.\n\nNomenclature:\n\nSMG = Sub-machine gun.\n\nMG = Machine gun.\n\nLMG = Light machine gun (most often magazine fed).\n\nGPMG = General purpose machine gun (on bipod, belt-fed).\n\nHMG = Heavy machine gun (on tripod, most often belt-fed)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ezpe8mb", "ezpm6zu" ], "score": [ 20, 8 ], "text": [ "There were three main groups of non-Christians who partook of 18th century American society: enslaved Africans (of whose religious practices I know very little), Native Americans, and Jews. Native Americans typically received Christian baptisms as a prerequisite to joining colonial societies after choosing (or not choosing) to opt out of a Native-controlled setting. The best examples of this are the \"praying towns\" in 17th and 18th century New England and the *réserves* along the St. Lawrence River in New France. They still, of course, faced racial discrimination, but the religious discrimination these Natives face typically boiled down to doubting the sincerity of their conversions (less of a problem in some places than others).\n\nJewish people experienced discrimination across the entire continent. New France and Louisiana banned Jewish migration outright. Religious toleration in general was usually qualified with a clause saying something to the effect of \"*except Jews and Catholics*\" in British colonies. There are many, many episodes of Jewish discrimination including banning synagogues or just general anti-Semitism, but New Netherland (later New York) has an interesting history in that many of these legal barriers were *stricken down.*\n\nThe Dutch founded New Netherland as a trade outpost for procuring furs from the Iroquois in exchange for guns and manufactured goods. But even though Dutch Republic allowed Jewish residency and commerce in the Netherlands, New Netherland was envisioned as an entirely-Dutch enterprise. That meant Dutch migrants and only Dutch Protestantism. The governors were appointed with a mandate to preserve this Dutch-ness.\n\nBut Jews were involved in Dutch colonialism outside of New Netherland. They were essential to Dutch claims to Brazil, as they had established a Dutch-jewish outpost with which to compete with the Portuguese for control of the region. The Dutch lost in 1652, rendering the Dutch Jews homeless and vulnerable. They began relocating to New Netherland in 1655 to a mixed reception.\n\nDirector-General Peter Stuyvesant and Domine Johannes Megapolensis protested angrily about this influx of Jews. They had already been forced to compromise their vision for a Dutch-only colony by allowing English Protestants and Swedes to settle in order to bolster the colony's very low population. They had tried to prevent thee migrations or even expel them, but their Dutch superiors ordered Stuyvesant to allow them to stay, citing Dutch principles of tolerance and a need for a larger population.\n\nThe Dutch lords responded in 1655 that any attempt to ban Jewish migration would be \"unreasonable and unfair\" due to their vulnerability following their forced migration from Brazil. They also cited how important Jewish investments were among the capital of Dutch West India Company. So Jews were allowed to stay, but still faced legal discrimination. As in the Netherlands, they were not allowed to operate open-to-the-public stores, though they could still make sales in an unofficial capacity as private salesmen. Neither were they allowed to open synagogues under Stuyvesant's tenure, which lasted until England conquered the colony in 1664. They were, however, specifically allowed to trade with the Natives at Fort Orange. \n\nThese barriers weakened over time. By 1657 Dutch Jews were operating open-front stores and were allowed to continue despite grumblings from Stuyvesant and Dutch pastors. Stuyvesant even capitulated in allowing the Dutch Jews citizenship in 1658, which gave them commercial freedom on par with a Dutch Protestant. The prohibition on open practice of Judaism via synagogues remained, but Jews were allowed to practice in private ceremonies within private homes.\n\nEdit: I can't believe I forgot to mention enslaved African as non-Christians. I don't really know enough of African religious practices in North America to comment on them, unfortunately. I changed the beginning so I don't implicitly exclude enslaved Africans.\n\nSources:\n\nJames Axtell - *The Invasion Within*\n\nGeorge Procter-Smith - *Religion and Trade in New Netherland*", "I'll see if I can get back to this later to expand on it, but in the meantime, in a [past answer here](_URL_1_) I briefly discussed this in terms of how Jews were treated in British colonies (in addition to what u/DarthNetflix wrote about New Netherlands and French colonies)-\n\n > Bear in mind- being in the British colonies didn't necessarily mean escaping religious persecution, depending on how one defines the term. It could mean taking it on. That first Jewish community in New York technically didn't have the legal right to worship in public until about 1700 (long after the right had been granted in England), and it was implicit that they were tolerated for as long as they kept their heads to the ground. (That first synagogue established at that time, Shearith Israel, still exists today.) Until the United States were established (and even, to an extent, after that), each colony had its own policy on acceptance of the Jews, from Rhode Island (which was entirely tolerant) to Maryland (where doubting the Trinity was a capital crime on the third offense). Even in places where Jews had the right to worship, though, they didn't necessarily have equal rights under the law- for periods of time in New York and Jamaica, Jews could not vote, for example. Some colonies retained test acts- whereby only men who affirmed faith in Jesus could attain public office- until long after they'd become states.\n\nJews also came to Spanish-ruled American colonies from Spain in order to escape persecution, and were actually successful for a while, until the Inquisition was brought across the Atlantic- for more about this, see [my past answer here](_URL_0_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/aqihgn/crypto_jews_in_northern_mexiconuevo_leon_coahuila/egha94n?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/c2386a/many_early_european_settlers_who_came_to_the/eriadb1?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dh9f1ij", "dha1ng8" ], "score": [ 42, 13 ], "text": [ " > The British lost about 1/10th of that, and half of those (5000) because the Luftwaffe sank one of the ships they were fleeing in\n\nThe British Expeditionary Force (BEF) lost much closer to 50-60 thousand men killed, missing or captured during the Battle for France, which was kicked off by a Brilliant deception by the German High Command and tactics that allowed the German armies to not only separate the allies, but also trap the BEF in a pocket away from help ([Forgotten soldiers](_URL_1_) gives the story of one of the German Sergeants who led one of the attacks).\n\nThe decision to withdraw the BEF was made when it was certain that their position was untenable and the British ran the very real risk of losing their entire army (men and material), and even then, the withdrawal from Dunkirk resulted in the BEF losing nearly all of their equipment, such as heavy guns and lorries etc. \n\n > British propaganda then blamed German victories on the French and Belgian lacking fighting spirit\n\nI haven't heard that, but I am not as well read on this topic as others. The Allies were defeated by combination of Allied Complacency, excellent German strategy (and tactics) as well as a bold new approach to fighting (Blitzkrieg).\n\n > Having Hollywood now making films to try and make the British look good and their unspeakable betrayal at Dunkirk heroic is just further bullshit added to insult to the injury. \n\nThe British withdrawal from Dunkirk could be considered a victory, or sorts... Assuming that you don't account for the loss of the equipment, the half a dozen destroyers etc. Dunkirk should be remembered for the \"Irregular Navy\" of civilian boats that made the withdrawal possible.\n\n > Oh and by the way, when the French leadership asked the USA to enter the war, they were told to fuck off\n\nThe US was not interested in fighting a way in Europe. In fact, the US had an isolationist policy which meant that the US was only looking after US interests, and lead (I believe) to the attacks on Pearl Harbour in December 1941. -Until that point, the US had rebuffed everyone's attempts to get them involved in the war in Europe.\n\n > The USA would not enter that war until they were themselves attacked years later\n\nI wouldn't say that 18 months is \"years\" personally...\n\n > US history books are of course chock full of references to French (who declared war on Hitler) appeasement of Hitler\n\nThe appeasement policy was an approach taken by most of Europe, including the UK, the French and the Belgians in order to prevent war breaking out in Europe. \n\nI recommend reading some of these books:\n\n* [Blitzkrieg: From the Rise of Hitler to the Fall of Dunkirk](_URL_2_)\n\n* [Dunkirk: From Disaster to Deliverance - Testimonies of the Last Survivors](_URL_5_)\n\n* [The Road to Dunkirk: The British Expeditionary Force and the Battle of the Ypres-Comines Canal, 1940](_URL_4_)\n\n* [Dunkirk: Retreat to Victory](_URL_0_)\n\n* [The Miracle of Dunkirk](_URL_3_)\n\nHope this helps.", "When Germany invaded France their armoured forces punched through the Ardennes region, reaching the Channel coast near Abbeville on the 20th May after only ten days and encircling the Allied 1st Army Group that included the British Expeditionary Force (BEF). Allied forces were in disarray; Gamelin, the French Supreme Commander, had just been replaced by Weygand and the British War Cabinet ordered Gort, commander of the BEF, to attack to the south-west, but heavily engaged against German Army Group B (the anvil to the hammer of Army Group A) this was impossible.\n\nWeygand convened a conference in Ypres on 21st May to co-ordinate with French, Belgian and British forces and plan a counter-attack to break through the encirclement. Billotte, commander of the 1st Army Group, was late and mortally injured in a car crash after returning to his headquarters; Gort could not be reached until after Weygand left Ypres and they never spoke. The plan was for an attack to be launched on 26th May, 1st Army Group attacking south-west and a newly formed French army pushing north-east, but was hopeless from the start, requiring repositioning and co-ordination between disorganised and weakened French, Belgian and British forces. Churchill, unaware of the numerous difficulties, was enthusiastic. Gort was completely unconvinced, and with the situation deteriorating ordered a withdrawal of the BEF towards the Channel ports on 23rd May to secure his line, disobeying Weygard's orders without referring to London who would not have countenanced the action. Weygand used this as a pretext to cancel the attack, casting Gort as scapegoat for the failure. At that point the BEF had no option but to retreat and attempt to evacuate, with Dunkirk the only option after the fall of Boulogne with Calais under siege.\n\nThere is, therefore, a nub of truth in Churchill's assurances of continued support not being reflected by Gort's (independent) actions, but the original post is appallingly skewed. *The Battle for France and Flanders: Sixty Years On* is a collection of essays with three on the History and Historiography of the Battle from the French, German and British views that are helpful for understanding how the events are presented; the \"Miracle of Dunkirk\" has been mythologised by many in Britain, glossing over the defeat, whereas a popular French view is of \"Perfidious Albion\" abandoning their allies as exemplified by the original post, neither terribly helpful or accurate." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.amazon.com/Dunkirk-Retreat-Victory-Julian-Thompson/dp/162872515X", "https://wordery.com/forgotten-soldiers-brian-moynahan-9781847243874?currency=AUD&gtrck=dGk5NzhPSkZTNy9OMllSWkdpRTF4OU1lenkvc0hPNmt5Qktab0h0WUFwS2FOS2NPaWNzUVR0U2JhYVVva2NWbmIyMjhEZ0JFQnRJb0oyUC9qMFZ2ZlE9PQ&gclid=CKzqgf_q3tMCFRObvQodlUoJwQ", "https://www.amazon.com/Blitzkrieg-Rise-Hitler-Fall-Dunkirk/dp/0007531192", "https://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Dunkirk-Library-Walter-Lord/dp/1433223775", "https://www.amazon.com/Road-Dunkirk-British-Expeditionary-Ypres-Comines/dp/1848327331", "https://www.amazon.com/Dunkirk-Disaster-Deliverance-Testimonies-Survivors/dp/178131294X" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cl3xmmn" ], "score": [ 34 ], "text": [ "Unfortunately I cannot answer your question directly. \n\nIn the West, very very few people read Greek and there was hardly any Greek for them to read, so any notion of Greek democracy they had came from Romans who generally thought Athenian democracy was wacky (as did most Greeks). They are used by Cicero and others as an example of the disadvantage of popular participation. The Romans viewed it as a danger leading to mob rule and violence.\n\nWhat I can address is the way Roman ideas of government influenced the Holy Roman Empire.\n\nWe don't usually think of the HRE as a democracy or a republic, but the Germans did. They elected their emperor for life at a diet of all the lords of Germany. They viewed this election as a popular election that gave the emperor a mandate from the people. This is in direct imitation of the *lex de imperio*, an acclimation from the people of Rome to give the emperor specific powers. We have a surviving example called the [Lex de Imperio Vespasiani](_URL_0_).\n\nSo wrapped up in this vote is a notion of popular sovereignty. The people then vote to give the emperor their powers. The Germans imitated this, except that their notion of \"people\" aka citizens was limited to the nobility. This can be seen in some of their language. The word usually translated as \"diet\" is *curia*, which has its root as a deliberative body of citizens. They also used the word *comitia*, a elective assembly in ancient Rome to describe deliberative groups in medieval Germany.\n\nIn the 12th century, Frederick Barbarossa marched on Rome because the Romans would not acknowledge his authority over them because they had not given him their powers by a formal *lex*. He responded by saying that the Roman people (German lords) had given him their authority by vote, and that the City was thus his *possessio*, a term used specifically for property under his full authority. This is detailed in Otto of Friesing's *Deeds of Frederic* 2.30. This argument rests not only of Roman traditions, but also on Biblical notions of empire, and Medieval notions of nobility. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://droitromain.upmf-grenoble.fr/Anglica/vespas_johnson.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7cq05m", "c7cq4ku", "c7cq7ax", "c7cq7q8", "c7cqjoi", "c7cqo1h", "c7cv7ez", "c7d1ee7" ], "score": [ 2, 67, 22, 9, 6, 9, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "I wouldn't say that about Portuguese colonies, both the US and Canada have more Natives than Brazil.", "I recommend Elliot's *Empires of the Atlantic World*. Essentially, and I speak more from my own experience in the Spanish American field, the populations of Mexico and the Andes were always larger than the North American Southeast and Northeast. Disease did destroy entire communities in the New World, but there were more people in the Spanish American regions so that the human landscape was not eliminated. This was the case in Hispañola, Venezuela, and the areas of Spanish Florida ( eastern coast of US to Chesapeake). \n\nFurthermore, the Spanish invaders found that by marrying Indian nobility, they could consolidate local power and acquire resources faster than if they went about life alone or with a European mate. Mestizos were fairly common and treated well in the first half century of conquest. If the elites could marry Indians, though, the lower classes could to. This created a class of people that did not correspond with the Spanish social ideal. Twinam's *Public Lives, Private Secrets* discusses how those undesirables were accepted or rejected by their families. Anyway, the British were less open to including natives within their settlements. It was a closed environment that made it difficult for the two worlds to interact in the same way the Spanish and Portuguese did. \n\nSlavery played a role in both worlds, but I would argue that it was more complicated in North America. If we talk about slavery and not encomiendas, church service, and labor taxes, the Spanish crown stopped the spread of Indian slavery, opting for African slaves from the Portuguese traders. They did continue to abuse them which clearly damaged the population, but they made sure Indians could not move to new areas without severe punishments. In North America, the English invaders and settlers engaged in Indian slavery for a much longer time that the Spanish. Alan Gallay edited a fantastic collection of articles on this called, appropriately, *Indian Slavery*. Slave raids in the British controlled areas were destructive, forcing the indigenous groups to move away from the Europeans. Since the British did not integrate Indian populations the way the Spanish did, those fleeing Indian groups merged, migrated, and repopulated less settled areas of North America. \n\n**TL:DR** - Populations in the Spanish American world were greater and could withstand European interaction more than less populated ones. Spanish America accepted levels of interaction between the European and indigenous communities that the English could not. ", "There's a number of reasons for the separate treatment of Native Americans between British North America and Colonial Latin America.\n\nFirstly, the approach toward colonization of Latin America by the Iberian powers in the early years was decidedly of resource extraction, as suggested by aNonSapient. This, however, proved disasterous to indigenous populations, as the introduction of epidemic disease coupled with the brutal *encomienda* system led to a massive depopulation. The reason indigenous peoples were not displaced on the Caribbean islands is because they were driven nearly to literal extinction. Several West Indian cultures were completely extirpated.\n\nSimilar results accompanied colonization in South and Central America, but the time it took the Iberians to institute a system of colonization in the much larger territories also allowed them time to recognize their unsustainable approach to resource extraction. Certainly this approach continued, but protections were placed on the endangered native population to prevent a repeat of the extermination of peoples on many Caribbean islands.\n\nThe British were also focused on resource extraction early on, but they were also focused on self-reliance. British colonies were expected to pay for themselves through the labor of slaves and whites nearly from the beginning, and slavery of native peoples proved ineffective.\n\nMore importantly, the British were dealing with a much, much smaller space of land. They really didn't expand beyond the thirteen main colonies until the 1750s, while the Iberians controlled virtually everything south of the modern US-Mexico border by that time. The British could consolidate and become self reliant in North America, while the Spanish were stretched thin across entire continents, requiring a reliance on Native labor and cooperation.\n\nThe religious aspect is an important one as well. There were many among the British who attempted to convert native peoples, and there are notable successes, but it was rarely national policy. The Portugese and Spanish, by contrast, were adamant about the conversion of native peoples. Wiping them out or displacing them would work directly against one of the main objectives and justifications for Irberian colonization.\n\n**TL;DR**: The Iberians needed native labor because they didn't have enough colonists to support the land on their own, and they needed them as converts. The British had much less land and were able to support themselves through slavery and white labor, and weren't as concerned with conversion.", "The English brought their wives. The Spanish didn't. Think about the implications of that.", "Can't speak for the Portuguese, or the English, but the Spanish wanted to extract wealth by inserting themselves into the previously existing power and labor structures. This required that they basically leave most of the native people alive, so that their source of labor continued to exist. In the case of the Inca, the Spanish 'encomienda' system was adapted so that each 'encomendero' was essentially given an 'allyu', or a portion of one, and allowed to extract labor from these people through the Incan 'mita' labor system, a type of corvee labor. This resulted in the continuation of native people, their culture, in a way that did not occur with the British. This isn't to say that Spanish conquest or rule was benevolent or beneficial to the native people, far from it, but the goals were just different, and led to a different outcome.", "A big factor in areas like the Andes and Mesoamerica is simple demographics; they had the largest and densest populations of indigenous people. Even the slow moving genocide that was colonization couldn't completely exterminate those millions of people.\n\n\n", "One other aspect that has been touched upon but not explained by other comments here is the nature of Spanish conquest and colonialism vs. British conquest and colonialism. The Spanish conceived of the conquest as an extension of the long process of reconquest which had been completed in 1492. This had several by-products. 1) Conquistadors were drawn to the process because in previous centuries service in Reconquest campaigns led to financial, social, and legal rewards from the Spanish crown. 2) The Reconquest provided models for later systems, the encomienda was an institution used in the Reconquest to reward individuals who expanded royal power into new areas. 3) Unlike colonization based on settlement and economic development, Spaniards who travelled to the Americas to conquer did not want to stay (ideally anyways) nor did they want to work as yeomen farmers/homesteaders. Conditioned by the reconquest they wanted to serve the king, expand his dominions, and petition for rewards (as well as get spoils of war).\n\nWhat does this all mean for Native Americans? Spaniards strictly speaking did not want the land in and of itself. They wanted to control people who could be coerced initially via slavery then after 1512 through the encomienda and then repartimiento. Because the survival of native labor was vital to the success of the colony efforts were made both by the crown and individual Spaniards to preserve the native population. This is not to say that they Spaniards were 'good' to natives just that the eradication or removal of native populations was not in the long term interests of Spanish residents or the colonial authorities. This helps explain why during the 16th c there were so many debates over how to treat the natives. Everyone clerics, bureaucrats, encomenderos, settlers, etc. had a slightly different view over how best to structure European control over native laborers. \n\nIt is also important to note that one reason that the Spanish were able to conquer the large native empires of the Americas was because they found allies among rival native groups. Without the help of Tlaxcala, Huejotzingo, and others the Aztec Empire probably would have defeated Cortes. The same is true for Pizarro and his conquest of the Inca. He stumbled upon a civil war between rival claimants to the Inca throne. Because numerous native communities aided Spanish conquests those communities and their leaders often received special privileges. \n\nFor a good overview of the conquest and native participation in it see these two books\n\nRestall's [Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquests](_URL_1_)\n\nMatthew and Oudijk's [Indian Conquistadors](_URL_0_)", "If I recall correctly, when the spannish arrived in the south there were still plenty of native americans but when the europeans arrived to the north, most of the population had been decimated by disease. Land that had been reported as densely populated was found to be deserted. (such as around the Mississippi river where the largest city had more people than London at its peak.) " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://books.google.com/books?id=RSPE2oaa8ZkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=indian+conquistadors&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rk3CUNTMCon29gSD3YDQDg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA", "http://books.google.com/books?id=2hMp9z_OsUMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=seven+myths+of+the+spanish+conquest&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JU3CUPPBNYyc8gS66YDACw&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cv9kg69" ], "score": [ 74 ], "text": [ "Our best ancient account of Alexander's conquests is Arrian's *Anabasis*, which talks about the reactions of Tyre and other local leaders to Alexander's advance. Arrian was a Greek historian and politician born in Roman Asia Minor in the late 1st century AD. He was a friend of Hadrian's and would go on to become a senator, provincial governor of Cappadocia, and later Archon of Athens in the 2nd century. His *Anabasis* draws form other previous ancient sources and deals mainly with Alexander's takeover of the Persian empire.\n\nAt the time that Alexander crossed the Hellespont in the spring of 334BCE, the Persian Emperor, Darius III, was thousands of miles away and it would be months before his army arrived in Asia Minor. Arrian describes how the local satraps (the Persian equivalent of a provincial governor) had differences of opinion over whether or not they should oppose Alexander directly by themselves:\n\n > The Persian generals were Arsames, Rheomithres, Petines, Niphates, and with them Spithridates, viceroy of Lydia and Ionia, and Arsites, governor of the Phrygia near the Hellespont. These had encamped near the city of Zeleia with the Persian cavalry and the Grecian mercenaries. When they were holding a council about the state of affairs, it was reported to them that Alexander had crossed (the Hellespont). **Memnon, the Rhodian, advised them not to risk a conflict with the Macedonians, since they were far superior to them in infantry, and Alexander was there in person**; whereas Darius was not with them. He advised them to advance and destroy the fodder, by trampling it down under their horses’ hoofs, to burn the crops of the country, and not even to spare the very cities. “For then Alexander,” said he, “will not be able to stay in the land from lack of provisions.”It is said that** in the Persian conference Arsites asserted that he would not allow a single house belonging to the people placed under his rule to be burned**, and that the other Persians agreed with Arsites, because they had a suspicion that Memnon was deliberately contriving to protract the war for the purpose of obtaining honour from the king. - Arrian, 1.12\n\nSo at least one satrap, Memnon of Rhodes, considered resistance to be futile at this stage. The rest, however, distrusted Memnon (ironically, since he seemed to be the most capable of them) and seemed confident in their strength and ability to deal with Alexander directly and swiftly. The result was the fateful battle of Granicus in May 334BCE, where the Persian satraps were soundly defeated by Alexander. \n\nAs for Tyre, it would seem that the city's leaders (who did not have the same sense of sense of loyalty to the Persian emperor as the satraps) initially agreed to cooperate with Alexander:\n\n > Thence he advanced towards Tyre;ambassadors from which city, dispatched by the commonwealth, met him on the march, announcing that **the Tyrians had decided to do whatever be might command**. He commended both the city and its ambassadors, and ordered them to return and tell the Tyrians that he wished to enter their city and offer sacrifice to Heracles. - Arrian, 2.15\n\nThe Tyrians, however, later decided to deny him access access to the city and the temple of Herakles within it:\n\n > To this Tyrian Heracles, Alexander said he wished to offer sacrifice. But when this message was brought to Tyre by the ambassadors, **the people passed a decree to obey any other command of Alexander, but not to admit into the city any Persian or Macedonian; thinking that under the existing circumstances, this was the most specious answer**, and that it would be the safest course for them to pursue in reference to the issue of the war, which was still uncertain. When the answer from Tyre was brought to Alexander, he sent the ambassadors back in a rage. - Arrian, 2.16\n\nThus, it seems the Tyrians were trying to maintain a pragmatic position of neutrality. They wanted to cooperate with Alexander just enough to keep themselves out of the way of his onslaught, but not too much in case the Persians re-took control of the neighborhood. The Tyrians had reason to think that they had at least some bargaining power. The island city was exceptionally defensible and had resisted several sieges in past centuries with varying degrees of success. In addition, while Alexander had previously defeated Darius himself at land at teh battle of Issus the previous year, Alexander's siege and naval power was relatively untested, and his own fleet had been disbanded after the siege of Miletus. Of course, the city's gambit proved to be ultimately foolish when Alexander successfully lay siege to with the help of the fleets of his eastern Mediterranean allies, by constructing a massive dam to the island.\n\nTyre was not the only city to misjudge their ability to resist Alexander. As he moved south into Egypt, at least the governor of one city thought he had a pretty good chance of resisting:\n\n > Alexander now resolved to make an expedition into Egypt. All the other parts of what was called Palestine Syria had already yielded to him; but a certain eunuch, named Batis, who was in possession of the city of Gaza, paid no heed to him; but procuring Arabian mercenaries, and having been long employed in laying up sufficient food for a long siege, **he resolved not to admit Alexander into the city, feeling confident that the place could never be taken by storm.** - Arrian, 2.25\n\nHe was not entirely foolish to think so. The city was well fortified and Alexander's engineers were not entirely convinced they could breach its walls. As he had done at Tyre, however, Alexander refused to be stopped and captured the city through the construction of a massive ramp:\n\n > The city of Gaza was large, and had been built upon a lofty mound, around which a strong wall had been carried... When Alexander arrived near the city, on the first day he encamped at the spot where the wall seemed to him most easy to assail, and ordered his military engines to be constructed. **But the engineers expressed the opinion that it was not possible to capture the wall by force, on account of the height of the mound.** However, the more impracticable it seemed to be, the more resolutely Alexander determined that it must be captured... he therefore resolved to construct a mound right round the city, so as to be able to bring his military engines up to the walls from the artificial mound which had been raised to the same level with them. - Arrian, chapter 2.25-26\n\nSo despite Alexander's great victories at open land battles, some well-fortified cities certainly seemed to think they had a chance at resisting. Although these were ultimately unsuccessful, Arrian's account emphasizes that Alexander was only able to overcome these cities with massive siege works and an unprecedented amount of ingenuity. So even though in hind sight we know nothing was able to successfully resist Alexander from the Hellespont to the Indus river, it wasn't too crazy for a few of these cities to try and hold out (even though some commanders, like Memnon, realized how impossible this would be from the beginning)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ceufntx" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Pre-Columbian population figures are a matter of considerable debate. New information is constantly being uncovered, and old colonial era documents once thought to be hyperbole are more often then not validated in the process. The numbers are always shifting (generally upwards), so pinning down specifics like the precise population densities is somewhat difficult. Pre-Columbian demographics are a moving target.\n\nWith that in mind, there are some generalities we can make. I can only speak about the eastern portion of the continent; I know there were relatively dense populations in the Pacific Northwest as well, but that's significantly outside my area and I'll leave it for someone else to hopefully address.\n\nCahokia famously sets the high water mark for population centers in the east. Located near modern-day St. Louis, Cahokia was once home to several thousand people at its peak in the early 13th Century. But whether \"several thousand\" means something as low as 5,000 or as high as 40,000 is debated; 20,000 seems to be an estimate most archaeologists can tolerate for the site. If the high end estimates are right, though, it would have been one of the largest cities in the world at the time. It also wasn't alone in the area. Cahokia likely served as the capital for a large polity, incorporating [several notable communities nearby](_URL_1_), as well as extending its influence far and wide over the eastern part of the continent, especially into the Southeast.\n\nLong after Cahokia went into decline, polities influenced by it dominated the American Southeast. Of those, Apalachee is one of the best known because it was encountered early and often in the century after Columbus. Apalachee was located [between the Ochlockonee River and the Aucilla River](_URL_0_) (the Aucilla is not labeled on that map, but it is the river that separates separates Jefferson County from Madison and Taylor Counties). It had too major towns, Anhayca and Ivitachuco, on its western and eastern borders respectively, and several smaller towns. In 1608, a Spanish priest named Martin Prieto visited Ivitachuco, where he was greeted by (according to his estimate) some 36,000 people, which he thought was the entire Apalachee population. This is one of those early reports that was once thought to be exaggerated but has since been validated. If anything, Prieto's estimate is under-reporting the population of Apalachee. He has come to help negotiate a peace between the Apalachee and the Timucua (themselves a very populace, but political fractured, people living in northern Florida east of the Suwanee River and in neighboring portions of southeast Georgia, with an estimated population of perhaps 200,000). Because of the priests diplomatic endeavors, a council of 70 prominent Apalachee political leaders had been summoned to Ivitachuco. This certainly would have drawn a crowd, but it was unlikely to have pulled the entire population of the region into the capital (Anhayca had been the dominant one of the pair, but over the 1500s, power shifted to Ivitachuco). This has caused the estimate to shift even higher, perhaps as much as 60,000, for the entire Apalachee territory, a relatively compact area no more than 40 miles across in any one direction. \n\nWith the Apalachee and the Timucua, among other groups, Florida was certainly a contender for most densely populated region in what has become the continental USA and Canada at the time of Contact, but I should warn you that there is significant selection bias here. Florida was close enough Spanish controlled areas in the Caribbean and Mexico to receive frequent early visitors, so we have a lot of documentary evidence along with archaeological evidence of life there before the epidemics began (which were one of the causes responsible for the particularly severe population decline in Florida - the slave trade being the other notable one). Beyond Florida, information gets sketchier. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://geology.com/state-map/maps/florida-rivers-map.gif", "http://www.alef.net/ALEFAncientPlaces/AmericaCahokia/CahokiaMap02.Gif" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d07h4mf", "d07rv41" ], "score": [ 13, 3 ], "text": [ "I am not sure if there were other organized parallel resistance cells within the German military during wartime, but at least for the most famous and successful one - which I will call the Stauffenberg-Tresckow group (the ones behind Operation Valkrie/July 20, and apart of the Schwarze Kappelle officer group) - it is known that the officers comprising the group were mostly conservative nationalist types who had initially supported Hitler and Nazism before turning against Hitler. As such, the reason why they went against Hitler was because they saw that he was leading them into destruction and a total reversal of all gains they had made, as well as many being against the genocide that was being carried out against Jews. But just because many (or all) were opposed to the systematic mass-killings of Jews didn't mean that they were against all Nazi racial policies. In fact, some of them wished to continue many of its racial policies if possible and were known self-confessed supporters of its racial objectives (including Stauffenberg himself). They also didn't really wish to give up all the land Germany had occupied during wartime, and agreed on demanding the allies to let them annex portions of Poland, if not all of it, into post-wartime/coup Germany, as well as all of Sudetenland and Austria. Hence, its clear that the main motive behind anti-Hitler motives amongst the resistance officers were driven by the wish to secure what Germany still had at the time and avert calamitous military disaster, foreign occupation and invasion, and a loss of their gains. As for assassinating Hitler, not all officers initially gave support for an assassination as they were mostly divided into two opinions on whether to assassinate him or to make him stand trail, but all agreed on his DEPOSITION, although there was a marked shift to the former opinion after the staggering casualty figures started coming in from the eastern front and the need for an immediate removal of power became apparent. This apparent urge to act culminated in the failed July 20 plot where they hoped and agreed to the need on assassinating the Fuhur (and Himmler). After the assassination, they hoped to smoothly trigger their takeover coup as per implementation of Operation Valkyrie wherein command of the Wehrmacht and executive powers were transferred to a senior military member of the Tresckow-Stauffenberg group, with the SS merging into the Wehrmacht (a still-independent SS was a potential obstacle to their coup, so their merging with the Wehrmacht would put them directly under the control of the resistance). The officers also planned to have the secretly-allied German military commander of France (a senior member of the Schwarze Kapelle officer group, the military resistance group the Tresckow-Stauffenberg stems from) immediately negotiate an armistice with the allies, ending the war. They had already planned and set aside all key German government offices for resistance members from both military and civilian circles, with a larger share going towards officers within the Tresckow-Stauffenberg/Schwarze Kapelle group. This planned government would be a continuity of the former Nazi one, keeping intact all state institutions for the most part whilst removing all Nazi elements, and will retain control over most - if not all - of the occupied German-inhabited territories of Austria, Sudetenland, and maybe Alsace and Lorraine. ", "Their plan was bound to fail. From a military point of view, Germany had lost the war already by July 1944. The Allies would have insisted on unconditional surrender, and the military leaders would have had to accept their terms. That would have given Germany a new \"Dagger in the Back\" legend: Hitler would have saved Germany from defeat, had his generals not assassinated him." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dlfuh9q" ], "score": [ 45 ], "text": [ "As with so much in the Middle Ages, the answer depends on when and where. Famously, for instance, there are the Oaths of Strasbourg vowed in 842 between the sons of Louis the Pious, Charles the Bald and Louis the German, in their war against their stepbrother Lothar. The oaths survive in Latin, Old High German, and a very early French (Gallo-Romance). Louis swore his oath before his brother’s army in French; Charles swore before his brother’s army in Old High German so that the troops, many of whom were probably bilingual anyway, would understand them. Their grandfather, Charlemagne, was multi-lingual according to his biographer Einhard:\n > He was not satisfied with command of his native language merely, but gave attention to the study of foreign ones, and in particular was such a master of Latin that he could speak it as well as his native tongue; but he could understand Greek better than he could speak it.\n\nBy comparison, in England by the 13th century, members of the upper classes were usually proficient in their mother tongue, English, and French (Anglo-Norman). Walter of Bibblesworth wrote a French vocabulary in the mid-1200s to instruct a noble lady in proper French, not basic French, “which everyone knows.” Many of them, men and women alike, would also know at least rudimentary Latin, the language of government documents. So they would be trilingual. Those who lived and worked along the Welsh Marches would also likely know some Welsh. This kind of bilingualism can’t be assumed for the lower classes. There is the case of a bishop preaching to a Welsh congregation who had to have a friar translate for him. I can’t document this—I’m sure others can—but I’ve always suspected people of whatever class living along language borders probably had some basic bilingualism, much as people along the US southwestern border know some Spanish. It’s worth noting that there was incredible linguistic diversity all over Europe. In the Middle Ages “French” and “Italian” as we know them were only regional dialects centered around Paris and Florence respectively. Even in 19th-century France, people living just a few miles from each other might have a hard time understanding the neighboring dialect, as Graham Robb’s wonderful *The Discovery of France: A Historical Geography* notes.\n\nThat brings us to the clergy. Those with at least some education would be proficient in their mother tongue wherever they lived and in Latin, the language of learning. This is especially true of those men who had some university education where all the classes were taught in Latin. Still, at the University of Paris, for instance, students were divided into “nations” (French, Normans, Picards, English, Germans) according to the vernacular they spoke when not in class. Universities at Oxford, in Italy, Prague and elsewhere made their own national divisions. When the upper clergy assembled at international councils and synods, Latin would be their *lingua franca*, as it remained for centuries later in educated circles. \n\nThere was another true *lingua franca* in use around the Mediterranean among merchants. Sometimes called *Sabir*, it was a pidgin grab-bag with elements from several Romance languages, heavy on Italian and French.\n\nEDIT: One more thought. In cosmopolitan places like Sicily or parts of Spain where several cultures came together, there are interesting examples of trilingualism, most famously [the tombstone in Latin, Greek, and Arabic](_URL_0_) that the priest Grisandus put on his parents' grave in the late 12th century or the [trilingual psalter](_URL_1_) compiled for King Roger (1130-54) of Sicily for use in a chapel served by both Greek and Latin rite priests with texts in Greek, Latin, and Arabic.\n\nSources: For English bilingualism I’m using Michael Clanchy’s classic *From Memory to Written Record*. I’m sure others among Ask Historians can provide much more detail than I offer here.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.mondes-normands.caen.fr/angleterre/archeo/Italie/sculpture/149.htm", "http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/tripsalter.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjc4fmt" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "This is the third question of this caliber which I've had to remove today. We do not allow broad or unspecific questions in this subreddit. Every question has to ask about a specific time period or in your case, a specific historical figure." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d05nd4j" ], "score": [ 98 ], "text": [ "The V2 rockets were a strategical weapon, not a tactical one. Accuracy was horrible and they barely managed to hit a target as close and as large as Greater London.\n\n[BBC has a map on the rocket hits on London](_URL_0_). Note how spread out these are.\n\nAnother sign on how inaccurate these rockets were are that one crashed - in Sweden - during testing in June 1944. Swedish authorites gathered the junk and sold it to Britain in return for mobile air search radar stations (that were dated by British standards, but since Sweden had no air search radar was top notch for Sweden).\n\nBy the time the V2s were ready, in September 1944, Finland was leaving the war, Romania had been over-run and the Soviet were just outside Warsaw.\n\n[See this map for the frontline on the 19th of August and how Romania was over-run](_URL_1_).\n\nThe only time the Germans tried to use the V2 as a tactical weapon was against the Ludendorff Bridge captured by American forces at Remagen. On the 11th of March 1945 they fired 11 V2 rockets against the brigde. The closest one landed about 500 meters away, while the furthest missed by 64km.\n\nThe range of the V2 rocket was only about 320km , which means that by the end of September 1944, there's nothing in the Soviet Union they can hit - the front is further away from Soviet territory - perhaps with the exception of the Kurland pocket, but sending your top technological devices into a surrounded pocket might not be a good idea. And they would be unable to hit anything vital anyway." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/1600_900/images/live/p0/26/bv/p026bvdd.jpg", "http://www.privateletters.net/MAPS/ETO/SovietOffensives%2819August-31December1944%29.png" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cd7h9m3" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I do not have the books in front of me, but I seem to remember that Parker's study of Phillip II and his work on the military suggested that the Army of Flanders spent a surprising amount of Spanish silver and gold in the Netherlands. The Dutch accepted Spanish coin in exchange for the food and supplies the Army of Flanders required to continue fighting and keeping the Dutch rebels in check. Since this kept the army at fairly consistent levels under Phillip and his son, the Dutch became more powerful economically and allowed them to lay the groundwork for the VOC and other enterprises. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cyyancs" ], "score": [ 27 ], "text": [ "* ['Colossal Cracks'] (_URL_1_), thesis by Stephen A. Hart\n* [Monty's Legions] (_URL_2_), thesis by C. J. Forrester\n* [*British Armour in Normandy*] (_URL_3_), by Jonathan Buckley\n* [*Montgomery's Scientists*] (_URL_0_), edited by Terry Copp\n* *Fields of Fire: The Canadians in Normandy*, by Terry Copp\n* *Raising Churchill's Army*, by David French\n* *Firepower: The British Army and Theories of War, 1900-1945*, by Shelford Bidwell and Dominick Graham\n\n^ I'd recommend checking out these sources, which are excellent for the information they give on the British (and Canadian) Armies in WWII. \n\n > early years of the war, the British Army seemed to lurch from one failure to another, at least when fighting German forces\n\nCertainly that was the case on the surface for the British Army, more often than not resulting from bad strategy. In the case of France, 1940, Gamelin's decision to send the French strategic reserve (7th Army) into the Netherlands denuded the Allies of a force capable of parrying the German advance through the Ardennes. In the case of Greece, British and Greek forces were overwhelmed and out manoeuvered by German, Italian and Bulgarian forces; Crete was a more close run thing, with the British withdrawing from Maleme Airfield unaware of the sorry state of the Germans, allowing their enemies to fly in reinforcement and tip the scales. \n\nPoor strategy, command and control, as well as coordination of combined arms, plagued the British early on in the desert. In 1941, O'Connor's forces outran their supply lines and suffered losses in a number of Italian rear-guard actions, well before Rommel's arrival, at which point weak Australian, Indian and British armoured forces were left strung out when Rommel attacked, larger forces being tied up by Greece and Eastern Africa. While Auchinleck's command somewhat revived British fortunes, concentration of fire and forces, as well as cooperation between infantry, artillery, armour and air support, still left much to be desired. \n\n > How did the quality of British training, leadership and equipment compare to that of their axis adversaries?\n\nUnder Montgomery's command, the British Army's methods greatly improved, with an emphasis on careful preparation and accumulation of supplies, munitions, and ground forces, prior to offensive operations, a return to the methodical approach which characterized Gen. Plumer's Bite-and-Hold style set-piece attacks, which the BEF had utilized successfully in the later years of WWI on the Western Front. Utilizing this operational method (known by Monty as \"Colossal Cracks\"), the British 8th Army enjoyed success at Alam el Halfa, Second El Alamein, and the Mareth Line.\n\nBy the time of the Italian Campaign, the British forces had improved greatly; as Patrick Rose demonstrates in his examination of Anglo-American command culture in Italy, 1943-44, *Allies at War* (Journal of Strategic Studies), the British 8th Army was implementing 'mission command' based on it's own doctrine, \"the man on the spot\" which predated WWI, by at least 1944. Despite bloody fighting at Cassino and around the Liri Valley, 8th army would go on to achieve great success in operations such as *Grapeshot*, under Richard McCreery's command, from late 1944 in 1945. \n\nWhile leadership was something of a weak area initially, British Second Army which fought in Northwestern Europe produced or included a number of skilled, able general officers, including 'Pip' Roberts (11th Armoured), Percy Hobart (79th Armoured \"The Funnies\"), Richard O'Connor (VIII Corps), Brian Horrocks (XXX Corps), and Miles Dempsey (GOC, 2nd Army). Although Montgomery tended to keep a tight 'grip' on operations, owing both to the shallow depth of British attacks, and his concern for the manpower shortage that was rearing it's ugly head in 1944-45, there was opportunity for subordinates to demonstrate initiative, notably Roberts and O'Connor in Operation *Bluecoat*, and Roberts and the 11th Armoured's capture of Antwerp. \n\nBritish artillery in Northwestern Europe was crushingly superior to the German's, although it did not become truly devastating until late 1944, based off Operational Research demonstrating the inaccuracy and mixed results of indirect fire artillery bombardments in Normandy. The 17 pounder was an excellent anti-tank gun, even more so mounted on the Sherman and the M10. The Churchill's armour by the end of 1944 was stronger than a Tiger I's, while the Sherman and Cromwell were fast, reliable tanks, although their comparatively lighter armour suffered in the close-in fighting of Normandy, against German heavy tanks (Tiger I, arguably the Panther) and anti-tank guns. \n\nWhile their performance was by no means stellar, and adjustments had to be made to the needs of new campaigns in 1943 (Italy) and 1944 (Northwestern Europe), the British Army of 1945 was more than a match for it's German foe. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://lmharchive.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/The-Full-Monty2.pdf", "https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/2927568/283396.pdf", "http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/1753/1/C.J.Forrester_PhD_History_Montgomery_and_his_Legions.pdf", "http://ir.nmu.org.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/144243/b6a70fba3f368e2a78118e982027a5d1.pdf?sequence=1" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d6ru5qk" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The British Army of the 18th and 19th centuries theoretically operated on a system of \"platoon firing\", outlined in Sir Henry Dundas' *Principles of Military Movement*: the 1000-man battalion was split into ten units of 100 men each known as companies or platoons (the platoon was theoretically the administrative unit while the company was the tactical one; in practice both terms were used interchangeably), which when the battalion was deployed in line, would be deployed in three ranks, the first two firing, and the third to provide solidity to the whole line if it came to a melee, provide reserves, and pass reloaded muskets forward. The battalion would \"fire by platoons\", with each company (or two companies together, known as a grand division) firing individually, the aim being to create a continuous barrage while at least a quarter of the battalion's companies still had loaded muskets should something unexpected happen.\n\nIn practice, this would last a couple of volleys before the noise, the smoke and the fear led to firing degenerating into men loading and firing their muskets as fast as they could manage. If two battalion lines were caught in this, it would inevitably lead to a mounting trickle of casualties on both sides as they blazed away at each other until one side summoned the courage to launch a bayonet charge and sweep the enemy away. At Waterloo, two battalions of the Middle Guard – the 1er/3e Chasseurs and the 4e Grenadiers – successfully formed into line while facing Maitland's Guards Brigade of two battalions, the 2/1st and 3/1st Foot Guards. A long exchange of musket volleys followed, causing heavy casualties on both sides: From a starting strength of around 1,080 men on June 18th, Maitland's two battalions recorded 492 casualties, or 45% losses.\n\nSimilar experiences during the American Revolution had prompted a rethink in British infantry tactics. During the Peninsular War, battalions tended to dispense with the third rank entirely in favour of including it in the first and second ranks, thus increasing the number of muskets available to their battalion by 30%. Furthermore, it was accepted that the entire battalion firing at once to create a massive explosion of fire at close range, followed by a bayonet charge, was more effective in driving the enemy away and reducing casualties on your own side rather than getting into long musket duels. It was that coupled with the reverse slope defence that gave French columns so much grief in Spain and Portugal.\n\nSources:\n\nPhilip Haythornthwaite, *British Napoleonic Infantry Tactics, 1792-1815*\n\nPaddy Griffith, *French Napoleonic Infantry Tactics, 1792-1815*\n\nPaul K. Davis, *Masters of the Battlefield: Great Commanders from the Classical Age to the Napoleonic Era*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cf89s35" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "The term \"The Dark Ages\" was first used by Caesar Baronius. He was an Italian Cardinal and Catholic church historian.\n\nIt was in his twelve volume history \"Annales Ecclesiastici\" 1588-1607, that he used the term \"The Dark Age\" (\"Saeculum Obscurum\" in the Latin in which he was writing) to refer to the period between the end of the Carolingian Empire in 888 and the Gregorian Reforms in 1046.\n\nSource: _URL_0_\n\n\n\"Dark Ages\" can mean two things. First, that the times referred to are not illuminated for us by written records. Second, that the times themselves were \"dark\" (violent, uneducated, impoverished) for the people living in them. Baronius probably meant both for the period which he labeled.\n\nAfter Baronius, the term was used by others, first to refer to the entire Medieval Period, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to the rise of the Italian Renaissance (or roughly the 6th century to the 14th).\n\nLater, historians objected that the High Middle Ages (era of cathedral building, troubadours, expanding cities, growing trade, expanding populations) were not so dark, and in the 20th century, the term began to be used mostly to describe the 6th through 10th centuries. (Back towards Baronius' original timeframe.)\n\nLater still, historians began to object that these centuries were not so \"dark\" everywhere. The Eastern Roman Empire was still thriving for example, and the term has fallen into disfavor and become somewhat politically incorrect (among responders on this sub-reddit for example).\n\nThere are parts of Medieval Europe where it is still a very good descriptive term, however. One of these is British history (which, of course is one of the most important parts of Medieval history for English and American historians). British history from the 5th century through the 10th century was pretty \"Dark\" in both senses of the word.\n\nWe have very little information, and very few sources about what really happened in Britain (whether England, Scotland or Wales). In England, Roman civilization did seem to collapse. Cities were depopulated. Roman buildings decayed. Christianity was lost. Literacy decreased severely.\n\nQuite a lot happened that we wish we knew more about. How did both Brythonic and the Pictish language disappear in Scotland to be replaced by Anglo Saxon derived Scots and Gaelic? How did the Angles and the Saxons come to dominate England so completely and rapidly? What caused the collapse of Romano/Celtic Britain?\n\nIt's all pretty dark. While I have some sympathy for Medievalists objections to the over use of the term \"The Dark Ages\", its a dramatic and descriptive term when applied to British history.\n\nWhile there probably was some technological progress (in a very few areas) in Britain during this period, there was not much. In fact, there was a general technological backsliding, and technologies which had been used in Roman Britain (building in stone, making good roads, building cities) fell out of use.\n\nWhen applied to Britain it is not a misconception that there was very little technological progress during the \"Dark Ages\"." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cbv00k7", "cbv08pz", "cbv2qy5" ], "score": [ 34, 288, 22 ], "text": [ "The german poet [Walther von der Vogelweide](_URL_2_) wrote a song called \"Palästinalied\" (\"song about palestine\" in english) about the crusades which can be seen as a very early piece of propaganda. It acknowledges that while all major (abrahamic) religions have claims on Jerusalem, only christianity's is legitimate. [Here is a translation of the text into modern german](_URL_1_). [A very beautiful modern rendition of the song](_URL_0_) has been done by the band \"Qntal\".", "There was a huge influence on the development and introduction of new musical instruments. I'll give a few examples, and hopefully others knowledgeable in this area can expand on my info:\n\n* The modern tympani are derived from the Arabic or Persian naqqara (aka naker), which scholars speculate came to Europe with returning Crusaders. (If you do any further reading on this, note that \"tympanum\" are cited in earlier sources as well, but that the Latin word at the time simply meant \"drum\", not specifically a bowl-shaped pitched drum like it does today).\n* The shawm, a double-reed instrument, is thought to be the precursor of the oboe and possibly the bassoon (although its sound is quite different from either of them). It appeared in Europe around the 12th century, and is thought to have spread through its use in the Arabic naubat, a military band employing shawms and drums. Similar instruments appear throughout the world, often in areas along trade routes or previously subject to Arabic control, and are known by a variety of names throughout Europe, the Middle East, China, and India: zurna, suona, al'gaita, shehnai, chalemie, and schalmei, just to name a few.\n\nA few other instruments are known to have come into Europe through muslim influence, but it's not always clear whether they arrived through Spain, by returning Crusaders, or by other means:\n\n* The oud likely came to Europe through Spain prior to the Crusades, and evolved into the Medieval lute and the modern guitar. Modern ouds look almost identical to lutes, although the performance techniques are quite different.\n* The rebec appeared in Europe before the Crusades (possibly 9th century?), and later evolved into most of the modern bowed string instruments of Western Europe, most notably the violin and viol families.\n\nSources:\n\n* Bachmann, Werner, ed. Musikgeschichte in Bildern. Vol. 3/2, Islam, by Henry George Farmer. Leipzig: VEB Deutscher Verlag für Musik, 1966.\n\n* Jairazbhoy, Nazir A. “The South Asian Double-Reed Aerophone Reconsidered.” Ethnomusicology 24/1 (Jan. 1980), 147-156.\n\n* Jenkins, Jean and Poul Rovsing Olsen. Music and Musical Instruments in the World of Islam. London: World of Islam Festival Publishing Company Ltd., 1976.\n\n* Remnant, Mary. Musical Instruments: An Illustrated History from Antiquity to the Present. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd., 1989.\n\n* Sadie, Stanley, ed. The New Grove Dictionary of Musical Instruments. London: Macmillan Press, 1984.\n", "The Knights Templar in Jerusalem produced some very moving chants, some of which have survived thanks to [a 12th century breviary manuscript from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre](_URL_4_). The Early Music group [Ensemble Organum](_URL_2_) did a recording of it; some samples are on Youtube - *[Crucem Sanctam Subiit](_URL_1_)*, *[Salve Regina](_URL_3_)*. \n\nThat's about the extent of my knowledge on this topic, but I'd like to know if there was a more widespread effect on vocal music. A lot of 12th century Christian chant seems to have an arabic flavor that I can't quite describe - [example](_URL_0_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INJ1A5R4nbU", "http://turba-delirantium.skyrocket.de/bibliotheca/walther_vogelweide_palaestinalied.htm", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_von_der_Vogelweide" ], [], [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IXH0JWq2oQ", "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDxgPdOo1TI", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_Organum", "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv_2x6JmuaE", "http://musicologicus.blogspot.com/2009/03/chant-of-templars.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dxarnq8" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "This is a very interesting topic. During the struggle of independence in the 19th most people focused mainly on Ancient Greece (most Europeans were crazy about Ancient Greece as well) and some Greek scholars also demonstrated a negative view of Byzantines, affected by the general impression of west historians at this time. Yet, this changed some time in late 19th century officially when the most important Greek historian of his time (Paparigopoulos) proposed the scheme of continuity of Ancient-Byzantine-Modern Greeks. The role of the Orthodox Church was also important towards this. But, the mania for everything classic was still present for decades, e.g. archeologists were almost destroying in some cases the medieval and Byzantine layers to discover the classical antiquities. \n\nNowadays, between Greek people it is a matter of preference. Usually, people originating from modern Greece areas tend to prefer Ancient Greece and modern history (independence from the ottomans and formation of the country). On the contrary religious people or Greeks originating from Turkey (ancestors of the 1922 Greek refugees , about 20% of the population) have a tendency to love and prefer Byzantine history. In the last decades, Byzantinism becomes very popular you can see everywhere in Greece byzantine flags (the one of the double headed Persian monster :) and the original one, the red with the yellow cross and the four “B”). \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c731sqf" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Here's my short crack at responding to this question, if not answering it.\n\n**Problem with the metaphor.** \n\nI think it's usually best to avoid anthropomorphizing non-human entities. Your question is predicated on using a person as a metaphor for a government. But there doesn't seem, intrinsically, to be too much evidence suggesting that it's a particularly robust metaphor. So it's not clear to me that \"typical lifespan\" is a useful thing to ask about with regard to governments. \n\nThat said, it's almost certainly the case that you could usefully compare the recent histories of two countries to show that one is more stable than the other. For example, [this map](_URL_1_), comparing the tenure of world leaders, suggests a good deal about the countries with excessively long tenures. \n\n **Tricky history of such history**\n\nThe question calls to mind someone like [Toynbee](_URL_0_) whose theories of a nature rise and fall of civilizations are largely discredited, and before him, the Marxist and Hegelian visions of a world in which there was a specific end or aim. What's similar in those all is the predestiny of countries: something I think most of us are very uncomfortable \nwith.\n\n**Clarify your terms?**\n\nMaybe you could clarify your terms? There are specific models at work here: the U.S. system switches heads of state every 4 to 8 years (assuming no one dies); the British system switches according to the rules of their parliamentary elections. Even if you could analyze each and come to the conclusion that they are stable (which seems correct), you would likely be comparing apples and oranges if you simply compare the duration of a U.S. President and a U.K. Prime Minister. All the more so as systems diverge." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_J._Toynbee", "http://i.imgur.com/JN5HF.png" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ejm9076" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The concept of a 'unit' does not really exist in the modern sense for most of the Sengoku period. Each daimyo has multiple vassals, who when called upon to war, will bring a certain number of men - samurai, ashigaru (yari, teppo, depending on the vassal), mounted horsemen/cavalry, and so on. The number varied depending on the vassal's relationship with their daimyo as well as how wealthy they were - usually about 20 or so (this would include the logistical component of your army - people who carried rations/gear/etc) is usually what is seen, though it could be more or less depending on the above factors. The vassals themselves were responsible for recruiting, training, housing, and gearing up their men. The vassal also commands them - though there are of course grander tactics and strategy in play, ultimately the vassal is the one who issues orders to those he has brought with them. That being said, you still had troops reorganised into larger components, which you could argue is a 'unit' of some kind.\n\nAs for what types of soldiers you saw during the era - it is important to note that the 'Sengoku' period goes for about 130 years, and during the time you have notable changes in both strategy and pure equipment. Most notably, contact with the West introduced early matchlocks that many of those in the southwest of Japan used, while those in the northeast 'lagged' behind in technological development. In any case, you would find yourself most commmonly seeing spear groups (yari most common), archer groups (yumi most common), often gunners (teppo), as well as their mounted complements. There were cavalry mixed in with heavy infantry, and of course you can't forget those who were brought in with standards (flags) to communicate throughout the fight, as well as those involved with logistics.\n\nBook recommendations - I'd say *War in the Early Modern World* edited by Jeremy Black has a good overview chapter on warfare during this time, though it does go beyond the Sengoku era it would probably help inform exactly the tactical composition of armies during this time. Thomas Conlan's *Weapons and Fighting Techniques of the Samurai Warrior* does have (from memory) what would be called 'battle formations', though there are errors in there (still better than any of Turnbull's works though). More recently is Fusao Nishimata's *Army of Sengoku daimyo seen from modern military science*, but this is in Japanese and as far as I'm aware there exists no English translation. Similarly Nakanishi Ritta *History of Japanese Armor* has illustrations, though I do not have a physical copy of this myself, when I read through it previously it also looked very good at illustrating how armies could be decomposed." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dmklgru" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Firstly, \"honour\" is dependent on context. That means that there are always rules sensitive to time period, culture, social class, and other factors. Secondly, it's worth noting that various words for \"honour\" in various historical contexts are sometimes interchangeable with \"reputation\". One fights with honour in order to preserve or progress their reputation, in essence making some kind of point or argument about their reason for fighting. This distinguishes a duellist from a soldier; the former is often fighting as a means of social expression (or representing someone else's expression), whereas the latter is fighting as proxy for some kind of authority.\n\nOne point of interest comes from late medieval duelling practices. In ancient and medieval Germanic societies, there was a tradition of judicial combat for use when a court of law could not determine guilt or innocence of a defendant. Note that \"Germanic\" here predates a unified Germanic state, referring to cultures that spoke Germanic languages and/or inherited Germanic ways. As an example, modern Anglo culture might be considered \"Germanic\" as influenced by Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Norman settlement. \n\nHistorically, these judicial duels have diverse rules according to time, place, social class, and even gender. From the 15th century Holy Roman Empire, we have examples provided by [Hans Talhoffer](_URL_0_), a master-at-arms in matters of both individual duelling and warfare. His works detail duels with both conventional weapons and weapons expressly designed for the judicial context, such as an unwieldy hybrid between spear and tall shield. Such weapons exist particularly because of the lawful framework that existed around such duels; two private individuals could not agree to a duel and have it as a lawful affair, with duels requiring the approval of a lawful authority. Such approval was, I believe, unlikely to be granted outside the context of unclear guilt or innocence in a lawful trial. In Christian Europe, the winner of the duel would assumed to have God's favour; older, pagan traditions might have invoked the favour of deities as well, but you'll need someone informed on their specifics. \n\nWhile a modern fist fight in the street might lack an official, lawful framework, many instances of unarmed violence are of social intent rather than mortal intent. There are elements of honour and individual reputation in play that may not necessarily exist in warfare (but sometimes do). In essence, honour rules are about the validity of a fight's outcome in the eyes of observers or even just the combatants; warfare is more severely predicated upon \"objective\" power (but not always), which is why an ambush is more or less \"honourable\" (but not always). Note an exception; in ancient Roman martial culture, it was uncommon to use ambush tactics because they were not considered befitting a professional warrior, which at times cost the Romans against forces that observed different forms of honour (including the Germanic tribesfolk mentioned prior). \n\nI suppose one could summarise this by differentiating between \"law\" and \"need\". Even if there is no official law to frame individual combat, individuals might adhere to honour rules in order to safeguard the validity of the outcome. In the case of large scale conflict, the outcome takes strong precedence over its validity. As always, though, there are exceptions in both cases. '\n\nThis is just a tiny slice of duelling culture, though! Famously, as commonly expressed in modern entertainment media, Japan had a comparable duelling culture to historical Germanic societies, albeit less lawfully observed, especially during the Edo period following the Warring States period. And as is often the case, historical rules and laws will flow into our modern period if they are not arrested or replaced in some respect. So it might be said that our rules of social honour in single combat are the remnants of old Germanic laws dictating judicial engagement. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Hans_Talhoffer/W%C3%BCrttemberg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d4coa5z", "d4kimno" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "In general left republican Catalanism has looked favorably upon the Roma. In north Catalonia around Perpignan they are the only people who speak Catalan as a first language. \n\nIt seems likely that Orwell may have been confused as he didn't speak much Catalan (great book though , it's why I got my PhD in Catalan history!). I believe they were able to compete as a \"nation\" in the 1936 popular games but I should check that before I state it with certainty. \n\n I have come across Romany people serving in the international brigades which suggests they felt somewhat alienated by \"Spanishness\" but supported the cause of the republic. When you consider the alternative, it makes sense to do so! ", "I cannot speak for Catalan nationalism's view of the Roma, but Republican Spain offered little prospects for Roma people. Republican national identity, while more inclusive than previous incarnations of Spanish nationalism, was still heavily Castile-focused. Much Republican propaganda made political capital out of the idea that Franco's forces were \"foreign invaders\". The most famous example of this is in the Spanish Civil War song \"Viva la Quinta Brigada\", also known as \"Ay, Carmela!\"\n\nIn the song, the chorus goes : \"Luchamos contra los moros...!\": We fight against the Moors. They are also referred to as \"fuerzas invasoras\"... foreign invaders. \n\nObviously, the Moors and the Roma are not the same people, but it gives you a sense of the racialized representation of the Nationalists. While it is true that much of Franco's forces came from Morocco, it was an oversimplification to refer to all of his forces as \"moros\". Republicans were not immune from Spanish racism. \n\nSource: Sandie Holguin, \"Creating Spaniards: Culture and National Identity in Republican Spain\", Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2002.\n\nViva la quinta brigada, performed by Rolando Alarcon: _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2nrbiq/panel_ama_the_spanish_civil_war/" ]

[ [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fko5fYIBJFU" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cr9dwnu" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "A good case could be made for Victorian England. The repeal of the Corn Laws, the reduction in other tariffs (leading to complete free trade), the eradication of most indirect taxes and a minimal income tax all led to a tiny role for government. As Matthew Arnold wrote in _Culture and Anarchy_ (1869):\n\n > ...we are left with nothing but our system of checks, and our notion of its being the great right and happiness of an Englishman to do as far as possible what he likes, we are in danger of drifting towards anarchy. We have not the notion, so familiar on the Continent and to antiquity, of the State--the nation in its collective and corporate character, entrusted with stringent powers for the general advantage, and controlling individual wills in the name of an interest wider than that of individuals.\n\nDespite some social reforms during the Edwardian period, the Victorian structure remained in essentials up until the First World War. A. J. P. Taylor famously wrote in his _English History_:\n\n > Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent of the national income. The state intervened to prevent the citizen from eating adulterated food or contracting certain infectious diseases. It imposed safety rules in factories, and prevented women, and adult males in some industries, from working excessive hours. The state saw to it that children received education up to the age of 13. Since 1 January 1909, it provided a meagre pension for the needy over the age of 70. Since 1911, it helped to insure certain classes of workers against sickness and unemployment...Still, broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cyztoi6" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Benedict Anderson, R.I.P., *Imagined Communities*, one of the most influential books on the topic." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ctd5xrm" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "This month, *Amable Sablon du Corail*, the director of Middle-Ages and Ancien Régime departments at the French National Archives and author of *1515, Marignan* wrote an article in the paper *'L'Histoire nb 68*. The edition is dedicated to King Francis I of France and there is a very interesting page about the battle of Marignano in 1515 and the composition of the army.\n\nSo keep in mind that the numbers below are about the French army in the early reign of Francis I ( ruled 1515-1547 ) and not about the whole Renaissance. \n\n----------------\n\nFrancis, as his predecessors had done since Louis XI managed to buy the quietness of England ( with some 5% of France's annual revenue ) allowing him to fully commit his army to the French *Italian ambitions*. In July 1515 when Francis gathered his forces and headed toward Italy, the army was composed of some 40,000 men ( maybe 45,000 but not more ) , almost twice as much as the other big powers in Europe. This was mostly due to the huge demographic explosion France knew, meaning it was the most populated country in Europe at the time. \n\nQuite a novelty, the army was mostly composed of infantry. However, cavalry was still a big thing and Francis had *2,500 lances and 5,000 archers on horses* ( direct quote from Sablon du Corail ). To that, the army had 56 [culverins](_URL_0_) of ordinary or extraordinary calibers.\n\nWhat is interesting to see in Renaissance armies ( at least France's ) is their reliability on mercenaries. Still in Francis' 1515 army, most of the infantry was composed of German troops, around 23,000 [Landsknechts](_URL_1_) formed the heart of the army. The Renaissance saw the advance of firearms ( artillery but individuals as well ) however the French army relied heavily on its 8,000 thousands crossbowmen from Gascony. This enormous army was extremely expansive; a monthly cost of around 300,000 livres tournois of the time ( Maybe someone could try to find an equivalent ? But the author only says this was what the Duchy of Milan made every year at the time ). Armies were far from being fully professionals at the time and countries relied a lot on buying the services of mercenaries ( German or Swiss for examples ).\n\nThe army was also followed by many glory seeker adventurers, unpaid but attracted by the spoils of war and the chance to make a name. These men were, still according to Sablon du Corail several thousands at the battle of Marignano but a more precise number is close to impossible to find. \n\nIn the same paper, a small article written by *Emilie Dosquet*, PhD student in military history at Paris-Sorbonne writes that the armies of time ( especially France, she does not say anything about other powers so I only speak for France ) knew a huge increase in numbers. Twenty years before Francis I, King Charles VIII and his vassals could gather around 18,000 men ( compared to the 40,000 of Francis ). By 1515, the army was composed of three infantrymen for one horseman when 20 years ago the army was composed of two third cavalry. At the time of Marignano, France had the most powerful and modern artillery in Europe thanks to technological advances ( lighter cannons,...Etc ).\n\nHowever, if France had the number it also lacked the use of lighter guns ( individual ones ) which were beginning to spread in other powers like in Italy and Spain. It still relied very much on the cavalry and the *spirit of knighthood*. A mix of Middle-Ages and Renaissance military doctrines that made Francis pay a heavy price in 1522 at Bicocca where the Swiss mercenaries launched a *beautiful* but foolish assault on fortifications and then in 1525 at Pavia where the army was crushed and half the aristocracy killed or captured. \n\nRemember this is specific to France in the early 16th century. At Marignano, France left around 5,000 dead soldiers ( French or in French service ) and ten years later at Pavia the casualties on the French side were close to around 12,000 dead, incapacitated or captured soldiers ( including the king and many captains ). It changed drastically the composition of army. " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "canoatw" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "A) Mesoamerica **is** North America. Much of it falls into what is now Mexico; however, even Central America is part of North America.\n\nB) Mesoamerican societies actively traded with Ancestral Pueblo societies. While northern groups did not have writing per se (an alphabet or syllabary), they conveyed informed visually, for instance through designed painted on ceramics, which can be \"read.\" [Casas Grandes](_URL_1_) in Chihuahua, Mexico was a major outpost facilitating trade from the north and the south. Ernest H. Chrstman wrote *[Casas Grande Pre-Columbian Pottery Decoded: Of Gods and Myths](_URL_0_)*, which discusses the meaning between the colors, designs, and shapes of the ceramics.\n\nC) Iroquois people had symbolic means of communication through tree glyphs; bead designs; wood, bone, and antler carving; and most famously wampum belts. So while not technically \"writing,\" these media all recorded and conveyed information." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.amazon.com/Casas-Grandes-Pre-Columbian-Pottery-Decoded/dp/0912329165/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371851588&sr=1-1&keywords=Christman+casas+grandes", "http://www.nps.gov/cagr/index.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dc4bq6z" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Yes, [Pliny the Elder](_URL_0_) mentions the wine from the year of the consulship of Lucius Opimius (122 BCE) as noted to be particularly good. This was of course two hundred years before Pliny wrote, and as he himself notes it is quite undrinkable now, and the few remaining amounts are only used to flavor newer wines. Cicero also mentions the Opimian vintage as part of a moral passage about not overvaluing old things (Brutus 287). It is sort of amusingly fitting, incidentally, that Cicero mentions it in an elegant didactic passage while Pliny mentions it in a bit about commodity valuation.\n\nAs for the general wine culture, gong by Pliny the Elder you can definitely see plenty of similarities in that Romans talked about vintage years, and terroir, and obsessively valued the location of growing. There were a few differences, however, the big one being that the Romans were more liable to drink their wine mixed. The ancient tendency to drink wine mixed with water is pretty well known (there are plenty of mentions of drinking unmixed wine, however), but wine might also be mixed with snow to cool it, seawater, honey, sparrow eggs, and who knows what else. I suspect this is where Duncan gets the idea that wine was a concentrate, which is a good demonstration of how information can get garbled when you go two or three removes from the sources." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D14%3Achapter%3D6" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d6jmpix" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Answered here: _URL_0_ by /u/coinsinmyrocket\n\nTL;DR - FDR was for entering the war and the US provided aid to the allies, but the US had strong isolationist ideals at that time." ] }

[]

[ "https://twitter.com/askhistorians/status/765447788402319361?s=09" ]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1wx6w9/would_the_us_have_still_gone_to_war_with_germany/cf6g970" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjirbuc" ], "score": [ 33 ], "text": [ "Guns being used in crime (generally robberies) preceded the advent of modern \"street crimes\" (i.e., getting mugged walking home from work) as we think of them, because guns preceded the heavy urbanization that was a prerequisite for most such crime being commonplace.\n\n**Guns**\n\nHandguns first came into existence, probably, around the mid-late 15th Century, in the form of \"hand cannons,\" and by the 17th century, a variety of somewhat easy-to-use pistols were available. A major revolution in pistol technology came with the advent of the [flintlock](_URL_0_), right at the turn of the 17th century. Flintlocks (along with better techniques for manufacturing black powder, shot, and gun barrels) allowed for smaller, more reliable, pistols to be produced in large numbers. These proliferated around much of Europe very quickly, through a variety of means.\n\n**Robbery**\n\nHowever, as I said, urbanization was not high at this time, and one of the most important ways people (especially merchants) made money was by traveling from town to town, delivering goods. This was all before railroad, needless to say, so for getting to more inland towns, the main option was coach, cart, or horseback. High-ranking people often traveled, as they do today, between town and country, also inland. And of course, there was the mail, often delivered by postboys on horseback. All of these traveled along thoroughfares called \"highways,\" and these highways became a place for mounted bandits known as \"highwaymen\" (sometimes called \"road agents\" in America, or \"bushrangers\" in Australia) to waylay and rob people. \n\nHighwaymen were, along with pirates, probably history's first really well-known criminal types. They were to be distinguished from another class of robber known as a \"footpad,\" as highwaymen were mounted and were considered a higher \"class\" of criminal. You will sometimes hear thieves referred to with disdain as \"common footpads,\" and this is the origin of that derision. \n\nSome highwaymen became a sort of celebrity, much like famous pirates. This was also history's first really common and well known employment of guns (at least handguns) in common crime. Highwaymen famously brandished their \"pistols and rapiers\" when they waylaid a coachman, shouting their equally famous: \"Stand and deliver!\" command, ordering the coachman to stop and deliver his goods. \n\n\n**Guns and Highwaymen**\n\nBut famous or not, there's no doubt that guns were widely employed by highwaymen. The most famous highwayman of all is undoubtedly Dick Turpin, who is well known for having robbed many a man with the Essex Gang, his group of bandits, using pistols. We know from court proceedings, for example, that he and his men waylaid a man named Sheldon outside Croydon, and relieved him of his possessions; all were armed with pistols. Later, the same gang made a brutal raid at Loughton, as recounded in *Read's Daily Journal* from 1735:\n\n > *On Saturday night last, about seven o'clock, five rogues entered the house of the Widow Shelley at Loughton in Essex, having pistols & c. and threatened to murder the old lady, if she would not tell them where her money lay, which she obstinately refusing for some time, they threatened to lay her across the fire, if she did not instantly tell them, which she would not do. But her son being in the room, and threatened to be murdered, cried out, he would tell them, if they would not murder his mother, and did, whereupon they went upstairs, and took near £100, a silver tankard, and other plate, and all manner of household goods. They afterwards went into the cellar and drank several bottles of ale and wine, and broiled some meat, ate the relicts of a fillet of veal & c. While they were doing this, two of their gang went to Mr Turkles, a farmer's, who rents one end of the widow's house, and robbed him of above £20 and then they all went off, taking two of the farmer's horses, to carry off their luggage, the horses were found on Sunday the following morning in Old Street, and stayed about three hours in the house.*\n\nThis was by no means an uncommon version of events. So, we can see that highwaymen moved from robbing along the roads to assaulting houses, burglary, lying in wait, etc., all with ever-present pistols, easily by the early 18th century. Things were changing bit by bit as the 18th Century gave way to the urbanization of the late 19th, and as railroads replaced highways, thus ending highwaymen and their phenomenon, but giving way to more urban crime.\n\nIt is also worth noting that as highwaymen became more prevalent and aggressive in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, merchants and travelers took steps to defend themselves, as well. More than a few highwaymen were killed when they ripped open the door of a carriage only to find the lady inside was herself armed with a pistol and ready to use it. \"Riding shotgun\" became a famous trope from the American West, as stage coach riders took security personnel, also armed, with them. As guns proliferated among criminals, so too did they among their putative victims. \n\n**\"Street Crime\"**\n\nIt must be clear, then, that by the time urban street crime had come about, guns were already in widespread use by criminals. This was likely the case throughout much of the world, but the largest centers of urbanization at this time were in Europe, so it's not impossible to believe that they were widespread in Europe and America, as well.\n\nSources: \n\n* Sharpe, James (2005), The Myth of the English Highwayman, London: Profile Books\n\n* Seal, Graham (1996), The outlaw legend: a cultural tradition in Britain, America and Australia" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cgjgw53" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "It depends on the time period of the war. German submarines went from being a terrible menace early in the war to being a mostly contained threat by late 1943.\n\nEarly on, the weapons available to escorts were depth charges (basically bombs that quickly sink and explode after reaching a certain depth), gunfire, and ramming. To detect submarines, there was ASDIC (sonar), hydrophones, and vision. Detection is the biggest problem. Poorly trained operators and limited equipment often meant that German submarines had the way clear to ships within a convoy. Also, the lack of radar meant that submarines at night were usually safer on the surface than submerged, and uboat aces like Kretschmer used this to great effect, using their submarines like silent torpedo boats to slip through a screen in the dark, torpedo vessels from close range, and race away on the surface, only diving when seen or lit up.\n\nTo prevent attacks, lookouts kept an eye out for surfaced submarines, periscopes, or torpedo tracks, obviously. In addition, the convoy escorts were usually stationed as a screen out in front and off to the sides of the convoy, sometimes, cutting back or tracking in and out while pinging with ASDIC to detect a submerged submarine trying to slip through.\n\nIf a submarine was spotted on the surface near the convoy, the primary goal, besides sinking it, was to force it to submerge. A submerged submarine couldn't travel fast enough underwater on batteries to keep up with even a slow convoy for long. This typically involved gunfire and charging towards it.\n\nWW2 submarines did not have the sophisticated sonar or computer-controlled firing computers that modern submarines have, so once below periscope depth and out of range posed almost no threat to the convoy vessels. Once the submarine was submerged, or if a submarine had first been detected while submerged, ASDIC was used to \"look\" into the water to get the enemy boat's position, and then the escorts would drop a barrage of depth charges around the most likely depth for the enemy to be. However, this was difficult to accomplish accurately, and there are records of both German and American submarines surviving several hundred depth charges dropped at them. \n\nASDIC operated like a \"flashlight cone\" in the water, with a defined field of view. A big drawback to this was that unless multiple escorts were present to keep the submarine located, the submarine would necessarily escape this field of view when the escort passed above dropping charges. A frequent submarine evasion technique would be to wait until the depth charges began to explode, and then go full speed with a sharp turn to clear the area, using the turbulence of the explosions to dampen the noise. If the submarine did manage to break contact, the escorts would attempt to use hydrophones to listen for the faint noise of the motors and propellers. If the attack did somehow damage the vessel and force it to surface, gunfire and ramming would be used to try to sink it.\n\nLater in the war, there were three transformative elements: HF/DF \"Huff-Duff\", radar, and aircraft. All of these stopped submarines from approaching convoys on the surface, limiting opportunities to attack. After the closure of the mid-atlantic air gap, convoys frequently had air cover all the way across the Atlantic, with patrol aircraft or even American blimps orbiting the convoy for hours at a time. Before the gap was covered, the Allies used small \"escort carriers\" to sail with convoys to supply air cover. These aircraft, as well as those on routine patrols and not attached to convoys, could cover a great area, spot and report uboats, and attack and sink them when given a chance, especially with an element of surprise. More German submarines were lost to aircraft during the war than to any other cause. Aircraft also could carry depth charges, usually set to explode at or just below periscope depth as the submarine dove to escape. There was also homing anti-submarine FIDO torpedoes late in the war, as well as strafing with machine-guns, rockets, and large aircraft-mounted cannon. Radar, obviously, allowed aircraft and convoy escorts to cover a greater search area, and removed the night-time advantage of surface attacks. HF/DF used triangulation to locate the origin of radio signals near the convoy as German submarines radioed to eachother and back to BDU to coordinate attacks, allowing an escort or aircraft to be detatched to attack it before it got close.\n\nOn a more macro-scale, late in the war saw the rise of the hunter-killer group, a task force sailing the atlantic with the sole mission to sink submarines. If a submarine attacked a convoy or was spotted one, odds were good that a hunter killer group would later arrive on the scene, supported by their own escort carrier, to sink the sub. These groups had the freedom to loiter, while convoy escorts needed to keep moving after scaring a submarine off, and could therefore wait around until the submarine began to run out of air and power and was forced to surface.\n\nFinally, new ASW weapons were introduced on surface vessels late in the war. Hedgehog and Squid anti-submarine mortars could lob explosives ahead of the escort, allowing it to engage submarines while keeping them in the ASDIC beam. The Hedgehog launched dozens of small fin-stabilized charges that landed in a big circle at a fixed range ahead of the escort vessel and exploded on contact with a solid object like a submarine, while the squid simply launched depth charges ahead of the ship rather than dropping them off the stern or firing them off the side with K-guns.\n\n[This](_URL_0_) USN report is a great source of info, especially on the actual details of depth charge attacks, which I glossed over.\n\nAlso, [this](_URL_1_) website is a fantastic resource for all things German submarine related." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/ASW-51/ASW-11.html", "http://www.uboat.net/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ci7kf6d", "ci7l6vn" ], "score": [ 12, 14 ], "text": [ "What sports are you referring to that are unique to the United States? The typically cited popular sports in the United States are ice hockey, basketball, baseball, and American football; all of these are played outside the U.S., especially in Canada.\n\nBasketball was invented by a \"Canadian\" (province of Canada at the time, a still British colony) living in MA, with ice hockey as we know it today invented in Montreal (though various forms of ice and stick games were played in Europe including England as early as the mid to late 1700s). American and Canadian style football developed from rugby.\n\nBaseball likely developed from the popular British and Irish game rounders, and is now played in many countries outside the U.S. I'm not aware of any sports that are unique to only the U.S. and all of the popular ones that I am aware of are derivatives of earlier British sports.\n\nWith relative geographic isolation from mainland Europe and a separately developing sociocultural and political system, North America was free to develop culturally and this included variations on earlier sports that evolved as they were adopted or not in various communities.\n\nAs for why soccer in particular is not as popular in the U.S. as compared to many other countries, I could only speculate, so I'll leave that up to someone else.", "hi! not discouraging additional in-depth responses, but this question has come up a few times, so get started on previous responses:\n\n* (from the FAQ) [Why isn't Soccer the most popular sport in the former 'white' dominions of the British Empire?](_URL_6_)\n\n* [How did the dominant sports in the USA come to be so different from the rest of the world?](_URL_4_)\n\n* [Why isn't soccer as popular in the U.S.A. as other countries?](_URL_10_)\n\n* [Why did soccer become more popular in Europe than in America?](_URL_8_)\n\n* [Why is football not a major sport in many countries of the former British Empire?](_URL_1_) -- also includes cricket\n\n* [Why did soccer become more popular in Europe than in America?](_URL_8_)\n\n* [Why is soccer the sport of the world instead of, say, cricket, or baseball?](_URL_11_)\n\n* [Why and how did football (soccer) skip India?](_URL_2_)\n\n* [How did cricket get so popular in India](_URL_5_)\n\n* [Sports historians: Ifs there a specific reason Cricket is not more popular in America?](_URL_7_)\n\n* [Why did cricket not catch on in Canada like it did in the rest of the former British Colonies?](_URL_0_)\n\n* [Why did cricket become popular in some former British colonies (India, Pakistan, West Indies, Australia etc) but not others (Nigeria, Ghana, Egypt, USA, etc)?](_URL_3_)\n\n* [Canadian sports](_URL_9_)\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1o9uga/why_did_cricket_not_catch_on_in_canada_like_it/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1u5p6l/why_is_football_not_a_major_sport_in_many/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1lis3f/why_and_how_did_football_soccer_skip_india/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1tu4f3/why_did_cricket_become_popular_in_some_former/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1f731k/how_did_the_dominant_sports_in_the_usa_come_to_be/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16z2zj/how_did_cricket_get_so_popular_in_india/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/yzglf/why_isnt_soccer_the_most_popular_sport_in_the/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1sjvzf/sports_historians_ifs_there_a_specific_reason/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bdrn2/why_did_soccer_become_more_popular_in_europe_than/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gfi76/canadian_sports/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/vod3s/why_isnt_soccer_as_popular_in_the_usa_as_other/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1mmphe/why_is_soccer_the_sport_of_the_world_instead_of/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbu25m4", "cbu490w" ], "score": [ 78, 2 ], "text": [ "If the woman is free, then the child is free. Same happens if a freed female slave had a child. Since the mother has no owner, neither does the child. \n\nThe only thing I am not sure of, is if hypothetically the mother is evil or crazy, and wanted to sell her child into slavery. I don't know would would be the legality of that (although I doubt the government would try to prevent it.)", "As a related question, same scenario, would Dred Scott decision have prevented the child from being a citizen? Assuming it was obvious the child was at least part black?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ca0q43m" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I think this is pushing into politics much more than history.\n\nAsking if people are 'actually happy' is not historical, it's subjective, and you're talking about today, not historically.\n\nMany people 'really were' happy in 1950s Russia. Or 1930s Russia for that matter." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ci7fewo" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "There are a lot of variables here, and I'm mostly just addressing the latter years of dueling, from the late 1700s onwards. [I've written previously about the etiquette of a duel](_URL_1_), which I'll repeat here as it will help with the answer:\n\n > There was a very rigid procedure to dueling, and various dueling codes came about, the most famous being the Irish Code Duello, which was very popular in the late 1700s through the 1800s, and from which I draw most of this.\n > \n > Now, lets say you insult me, and I challenge you to a duel! As the challenged party, you may choose the weapons. The traditional weapons are swords or pistols, but uncommon ones were sometimes chosen. If you chose swords, and I am not a swordsman, I can request a different weapon, but must accept the second choice.\n > \n > Now, there are all kinds of minor rules which I'm going to gloss over and instead cut to the chase. The underlying idea of the duel is to satisfy honor. Seconds are chosen, and generally, the seconds are going to attempt to stop the duel by agreeing to terms under which you, the offender, can agree to apologize to me, the offended, to which I would agree. This will go on right up to the point when we are standing *en garde*. But, once at that point, it would be considered extremely bad form for you to *now* apologize. \n > \n > The common trope is a duel to first blood. This was not the case. To agree to a duel to first blood was very poor form. Rather the duel was *at least* to first blood. If with swords, once the duel began, you can't ask to be pardoned for your offense until I've drawn blood, otherwise you'd be in very poor form. If with pistols, you can't ask for a pardon until shots are exchanged. The duel would continue until I, the offended party, either agree to accept your apology, or else have decided honor is satisfied. In many cases though, the offender merely showing up to the duel would be enough, and no fight would even occur! On the subject of first blood, while agreeing to first blood was poor form, that isn't to say there wasn't an implicit understanding - especially by the mid-1800s, that it was the point the duel would end, but still, to vocalize that was frowned upon.\n\nNow, what that all is to say is that a duel might be very quick and end with nothing more than a pin prick, or it might keep going and going until one (or both) were too bloody and incapacitated to continue the fight, or else dead. The biggest part of what we see in the movies that *isn't* true is the fancy swordplay. Thats a good way to get stabbed. In a real duel, the biggest priority is not getting killed yourself! Because duels happened well into the 20th century, we actually have some real ones captures on film, which might give you an idea of how they were fought. Here is one from [1967](_URL_0_) and here is one from [1958](_URL_2_). The second one is of particular interest as it shows something that became pretty common by the late 19th century. After blood was drawn, the action would be stopped, the blade resterilized, and the wound bandaged if needed. While obviously there was still, in theory the chance of death (and some duels certainly had that intention), it kind of illustrates how much it was just about honor for both parties, and not about the ultimate revenge. While when one swordsman was clearly the better it might not last very long, more generally a lot of the duel was spent on these small, positional movements and light feints.\n\nSo TL;DR Duels went until honor was satisfied, which could be a single wound, or a dead swordsman.\n\n[I've also written a piece about some 20th century duels you might find of interest.](_URL_3_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e68nuAcSuWQ", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1l6pz5/tuesday_trivia_its_simply_not_done_historical/cbwfy6v", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL9BWkN-Wcg", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1s2w6n/tuesday_trivia_frivolous_fights_historys_least/cdtebr3" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cc12zhv", "cc172ef" ], "score": [ 94, 19 ], "text": [ "The Whig party was built by three distinct groups. The first, and by far the largest and most important, was the National Republican party which was one of the two factions of the old Jeffersonian Republican party ( the other being Jacksonians eventually Democrats). The National Republican wing was lead by Henry Clay, the figure we most associate with American Whigs, the platform was built around economic issues particularly a protective tariff, federally funded internal improvements, and a second national bank ( the least supported leg of the American system). Another faction was the anti-masonic party, which as you might gather was against free masonry and was a largely single issue party whose most prominent member was William Wirt. Henry Clay's failure to embrace the anti-masonic party greatly hindered his chances in the election of 1832. The final wing of the whig party was comprised of state rights whigs who feared the \"executive tyranny\" of Jackson and lent the party its platform of opposition to tyranny and the immortality of the spoils system. As could be gathered the states rights and national republican alliance was very fragile, and once the Whigs actually came into power many of the state rights whigs, lead by John Tyler and Abel Upsher, bolted the party for the more relative safety of the Democratic party.\n\nIn terms of geographic strength, both the Democrat and Whigs parties were truly national parties, the first and only national parties until the mid 20th century in the United States. Certain regions however were always stronger for one party over the other, although as William Freehling points out in *Secessionists at Bay* an examination of voting history over the course of the second party system reveals that the five geographic regions he divides the country into each party only held a 3-4% advantage in the popular vote (although certain elections like 1840,1852 will badly distort results). Speaking broadly the border South tended to go Whig plus New England and Louisiana, Democrats tended to be strongest in the border north( those states bordering slave holding states) and Deep South, New York and the Upper South were often heavily contested territory. Looking at the geographic centers of power for each political party reveals why the Whigs were the first to break up by the mid 1850's while the democrats lasted a few years longer. The border north democrats were often southerners themselves and were far more likely to accommodate slave politicians then those located in the upper North. A political tactic by the mid 1840's was to attempt to make the other party appear soft on slavery, the problem was that every time a deep southern whig used this tactic he normally lost, whereas with the Democrat strongholds in the lower North would bow to their southern brethren. After the split many Whigs joined the democratic party, but many more probably essentially stopped voting. In the Upper and Border South many joined the Union party which deeply opposed secession, or attempted to hop on the anti-immigrant parties as a union saving measure, basically anything that wouldn't make slavery the keystone issue. Whig political ideology however lived on forming the base of the economic platform of the Republican party and former northern Whigs often tended to dominate the new party ( Lincoln, Seward etc..) Whigs tended to attract businessmen, evangelicals, those who tended to be better off, and by the end of the party those who opposed the new wave of immigration.\n\nAntebellum historiography has traditionally been dominated by historians who favor the Democratic party (see *Age of Jackson* or more recent take Sean Wilentz's *Rise of American Democracy*). Whigs were often slurred as being Federalists rebranded (they weren't outside of support for BOTUS they have different platforms) or the party for the social-elite opposing the party of the common man. Recent years however have seen the stock of Jackson drop dramatically and a host of new works that challenge old ideas, in particular in David Walker Howe's *What Hath God Wrought* sees the Whig Party as the true party of change and herald of America's future, he tends to harp on how the Whigs gave better protection to blacks, women, and native peoples while triumphing economic advancement (although he ignores that it was minority Whigs who tended to introduce the harshest slave power measures not democrats) see also Howe's book *The Political Culture of American Whigs* which very much brought the Whig Party back into the historic mainstream. Of course no answer would be complete without noting Michael Holt's premiere work *Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party*, while a very dry read it nonetheless remains required reading for any understanding of the Whig Party. When reading Whig history it is easy to place too much emphasis on Henry Clay and boil the party solely down to him, however it goes without saying that Clay was the most important Whig and any reading should include a political biography of the man. There has yet to be a signature biography of Clay but I always recommend Merrill Peterson's *The Great Triumvirate: Webster, Clay, and Calhoun* with its emphasis on the three men it helps places the politics of the era within context.\n\nAs to comparing to modern parties? A National Bank, internal improvements, and the tariff are hardly issues for the 21st century. As to the demographic breakdown compared to modern parties is something you will have to decide for yourself.\n\n\nEdit: If you were asking about British Whigs than I have entirely wasted your time", "Can someone answer this question, except regarding the British Whig party?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cxkcu6h", "cxkgebk", "cxko4fd", "cxkyvch", "cxl4i8t" ], "score": [ 5, 24, 12, 6, 9 ], "text": [ "I have studied the Middle East for a long time and I don't think you will find an unquestioned source. Almost all historians, researchers, and journalists are questioned by some party who think they are not analyzed well. If you find yourself an objective reader just start with the basics, the history and culture of the Middle East, although it may not be unquestioned you can do research for yourself. Events and facts that are mentioned are easily re-searchable nowadays.\n\nPersonally I am a big fan of several Israeli and Jewish authors regarding the Middle East (and more precise the history of Israel).\n\nEasy accessible sources with Good information are:\n\n* A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time - Howard M. Sachar\n* The Great War for Civilisation; The Conquest of the Middle East - Robert Fisk\n* The Foreign Policies of Arab States: The Challenge of Globalization - Bahgat Korany And Ali E. Hillal Dessouki (written in 2010 just before the Arab Spring started)\n* From Beirut to Jerusalem - Thomas L. Friedman (I just love Friemand a lot)\n* What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East - Bernard Lewis\n* The Modern Middle East: A History - James L. Gelvin\n* The Middle East: A History - William Ochsenwald and Sydney Nettleton Fischer\n* State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East - Roger Owen\n* A lot of information can be found at sites such as _URL_0_ and you can find the columns of Friedman in the New York Times \n\nIt is also interesting to read sources with a strong opinion. You don't have to agree with them but it gives you a basic understanding of how certain people think. I think a famous example of someone I don't totally agree with is Edward W. Said. He makes strong points about the Occident and The Orient, social constructions, arguments I can really use in general but I don't agree with him overall. I don't think it makes The West necessarily the bad one and The Orient the victim. Regardless it is an interesting read.\n\nExamples:\n\n* Orientalism - Edward W. Said (and other publications)\n* Islam and the West - Bernard Lewis (and other publications, and I am aware that I mentioned him above as well, but I think that I should also mention him here because of his famous clashes with Edward W. Said)\n* World Order - Henry Kissinger (and any other Book or Work published by him dealing with American foreign policy and partially with the Middle East when required)\n\nIf you are interested in a Book about how the Middle East is portrayed, the influence of Media, then there is also a specific Book that I would like to suggest:\n\n* They are just like people. Images from the Middle East - Joris Luyendijk\n\nOfc there are many more Books and Works but I think you can start with the snowball method from here (use the sources the Publications above use for example), online material as Al-Monitor are also Good to start your research from and come in touch with experts and authors, much to find.\n\nDon't try to find the objective masterpiece explaining everything that is going on in the Middle East, form your own opinion based on several sources, you can do the fact checks to large extents yourself (or make comparisons between authors).\n\n", "A personal note, the word \"unbiased\" instantly raises red flags for any academic who'll call up in his/her brain the entire history of social theory and the problems of presuming there can be such a thing.\n\nBut we of course, understand what you're getting at. An alternate phrasing for future reference might be \"accessible and academically well-regarded.\"\n\nIt means roughly the same as what you're getting at, but the word \"unbiased\" tends to bring the knives out.", "Rather than giving you foreign policy/political-science books; the two books I highly recommend for interested people, to getting a proper understanding of today's Middle East, would be these two books:\n\n[\"The Arabs: A History\"](_URL_1_) Eugene Rogan \n\n[A History of the Modern Middle East](_URL_0_) William L Cleveland, Martin Bunton\n\nIf you want to understand the situation today, its important to take a historical approach to it, rather than a political-science one, written by pundits and politicians, who carry a lot of the interests of their respective backers. \n\nThey are standard University texts, very well written, and updated as well. To understand the \"present\", one must first understand the \"past\". And so if you want a truly *unbiased* understanding of the Middle East in 2015, its important to understand how events got to there. ", "There is no unbiased source. Every source leans one way or another. The question is how far they lean, and whether they are aware/provide other perspectives too. That is crucial.\n\nFor history on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, *Righteous Victims* by Benny Morris is good. He leans pro-Israel. For contrast, Charles D. Smith's *Palestine & the Arab-Israeli Conflict* goes the other way. Both are well-respected in the field and stray away from the major extremes on either side, like Efraim Karsh on the pro-Israel side and Rashid Khalidi on either side.\n\nAs a note, be aware of two things:\n\n1) Biased sources hold a lot of value. They shouldn't be perused at first/alone, but they tell a significant amount about perceptions on either side of a conflict. That's extraordinarily important. History is not just a list of events that occur and move on, in books. It does tell a story that is important for today's implications, which is what most want to learn about. Also, more biased sources can include what might seem trivial to outsiders, like an event others don't think (as observers) is important, but which informs a key part of a group's psyche and historical narrative. As an example, a history book that tries to be neutral might stray away from documenting both narratives of what happened or did not happen in a particular massacre during war (preferring to simply pick whatever it feels is most credible), while a biased source and its counterpart would tell you more about the event's importance through how it tells that story.\n\n2) Broad sources are good. It's nice to get a broad overview of things. But be wary, and don't think you're an expert for it. Broad books tend to seem unbiased, but actually have some biases because they're so constrained for space. It's hard to include both sides of a complex issue if you have little space because you're covering so much. Broad books are a place to start, not a place to feel you are hugely informed from. They can help you know more than most, but if you bump in a discussion against someone who's done more than broad reading, they'll be able to quickly inform you of events you had never even known existed in history. So be wary of overestimating your knowledge based on them. I don't mean to discourage you from exploring them, but far too often I see someone who read a book by Morris, Khalidi, or someone else who thinks they know it all. It just isn't that simple.", "Hi There! The responses can be a bit off-putting so far because such a seemingly simple question sparks a *huge* nerd fight over who is any one given contributor's favorite/least favorite author. In stead of giving you a list of books, instead let me give you some insight up front, regardless of whose book(s) you read.\n\nFirst, there is no such thing as \"unbiased\" - it is a nice idea, but most historians, politicians, and journalists have certain sympathies. The key question is \"are they honest about their biases.\" By that, I mean is the author telling the reader that they are coming at the subject from a certain perspective (usually in the foreward) such as mentioning why they felt the need to write this book, where they studied, and so on. With that said...\n\nSecond, don't let the debate raging here (and it would get hotter if it was allowed to) dissuade you from reading some of the books mentioned by the contributors, such as /u/Slarotimov and /u/The_Turk2. Don't worry about whether historians take so-and-so seriously when choosing a book recommended here; that's an academic debate that has its roots in the fact I mentioned above. It is better, by far, to read a controversial book than it is to rely upon news stories. \"As for what is not true, you will always find abundance in the newspapers\" - Thomas Jefferson\n\nFinally, be specific in your desires to read; when you say \"the conflict in the Middle East\" I immediately wonder \"which one\" - the civil war/Saudi intervention in Yemen? The war against Daesh in Iraq and Syria/The Syrian civil war? The Israeli/Arab or Israeli/Palestinian conflict? and so on. If you want to know about any one of these topics, there are numerous books upon them, but I would recommend, in general, that you stick to University presses. By-and-large university press books are more thoroughly researched and scrutinized than commercial presses. Additionally, I'd wave you off of pundits (i.e. Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, etc.) as they mask their agendas with plausible-sounding disinformation or a distorted analysis. Interestingly enough, a good place to start is right here on /r/AskHistorians as there are a **LOT** of threads and FAQs on the many conflicts in the Middle East, from sectarian to political to resource-based and everything in between. Best of all, you get a feel for what the hot topics and brightest thinking is in the field today without having to wade through books that can, at times, be really dry. Search through this thread and you'll see what I mean.\n\nGood luck and we hope to see you again here soon." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/home.html" ], [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/History-Modern-Middle-East-5th/dp/0813348331/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1449082241&sr=1-4&keywords=Modern+Middle+East%3A+A+History", "http://www.amazon.ca/The-Arabs-History-Eugene-Rogan/dp/0465025048" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmdln4e" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "I can't comment to the accuracy of this particular reproduction however there are several prehispanic Mesoamerica wind instruments that have been called \"Death Whistles.\" While it is likely that these instruments were used for ritual purposes, the specifics of their usage are not known. It is certainly true that instruments played a part in battle, specifically drums and shell instruments, I can't say I've vread of hundreds of these whistles being used as a prelude to war. \n\nEDIT: I see MexicoLore put out an article on this, they're usually pretty good for introductory information:\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9QuO09z-SI" ]

[ [ "http://www.mexicolore.co.uk/aztecs/music/death-whistle" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9q4yi9", "c9p5ma7", "c9p63k3" ], "score": [ 4, 6, 7 ], "text": [ "Don't know about pre-Columbian, but Choctaw people called the earth \"yakni,\" which can also mean country/nation, land, homeland, dirt, ground, dust, or coast.", "The world for Earth in Ojibwe is Aki ^[1](_URL_0_), but that also means land & ground. Ojibwe people call North American \"Mikinaak Minis\", or Turtle Island because of the Ojibwe creation story, where the world was rebuilt after a great flood on the back of a turtle.\n\nThe Navajo word for earth also comes from their word for dirt or land, Nahasdzáán. Interestingly enough, the root, asdzáán, means woman. \n\n\nThe Dakota word, Maka, is also their word for land or dirt.\n\nI don't know if there was a concept of the whole planet, or if the words referred to the globe pre-contact. \n\n*edit for spells.", "The Nahuatl term for \"world\" would be *tlalticpac*, but since that literally means something like \"of/on the ground,\" that's probably not what you're looking for. The most fanciful expression would be *cemanahuac*, which can also mean \"world,\" but has the more literal meaning of something like \"the entirety/place entirely between/adjacent to the waters\" and is more specific to Mesoamerica. Remove the \"cem\" (one/wholly/entirely) and you get Anahuac, which was the term for the Basin of Mexico. \n\nKarttunen, in her *Analytical Dictionary of Nahautl* also argues for an interpretation that *cemanahuac* could be derived from *cemmaniyan*, which would mean the term would have nothing to position relative to waters, but would instead mean something more like \"something extending perpetually.\"" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://ojibwe.lib.umn.edu/main-entry/mikinaak-na" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ex79js7" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Yes, in the infamous propaganda film \"The Eternal Jew\", Einstein is characterized as follows:\n\n\" The relativity-Jew \\[Relativitätsjude\\] Einstein, who concealed his hatred of Germany behind an obscure pseudo-science.\"\n\nHere are academic presentations that analyze this film:\n\n[_URL_2_](_URL_2_)\n\nHere are the frames and narration excerpts from the film on a Holocaust history website, including the one with Einstein:\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\nThis can be taken to be the standard official presentation of Einstein in the Nazi Germany.\n\nMore information can be found in this article (in German):\n\n[_URL_1_](_URL_1_)\n\nThe moniker \"relativity-Jew\" seems to have stuck, as it is seen used in the Stürmer in 1941.\n\nIn this article he is criticized for allegedly extolling the virtues of the Old Testament (the Stormer author then goes on to criticize the \"Jewish\" Old Testament and the \"Jewish\" biblical morals)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/stills.shtml", "https://scilogs.spektrum.de/relativ-einfach/relativitaetstheorie-antisemitismus/", "https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cawr5fx" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "While they weren't 100% criminal organizations, Tongs in Chinatowns throughout the U.S. participated in gang-like activity until about the 1910s.\n\nEarly on, the Tongs (especially the Hip-Yee Tong) participated heavily in sex trafficking of Chinese women, at some points being accountable for upwards of 80% of the Chinese women immigration to the U.S. Once here, the Tongs continued to take advantage of the prostitutes by charging them a \"tax\" for protection, threatening violence if they refused. If the Tongs wanted a bit more money, they'd go around and tell the prostitutes that the Chief of Police was coming and wanted an additional fee to be payed off. The Tongs, of course, were lying and would pocket the money on their own.\n\nThe Tongs also operated other, various vice industries, most popularly opium dens and gambling houses. They also offered protection for a fee to independent vice houses owned by other Chinese. Each Tong controlled some amount of territory, and hired gunmen to perform an array of duties, including protection of affiliated businesses, protection of the territory from rival Tongs, and even the murder of witnesses about to participate in criminal proceedings.\n\nWhile the non-Chinese were typically kept out of any Tong conflict (out of fear of interference by the white police forces/government), there was an occasion in the San Francisco Chinatown where two whites were accidentally murdered in a Tong shootout. The resulting race riots were huge and included 15 Chinese being hung on some light poles.\n\nSources:\n\nIvan Light, “From Vice District to Tourist Attraction: The Moral Career of American Chinatowns, 1880-1940,” *Pacific Historical Review* 43 (1974).\n\nLucie Cheng Hirata, “Free, Indentured, Enslaved: Chinese Prostitutes in Nineteenth-Century America,” *Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society* 5 (1979)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cq93x1s" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I can't speak for the American side of this, but in the case of Great Britain, at least, this option was not actually given to the bereaved. A massive scheme of universal interment was devised by the Imperial War Graves Commission under the guidance of Sir Fabian Ware; the scheme ensured that the British fallen would be buried in (more or less) the same earth upon which they died rather than being sent back across the Channel either piecemeal or en masse. I am sure there are individual cases that slipped through the cracks, but in the main this was established as policy.\n\nOur own /u/CrossyNZ has an excellent (and sharply critical) [post about the subject here](_URL_0_); you may also wish to check out David Crane's marvelous book, *Empires of the Dead* (2013), which tells this story in greater depth." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1iuwrx/were_many_people_upset_when_they_announced_they/cb8bich" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ce5nk1y", "ce61ynu", "ce62g58" ], "score": [ 26, 7, 2 ], "text": [ "I will do a brief write up of rhetorical education in the c.4th century Roman West. This would include training in Greek. Famous rhetoricians from this time include pagans like Ausonius and bishops like Paulinus of Nola and Augustine of Hippo. The rise of Christendom changed the attitudes towards traditional training in rhetoric, law, and philosophy.\n\nA. The initial step in a young Roman’s education was overseen by the litterator. There was no formal space set aside for this equivalent of modern primary school. The instruction focused on the development of everyday skills like literacy and basic calculations.\n\nB. The second step in Roman education was the Grammaticus. Boys roughly between the ages of 11 and 17 would study with a grammaticus. The training involved reading literature, delivering addresses, and Greek. Ausonius began his teaching career at this level.\n\nC. The highest level of Roman education, was the *Rhetor*. Ausonius spent 30 years as a rhetor before tutoring Gratian. While the teaching of rhetoric was a means of recitation and literary propensity, its chief function was in the training of the law and political service to the state. \n\nD. The study of Philosophy was reserved as a distinctly Greek undertaking and was often conducted in Greece itself.\n While from an earlier time period, it is relevant that Julius Caesar was going to Greece to study philosophy when he was captured by pirates. Caesar's fearless bravado comes through in this incident.\n\n\nAusonius was a pagan, and in many ways part of the last generation of privileged imperial, pagan teachers. He lived out his post emperor tutoring days on a nice vinyard in Gaul. He may have converted to Christianity at the end of his life, but he lived and taught in a distinctly pagan manner. \nWhile Augustine and Ausonius’ famous pupil and friend Saint Paulinus of Nola may have taken a different opinion of rhetoric and the importance of state honours and recognition, it may help further illuminate this aspect of Ausonius’ life if we look to a few quotes from Augustine on his educational experience:\n\n\"Those studies, also, which were accounted honourable, were directed towards the courts of law; to excel in which, the more crafty I was, the more I should be praised. Such is the blindness of men, that they even glory in their blindness. And now I was head in the School of Rhetoric, whereat I rejoiced proudly, and became inflated with arrogance, though more sedate, O Lord, as You know, and altogether removed from the subvertings of those subverters. *Confessions* III.iii (6)*\"\n\nWhen a man seeking for the reputation of eloquence stands before a human judge while a thronging multitude surrounds him, inveighs against his enemy with the most fierce hatred, he takes most vigilant heed that his tongue slips not into grammatical error, but takes no heed lest through the fury of his spirit he cut off a man from his fellow-men.\nThese were the customs in the midst of which I, unhappy boy, was cast, and on that arena it was that I was more fearful of perpetrating a barbarism than, having done so, of envying those who had not. *Confession* I.xix(29 and 30)\n\n\"But what was the cause of my dislike of Greek literature, which I studied from my boyhood, I cannot even now understand. For the Latin I loved exceedingly— not what our first masters, but what the grammarians teach; for those primary lessons of reading, writing, and ciphering, I considered no less of a burden and a punishment than Greek. *Confessions* I xiii (20)\n\n*Translations by Henry Chadwick\n\nSee also the famous Roman teacher Quintillian for more on the structure and practise of Roman education.", "This is funny - I was just speaking to a colleague about how little there is written about language acquisition in the early U.S. field, or the field of Atlantic history. However, I am aware of a few things, which I can share. \n\nJefferson, whom you mention, was very interested in languages. From what I know, it appears that he simply used print material to learn other languages, though his time in Paris would have obviously polished his French up nicely. In one 1787 letter to his nephew, he wrote:\n\n > Spanish. Bestow great attention on this, and endeavor to acquire an accurate knowlege of it. Our future connections with Spain and Spanish America will render that language a valuable acquisition. The antient history of a great part of America too is written in that language. I send you a dictionary.\n\nUnfortunately, his nephew didn't receive the dictionary, and wrote back several months later: \n\n > I mentioned to you in my last, that the want of a Spanish dictionary had prevented any progress in that language. That want still subsists, and will I fear, for some time; as no such book is to be had, in any of the shops here.\nSo it appears that persistent study with a dictionary was one way that people in the early U.S. sought to improve their language skills. \n\nHowever, some formal classes certainly did exist in language instruction. While public schools were generally confined to only a few parts of the nation, it was not always held in high regard. For example, in his \"Essay on Female Education,\" Benjamin Rush wrote that he wished to\n\n > bear a testimony against the practice of making the French language a part of female adduction in America. In Britain, where company and pleasure are the principal business of ladies, where the nursery and the kitchen form no part of their care, and where a daily intercourse is maintained with Frenchmen and other foreigners who speak the French language, a knowledge of it is absolutely necessary. But the case is widely different in this country.\n\nLikewise, Noah Webster thought that most Americans didn't need to learn the \"dead\" languages of Europe. He recommended them only to \"young men who are designed for the learned professions\". He continued, \"\"Merchants often have occasion for a knowledge of some foreign living language as the French, the Italian, the Spanish, or the German, but men whose business is wholly domestic have little to no use for any language but their own, much less for languages known only in books.\"\n\nIn places where regular schools were not common, there were sometimes private, ad hoc classes in languages. Newspapers from the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries often carry ads for these. For example, the *Nashville Clarion* in 1821 carried the ad of a Doctor De St. Leger, who \n\n > Offers teaching the French language at the respective houses of Gentlemen and Ladies, anxious to acquire it. He also proposes opening an evening academy, 7 to 9 every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, for young misses - and Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, for young gentlemen. - Likewise separate lessons of Latin, Hebrew and Greek...\n\nHe charged $12.50 for lessons for a quarter of a year. That wouldn't have been totally prohibitive, but given the difficulty that many families had in simply surviving, it was certainly a luxury for a young man or woman to learn to speak languages. As Webster and Rush's comments suggest, it simply didn't make sense for all Americans to learn foreign languages. ", "Latin ceased to be a birth language in the West under the reign of Charlamagne (r.768-814) when the Emperor set up standardizations to return it to its classical roots, effectively defining what was being spoken as proto-romance languages. \n\nThe typical method for learning Latin in the Middle Ages was the Bible, which a pupil (usually a monk) would be taught to read, with explanations as to meaning. Many bibles contain glosses on words in vernacular languages (see the Lindisfarne Gospels as an excellent example). Biblical instruction started with the Psalms, necessary for all monks, since the entire book of Psalms was to be sung through every week.\n\nAs I said elsewhere here, the best new book on this subject is Brown, Warren, Marios Costambeys, Matthew Innes, and Adam J. Kosto, eds. \"Documentary Culture and the Laity in the Early Middle Ages.\" Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8xpd9w" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Not sure of what academic level you are on. If you haven't already go look on _URL_0_ and search for some journal articles for what you need also just go on google books and and see if any books are available. Helped me when I first started writing, hope its helpful for you." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "jstor.org" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8resd0", "c8retk3", "c8rfieh", "c8rhfv6", "c8rjfcg" ], "score": [ 7, 10, 19, 8, 2 ], "text": [ "They didn't. They called themselves by their City State. Spartans for Sparta, Athenians for Athens etc. It is my understanding they didn't make much distinction except for The empire of Persia was referred to as Perisians", "Greece wasn't really a country, or even a collection of city-states. The idea of Greece is kind of a later invention by Romans and other countries who romanticized them. It's more of a culture that was somewhat shared by the city-states we call Greek. They would identify themselves as Spartans or Athenians or Corinthians but not Greeks, the reason they banded together to stave off the Persians was because they knew they would all be destroyed if they didn't and their cultures were similar enough to become allies against a common enemy we just assumed they were countrymen because of it. It's similar to they way America and England are allies but we are different, independent countries even though we share a very similar culture.", "[Will Durant](_URL_1_), author of [The Story of Civilization: The Life of Greece](_URL_0_), asserts that Classical Period Greeks maintained a dual identity of City-State independence and Hellenic interdependence. The Greeks of old identified first with their individual poli and a man without a city was not considered much of a man; that is not to say, however, that there wasn't a sense of mono-identity on the Grecian peninsula. The Classical Greeks understood that there were many aspects of their culture that were fundamentally different from those other great civilizations that bordered the Mediterranean, in as much as they understood that there were various difference between each city-state. The most primal of these cultural differences being the languages they spoke and the gods they kept. While both were significantly influenced by outside sources (especially in the Archaic Periods) by the time the Classical Period rolled around both aspects were distinct from the neighboring cultures.", "There are a few ways I know of. \n\nThe first is in Xenophon's Anabasis, the Greek mercenaries (who hail from myriad city states) are referred to as Hellenes (to differentiate them both from the Persians and the other 'barbarians' they meet along the way). When they are marching their constant goal is to return to Hellas where they feel they will be safe. \n\nThe other, and I'm less certain about this, is in the Iliad, where the Greeks are referred to often as the Achaeans or Argives. The reason I'm less certain about this is that these may refer to smaller subsets of the Greek host, but I'm really not positive (don't have my copy with me). ", "Interesting thread. However, while the Athenians and Thebans and Spartans and all the rest identified with their own city-states, they also were agreed that all of them were Hellenes. They all were members of the same ethnic group that migrated south into Greece, and they all shared the same essential culture and the same basic language (with local dialects).\n\nThat's true for the area south of Macedon, anyway. One reason Philip II (Alexander's father) worked so hard at getting himself recognized as the supreme war-leader of all the Greek city-states -- by war and otherwise -- was that he knew they looked down on him as half-barbarian. (To Philip, \"barbarian\" meant the Illyrians and Thracians and such.) The Macedonians descended from a later wave of migrants, but Philip yearned to be recognized by the southerners as \"Hellenic.\"\n\n\"Greek\" in the modern sense is a whole other thing. (And so is \"Macedonian,\" regardless of what the ex-Yugoslav state insists.) I suspect a DNA test of a typical modern Greek and a typical ancient resident of Attica would find they had only maybe half the same genetic profile." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/Life-Greece-Story-Civilization/dp/B000JTHRHG/ref=sr_sp-btf_title_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362672422&sr=1-12&keywords=the+life+of+greece+will+durant", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Durant" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpu9ml3" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "It may be worth x-posting this one to our sister sub, /r/AskAnthropology " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chqgs8q", "chqgtor", "chqsmjy" ], "score": [ 4, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "I'm on my phone but I must say this makes my heart happy. \n\nYou might try Alan Mason Ward's \"Marcus Crassus and the Late Roman Republic\" as a good start. Maybe Plutarch's Lives as well. \n\nI hope these help. \n\nSource: I've written a biography on Crassus. ", "Also, while you shouldn't ever cite Wikipedia, their references can sometimes be helpful and a jumping off point. ", "The fact that in death Crassus lost the standards of his legion to the Parthians had serious political ramifications. Recovering the standards was a major foreign policy point and when Augustus wasable to have them returned it was a major motif he used in propaganda.\n\nFor example,you can see the return represented on this coin: _URL_0_ as well as several others on that site.\n\nThe return is also depicted as the central image on Augustus's breastplate in the famous Prima Porta statue. So, basically Crassus's death was a political debacle that had to be recovered." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://www.southwestern.edu/departments/classics/images/zanker145.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cm5om14" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Well, the US was a strong supporter publicly. It assisted the Zionist groups in getting the plan passed, sometimes through methods that are reported to have been less than acceptable. These included threats, bribes, and strong-arms. President Truman was good friends with leading Zionist Chaim Weizmann, who spoke to Truman numerous times to influence policy on the plan, including to convince Truman to support keeping the Negev desert in the Jewish state.\n\nThe USSR was also a supporter, which sealed the superpower vote for the most part. As [this shows](_URL_0_), the supporters and opposition can be seen by the votes at the bottom. The USSR believed it could make a friend out of the presumed Jewish state by most accounts, since Zionism was dominated by the semi-socialist Labour Zionists. The Soviets also hoped to ruin British influence in the region, of course, and the Soviet bloc (the Czechoslovakians) were particularly important in getting Israel the arms it needed to win the war, most of which were delivered and organized during the first Truce of the war of 1948. This would change shortly after the state was established, with the USSR instead adopting more anti-Semitic overtones, and as the USSR moved closer to Arab states.\n\nAs for European countries, the British were the main player in Palestine, but refrained from doing any type of negotiating or pushing on the resolution. They mostly stayed out of the issue publicly, and abstained on the vote. Other European countries supported the resolution, as the vote counts show, and were likely swayed by superpower support. Only Greece voted against from Europe, and Yugoslavia (along with the aforementioned UK) abstained.\n\nOn the other hand, Belgium, Byelorussian SSR (later Belarus), Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian SSR, and the USSR all voted for the resolution.\n\nJust to sort of sum this up, let me give you a breakdown of where some of the countries lay and how they were influenced, as far as Europe, according to Benny Morris:\n\n* Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Denmark would follow France. Only intense lobbying by Zionists and \"pangs of Holocaust-related conscience\" convinced the French to tell their delegation to vote yes.\n\n* The Netherlands had also expressed reservations, as a result of their problem of a heavy Muslim population in Indonesia (16 million). However, as their representative to UNSCOP came up with the plan (in part, of course, as part of the committee), they stuck to a \"yes\" vote.\n\n* Greece was pressured heavily by the US via lobbying, but resisted and voted no (reasons unclear to me).\n\n* Britain only influenced countries privately in the days leading up to the vote, as mentioned above, and publicly told its delegates not to influence anyone. They abstained.\n\n* The Soviet bloc voted with the Soviets.\n\n* Yugoslavia was, according to Morris, a \"partly Muslim\" country. While the country did indeed have a sizable number of Muslims, it was not more than 20% by any count I've found. Still, this likely had an influence. Yugoslavia stood on the precipice of expulsion from the Cominform, which occurred in June 1948 (half a year or so after the vote), for other reasons. At any rate, what reason they had for disagreeing I also have not found. I imagine it's in the records of debate, but I can't seem to track those down online.\n\nI haven't found records on other European states or any mention of them, in most of the books I have. I'm sure I could, or I'd go through the UN debate records if I could dig them up somewhere online (I don't think they're online through the UN, they'd have to be found elsewhere, maybe I'm wrong), but that's a pretty solid indication in my opinion. US-dependent countries (besides Greece) got the carrot or the stick (or genuinely believed in partition), Britain stayed out of it and privately counseled countries, though Australia and New Zealand (expected to follow the UK) didn't follow their advice, the Soviet countries besides Yugoslavia follow the Soviet line, and various other countries (ie. Muslim, Catholic, or otherwise unaligned or indifferent) either abstained or voted no. I could probably go into more detail on the other countries if you want." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clrx7rj" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "Why would they want or need to? Their trade and indeed their whole economy was dependent upon Britain. There also wasn't the emerging economic and political elite in Bermuda, such as existed in the 13 Colonies, who saw personal advantage in separation from Britain. Without the political self-interest of the \"Founding Fathers\" guiding the politically and economically active American people towards independence, would most Americans have participated in the American revolution? It took a considerable effort in propaganda to create an atmosphere in the 13 Colonies that was favourable to the idea of Independence. Even then there was a considerable minority of Tories who still opposed separation from the UK. As far as Bermuda was concerned, of what advantage would it be to them to rebel? Even if they had, they would have far too vulnerable to Naval blockade, and, of course, vulnerable to being snapped up by Spain or France." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "edwx0vn" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "Follow-up question, if allowed: how widespread was Nestorianism in Asia at its peak?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ciujhzd", "cium7pj" ], "score": [ 2, 13 ], "text": [ "What is the context of your question? Whose standards are you referring to? Who has called the latter two great generals but not the former? \n\nHave you considered the importance of Charlemagne's role as Holy Roman Emperor & political figure vs. the more heavily militaristic / conqueror roles of Hannibal and Alexander? ", "Socially speaking, we tend to think of great generals as great tacticians on a battlefield, born out of desperate necessity.\n\nHannibal and Alexander were known for their creative positioning and planning by which they were able to defeat armies that far exceeded their own in size. Cannae being the biggest one for Hannibal, and Gaugamela for Alexander.\n\nCharlemagne on the other hand, was not known for battlefield creativity. He had no need for it. He was the leader of an unstoppable juggernaut of an army (barring Roncesvalle) that spent as much of its time besieging as it did skirmish raiding, and thus comparatively less often in open pitched battle, except when he had at the very least numerical equality, but more likely superiority. \n\nThis is partly why one is hard pressed to remember Charlemagne's battles outside of Roncesvalle (which was more of an ambush of a withdrawing rear column) and maybe the siege of Pavia, which was more punctuated by the speed with which he reached the city and determination of his forces to remain at the siege site than any heroic slaughter.\n\nHis greatest victory was the capture of the Avar ring, which entailed no conflict. Likely because his forces were so overwhelming that the Avars didn't dare confront him openly. \n\nThis of course, has no bearing on him as a strategic thinker. He definitely would be closer to a Ulysses S. Grant than a Robert E. Lee. He wasn't a tactical battlefield genius, he was a strategic planner. He had a job to do, he got the army and the resources needed to do it. \n\nBattles be damned, there's a war to win.\n\nSources:\n\n* Bernard S. Bachrach. \"Charlemagne's Cavalry: Myth and Reality.\" Military Affairs, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 181-187" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c89s3ql", "c89vp4p" ], "score": [ 21, 2 ], "text": [ "Beyond Greek colonies like Massilia (Marseilles), none. Gallic society was organized around *oppida* (\"hillforts\") which are often called \"proto-urban areas\" because they fulfilled the social and political role of cities but not the economic or demographic one. Britain was moving towards this model but was still fairly decentralized, and its internal political consolidation would not truly be begin until the Augustan period.\n\nSpain is a different case: it had been a Roman province for a century or more, depending on the region, and had besides already developed the institution of cities--both Cadiz (Gades) and Corboba (Cordova), for example, were developed before the Roman conquest. But Iberia was a hugely diverse region, and certain areas, like the Basque Country, were not fully incorporated until the time of Augustus.\n\nGermania I cannot speak to as well as others here, but I believe they had developed neither urban nor proto-urban areas.\n\nAs a side note, \"barbaric\" is usually avoided as a descriptor unless when speaking in a fully political sense. Many pre-Roman Gallic and British tribes issued coinage and produced [truly stunning works of art](_URL_0_).", "There were major cities in the rest of Italy. Livy's histories make frequent mention of other city-states whose power temporarily rivaled that of Rome. Even after being subjugated, they retained significant political power and enough military might to \"convince\" Rome to extend citizenship through most of the peninsula.\n\nTiako went into detail about both Gaul and Iberia.\n\nThe Germanic area did have sizeable settlements for trade and agriculture but few strategic enough to be considered cities. This is what made Roman attempts to subdue the land so fruitless for so many centuries.\n\nI couldn't tell you much different about Brittania although there has been more archaeology as of late to learn more.\n\nMost other areas of the Roman Republic besides Greece had considerable cities including Asia Minor, Egypt, Africa, and Palestine. There's mention of a historical city named Scodra in the province of Illyria (present-day Albania) but it did not appear to be a major one." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1-VCm6RwIOg/T6SNPsH6BRI/AAAAAAAAM2E/mXWKGYmojHE/s1600/mirror.jpg" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dhxu1v9", "dhya9qi" ], "score": [ 63, 10 ], "text": [ "It's largely a definitional question. As long as you can define democracy tightly enough you're golden.\n\nAll in all there are probably two to three dozen decent candidates for democracies going to war with each other. In each case you have to have a discussion over what counts as a \"True Democracy.\"\n\nDoes Fujimori's declaration of Martial Law make it not a democracy for the Equadoran-Peruvian border war of 1995? Does president Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus mean the US wasn't a democracy in the Civil War? \n\nHow broad does enfranchisement have to be to be a \"True Democracy?\" Does the existence of slavery disqualify the US prior to the late 1860s. Does Jim Crow disqualify the US until the 1960s? Do similar issues disqualify the Boer Republics? Do women have to be enfranchised? If so does that mean Switzerland wasn't a \"True Democracy\" until the 1970s? Does the existence of a non-democratic element like a House of Lords disqualify a country? If not how far does that go? Was the U.K. truly democratic in 1914? If yes, was Germany? It had regular contested elections and the Reichstag had some real power. Even if the Kaiser held the bulk of power in the German system, he wasn't an autocratic ruler like the Tsar. So where is the dividing line between a democratic system with non-democratic elements and a non-democratic system with democratic elements?\n\nHow about civil wars or revolutions? Both sides of the US Civil War had democratically elected governments. Same with the US Revolutionary War. For a more recent example, the Croatian War of Independence in the early 1990s was fought between a democratically elected Croatian government and a democratically elected Yugoslavian government. \n\nSo on and so forth. Basically the only way you can argue that democracies don't go to war with one another is by adding in that \"True\" adjective. Then you can toss out any counter examples and declare the rule to be correct. Of course by limiting it to \"True Democracies\" you're also making it less significant. Under deep scrutiny, just about every democracy could be eliminated. Democracy in practice tends to be a bit messy and flawed.", "This isn't really a history question. What you're referring to is called the Democratic Peace Theory, and is a concept rooted as far back as Thomas Hobbes' *Leviathan*. This question is open to a whole lot of definitional caveats, in addition to possibly falling under the \"Trivia Seeking\" category. \n\nIn any case, the two most useful works you should look at to get a gist of what that statement actually means is J. Owen, *How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace* and; A. Gat, *The Democratic Peace Theory Reframed: The Impact of Modernity*. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ctcx82p" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "What do you mean by predominant, and how would you measure that? Predominant politically? Economically? What about entities like the Ottoman Empire that spurred European oceanic exploration? Are they not as important?\n\nYour question is extremely broad. You might want to narrow it down, to say the least. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccdy0n8", "ccdy3ie", "cce357j", "cce3eh6", "cce4afs", "cce6xmg" ], "score": [ 5, 6, 13, 2, 9, 2 ], "text": [ "This may fall under missing documents or research problems, but I would be interested in knowing more about gaps in the historical record and undeciphered written languages as 2 possible mysteries.", "* Language/Script/Linguistic Mysteries\n* Art/Music Mysteries\n* \"History Detectives\" style theme: Successful Sleuthing Stories\n* More Alliterative Titles ", "**Historical False History** (please come up with a better title)\n\nSurely people of the past must have believed things about *their own past* (or the past of their neighbors, etc.) that we now know to be in error. The \"mystery\" angle comes from the fact that history must have *been* mysterious to various people/places in the past.", "Art mysteries or missing art would be fantastic(and a fine change of pace for me to put on my art history hat!)", "* Secret Societies and / or Mystery Cults\n* Frontier Theories (New ideas that, while not outlandish, aren't firmly supported or widely accepted yet)\n* Historical Blunders (cases were historians or archaeologists completely misrepresented the facts [intentionally or otherwise])", "Issues that were thought settled but which new information has unsettled. " ] }

[]

[ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cvbaz/monday_mysteries_missing_documents_and_texts/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hv6me/monday_mysteries_literary_mysteries/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hfffk/monday_mysteries_contested_reputations/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gj0q2/monday_mysteries_what_in_your_research_is_proving/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ce73h/monday_mysteries_notable_disappearances/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1k7cmp/monday_mysteries_mysterious_images/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1itbtx/monday_mysteries_difficulties_in_your_research/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fl9uw/monday_mysteries_local_history_mysteries/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1eoypm/monday_mysteries_unsolved_crimes_in_history/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1mi2xe/monday_mysteries_difficulties_in_your_research/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ko1ic/monday_mysteries_missing_persons/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dslor/monday_mysteries_decline_and_fall/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1m18cv/monday_mysteries_what_are_the_most_outlandish_or/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1jqrya/monday_mysteries_the_historical_foundations_of/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1e9el2/monday_mysteries_ancient_ruins/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gz7ac/monday_mysteries_your_family_mysteries/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1j9zv8/monday_mysteries_verifiable_historical/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1f57b0/monday_mysteries_fakes_frauds_and_flimflammery_in/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1lkw4j/monday_mysteries_inexplicable_occurrences_in/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dcbb3/monday_mysteries_lost_and_found_treasure/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1l48li/monday_mysteries_lost_and_found_treasures/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1g1we7/monday_mysteries_lost_lands_and_peoples/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1icd0x/monday_mysteries_leastaccurate_historical_books/" ]

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

{ "a_id": [ "clxb4xy" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I can shed some light on Crassus. Once Sulla came into power after his war with Marius, Crassus, who had always been loyal to Sulla, got put in charge of Sulla's proscriptions. That is to say, Crassus was in charge of killing all of Sulla's political enemies. And when you purge thousands of rich senators and patricians you ultimately get lots and lots of money. This is where Crassus comes in. In order to restore his seized wealth, Crassus would get rich members of the aristocracy killed by simply telling Sulla that while he was in exile they were Marian supporters. Thousands of people were killed in the post social war purges and Crassus got very very rich by inheriting their wealth. He was also in charge of one of the first fire brigades in Rome. When he saw a house burning he would approach the owner and tell them that he would put the fire out only if the owners would sign over their house to Crassus. He made huge sums of money buying burning property at extraordinarily low prices and was also one of the biggest slave traders of his time. He soon became one of the richest men in history. Not just in Roman times, we're talkin' in the history of the world. \n\n\nDuring Sulla's reign, Crassus and Pompey \"the Great\"(guess who gave Pompey that nickname BTW) became fierce rivals because of Pompey's various military victories in the civil war, the East and against pirates in the Mediterranean. It wasn't the fact that Pompey was victorious, it was the fact that Crassus was always looking for a military triumph and Pompey, it seemed without lifting a finger, had won battle after battle and he wasn't afraid to tell everyone about his many victories. \n\n\nCrassus had all of the wealth in the world, he had a successful career in politics, he was one of the most famous people in all of Rome. But he never could boast a great military victory. So when Spartacus' revolt came around he did just that. He routed the last of Spartacus' forces and wiped them out. Spartacus was defeated! Crassus would finally be able to have a triumph. Or not. Turns out that there was a small force of Spartacus' left who had deserted before the final battle took place. It also turns out that Pompey decided he wanted a taste of battle. Pompey ran into the remaining troops and claimed victory against Spartacus and took all of the credit for ending the revolt. Crassus was completely livid and he and Pompey's relationship got even worse. It also wasn't helped by the fact that Pompey became consul at an unheard of age of 35. This made Crassus even more livid because he shot up the ladder of success at such a young age. He also served his first consulship with, you guessed it, Crassus. Fast forward to the First Triumvirate and your question about Cassius whereabouts. Well, like I said, he was always trying to gain a great military victory. He believed his victory against Spartacus was spoiled by Pompey so he looked East towards one of Rome's most staunch rivals: The Parthian Empire. \n\n\nAt this time Crassus was in his sixties and he was pretty impatient. Impatient enough to spurn an offer by the Armenian King to go through his lands in order to bypass the harsh deserts of Parthia and he even offered to supply Cassius with thousands of more men and cavalry. Again, he said \"fuck that noise, I have plenty of men and not enough time.\" So he goes through the desert to meet the Parthian military. He was then led deep into the desert by a man who he trusted but was really on the payroll of the Parthians. So here Crassus is, deep in the desert, with no water and no food and suddenly he gets attacked by a small contingency of Parthians. Long story short, he gets completely fucking owned by this small Parthian Army who was really only supposed to slow Crassus down until the real battle began (funny story, the Armenian King from earlier was getting owned by the real Parthian military at the same time and right before this battle began he actually sent Crassus a letter asking for help that Crassus ignored). Well, Crassus' son dies, he retreats, leaving thousands of wounded on the battlefield and then he gets killed. He also gets his Legionary Eagles captured which is a supreme fucking deal. It's the ultimate dishonor in Roman culture and it brought fantastic shame on every citizen of Rome. So, instead of leading a fierce Roman Army to a great military victory, he gets shit on, killed, and brings great dishonor to his countrymen. \n\nSo after Crassus died the Triumvirate was quickly disbanded (Caeser's wife, Julia's death also expedited things) and Pompey and Caeser went to war. Sorry for going on a long tangent but this shit is awesome.\n\n\nYeah, and I just saw your question again and I didn't answer it. Crassus was the link between Caeser and Pompey. Caeser and Crassus were old friends and Crassus was a very important figure in Rome at the time. If there was no Crassus then there would have been no Triumvirate because nobody would have taken Caeser seriously. I mean, this is a guy who was run out of town and was only just beginning to come back into prominence. Crassus was the pocketbook and the face that everyone knew. Pompey was the great military hero that everyone loved. Caeser was the brain. He was the one that everybody knew would be great." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "djvcfe1" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "[This](_URL_0_) article pretty much covers the entire history of US-Soviet cooperation during the Cold War, including the political reasoning on both sides for actually going along with this cooperation, in spite of the apparent antagonism between the two countries. It's a really interesting source, as it's written in part by the former head of the Russian Space Research Institute." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/coldWarCoOp.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c79k82m", "c79kdx5", "c79kood", "c79kqrq", "c79mlpt", "c79otpc" ], "score": [ 16, 14, 54, 89, 26, 3 ], "text": [ "Id actually like this answered, but im more interested how it was received globally.", "I don't know anything on this more than anecdotal hearsay, but I remember one of my professors mentioning that Ep.06 S.01 of AMC's Mad Men did a good job of encapsulating the disinterest that upper-class New York Jewish population felt towards Israel and Zionism.\n\nI've never seen the show, but I think the general sentiment was \"we finally found ourselves a good life after years of hard work and struggle, why would we want to thrown it all away and start over again in this new place called Israel?\"\n\nThen again, that's 1960s, not 1940s-50s, and like I said, I'm not particularly an expert on the topic.\n\n[Here's a tiny article from *The Atlantic* on the episode, anyway.](_URL_0_)\n\nEdit: Ouch. So much for giving it a shot.", "Global opinion was generally sympathetic toward the Jewish plight at the time in light of recent holocaust revelations. Certainly, there was a feeling that there should be a place for them somewhere and British policy on admitting displaced European Jews to Palestine was generally criticized. American-based Jews mobilized by capitalizing on this sympathy to devastating effect on politicians, in the media, and to raise funds which went to organizations such as Haganah, Stern Gang and Irgun who were conducting terrorist operations against the British there.\n\nBy the time the British left in 1948, the only people who seemed to really maintain an active interest in the area were the Americans and the Arab world. This was particularly because of Jewish swing votes valuable to Truman in the upcoming election. American public opinion was probably more sympathetic and pronounced than most, helped by a strong Jewish community and awareness in the US which is lacking in other countries. \n\nThe British public opinion questioned why troops were dying over in Palestine for a cause they scarcely understood; especially considering the war-weariness of a global conflict they just fought. Most Brits just wanted their boys home. The government left the mandate resigned to the possibility of conflict and that whoever was the strongest would prevail there.\n\nGallup polls since 1967 have shown pretty consistent levels of support for Israel emanating from the American public.", "At first there was little support among the political elite and the wider public. But Soviet diplomatic support, coupled with Czech arms shipments, signaled to policy makers that it would be in America's best interest to have Israel in our camp, rather than the Soviet camp. As for the wider American public, churches and their affiliated groups were some of the first Americans to come out in favor. Followed by Marxist organizations. With all of this taken together, Truman had to start considering recognizing Israel, which in turn was not well received by Harry Truman's wife. She was a huge anti-Semite, going so far as to not allow Jews to enter the White House. Despite her objections, as well as the objections of politicians in and out of the administration, Truman decided to recognize Israel. This did not elicit enormous public attention by our standards, as our material support for Israel would not start occurring until the mid 1960s. Source: Uri Waller, Israel Between East and West; Israel's Foreign Policy Orientation, 1948-56. Cambridge University. 1990, 302 pages, ISBN 0521362490. ", "Regarding American Jews: Moderate excitement, tempered with indifference.\n\nThere have always been more Jews living in the U.S. than in Israel. Although I don't know statistics from the 1940s, I do know that by the mid-1950s, the average Jewish American was better educated and made more than the average non-Jewish American. (I suspect this was largely true before 1948 as well.) Most, but certainly not all, of the Jewish American population in 1948 had attempted to assimilate into mainstream American culture. The idea of multiculturalism in the 1940s/1950s was nowhere to be found, lost in the \"melting pot\" model of society.\n\nSo what? I would argue that the vast majority of Jewish Americans in 1948 were *not* Zionists. Although most understood that Israel's creation ended the Diaspora and the suffering of the Jews during WWII, American Jews were very comfortable in their role as predominantly wealthy, educated Americans. Although many prominent Jewish Americans had helped support the settlement of the region, they did not even entertain the idea of moving there themselves. Israel's creation was seen primarily as a European/Russian Jewish concern. \n\nRegarding non-Jewish Americans: Widespread indifference.\n\nThe idea of a Judeo-Christian identity in America (touted primarily by Christian conservatives) is a total fabrication, no more than 30 years old. In 1948, to insinuate that America possessed even a partial \"Judeo\" identity would have been laughable at best, and offensive at worst. I would like to assume that many Americans know that the Holocaust was largely ignored in the U.S. for many years, instead cataloged as Nazi \"war crimes.\" In truth, the term \"Holocaust\" didn't enter the American lexicon until the early 1960s. (Side note: As a historian, I understand there is no direct causal relationship between the Holocaust and the creation of Israel, but I believe the majority of Americans do.)\n\nSo what? I would argue that mainstream America viewed Israel's creation as an unusual, even remarkable, development, but people weren't exactly celebrating in the streets. In terms of the average American's understanding of Israel and the rise of Israel as an American ally and religious symbol, the Six Day War of 1967 was far more influential than Israel's creation in 1948.\n\nKeep in mind that I am approaching this from a purely social perspective. Without a doubt, Israel's creation had far more impact politically than it did socially.\n\n**TL;DR: Among both Jewish and non-Jewish Americans, the prevailing feeling toward Israel's creation in 1948 was indifference.**", "Keep in mind that the Kibbutzim in Israel follow a socialist ideology which made it problematic for America to support it but America still did and still does. Also Mossad provided the US with a transcript of the secret speech made by Khrushchev which would solidify US-Israel relations." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/01/mad-men-on-the-ambivalence-of-zion/9463/" ], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8oq6d6" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I'd say there was never an abiding philosophy in Roman minds throughout the Empire's long history geared towards conquering Persia. \n\nI think the shortest answer is probably the most sensible (I'll give way to better-informed explanations). Persia was one of many enemies the Roman Empire faced in its time, but it was both an obstinate enemy and one which was much more like the Roman Empire itself than any enemy the Romans ever faced. \n\nIn this way, the reverse question, \"Why did the Persians not conquer the Roman Empire after the numerous serious incursions into the state?\" proves a useful point; both empires were too big to permanently cripple each other in their fullest capacity. Trajan could sack the Persian capital, but that was as far as his army, or his political credit, would take him. \n\nWhen one side dedicated the necessary resources to deal a knockout blow to the other, it was deadly. The Sassanians during Heraclius' reign took over the most important provinces of the Roman Empire (Syria, Egypt), but could not full defeat the agile Roman armies in the Caucasus. As a result, the political integrity of the regime running Persia was undone, and Heraclius was able to place a suitable heir on the Persian throne." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fjk1q0z" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The problem is that there were frequent violent pogroms against Jewish villages. It isn’t so much that anyone set out to destroy the records themselves; it’s that everything got destroyed with depressing regularity. Further, post-revolution, religion was banned. Synagogues were seized or destroyed and with them, any records of Jewish life." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdguog8" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "[I'm not supposed to be here, but I couldn't resist...]\n\n > ...or anything in particular that made him decide that was a good time to do it?\n\nThe most popular reason I've seen cited for this is the escalation of the German bombing campaign over London. \n\nThe Zeppelins had already become a fact of life by 1917, but in the spring of that year they were joined by a new brand of long-distance twin-engine bombers -- [the Gotha G.IV](_URL_0_). \"Gotha\" joined \"Zeppelin\" in the popular lexicon as a byword for death from above, and its presence on every document associated with the royal family became embarrassing.\n\nThis, at least, is one possible reason. We might look for another in the fact that 1917 is the year in which the war's apparent grim permanence began to be broadly accepted on a cultural level -- the failure of the Somme campaign of July-November of 1916 to achieve the long-hoped-for victory suggested to many observers that the war really would not be over any time soon, and consequently the vision of a future world in which friendly relations with Germany could be normalized again grew weaker and weaker. The first twelve months of the war saw it conceived of as a thing that could perhaps be quickly resolved and even eventually forgotten; the next twelve (with its titanic efforts at Loos and the Somme) as a thing that, though extended, could end at any minute. By 1917, though...\n\nAs to any of George V's other personal motivations in doing it at that juncture, I'm afraid I can't say. I wish we had someone here who was flaired in 20th century British monarchs." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Gotha_G_IV_na_Lawicy.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dfsem2l" ], "score": [ 16 ], "text": [ "The main historical sin of the _Civilization_ series (in my mind) is that it is unabashedly technologically deterministic. It is entirely about the driving of society/culture/history by technology, especially (but not exclusively) in war, to the degree that it basically turns everything else into an engine of technology. Culture? Gets you technology. Cities? Engines of research and production. Systems of government? Give you points for various kinds of technological adaptations. (I am generalizing, mostly based on the last two Civs, but there you have it.)\n\nNone of the social institutions have anything to do with real social institutions. They all have to do with technology, in the end. It is the only resource that _really_ matters, aside from raw military forces. \n\nIf one were going to describe its mode beyond technological determinism, I would argue it is a very crude Hegelianism — the player is some kind of _Geist_ of history. Not necessarily Whiggish. (Whig history is about seeing the past as leading up to the present. Civ does that in some ways — practically all popular history does — but that is not its real sin, given that it is not about replicating the present world but creating some kind of alternative world.)\n\nI wrote [a review](_URL_0_) of _Civilization 6_ from the perspective of a historian of science and technology recently — it's one historian's opinion, but it sums up my issues with the historical \"model\" that motivates the game. I am sure other reviewers (and historians) will take a different approach than I would!" ] }

[]

[ "http://www.historyrespawned.com/civilization-vi/" ]

[ [ "http://alexwellerstein.com/publications/wellerstein_reviewciv6(endeavour\\).pdf" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dgrrtge" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "At the end of the Battle of Stalingrad, the Sixth Army was split in to two pockets, North and South. Later a Central pocket was formed. The South and then Central pockets surrendered first. The Northern sector was the last to hold out in the city, until February 2nd, 1943. This was mostly made up of Generaloberst (Colonel General) Karl Strecker's XIth Corps . Some of the units under his command were Romanian, but mostly German.\n\nNow the Stalingrad area airfields that were used be the Wehrmacht were Pitomnik and Gumrak Airfields. Pitomnik fell first in middle of January, and the ancillary Gumrak airfield was used until it fell, with Soviet tanks literally driving up and firing at fleeing planes, on January 23rd. So no it isn't possible that your Croatian uncle was at one of those airfields, as a free soldier, after the Battle. Now, he may have been captured at the airfield because he was wounded and trying to escape, but I believe I read that some of the wounded at Gumrak were shot, and the walking wounded were marched in to the city a few days after Sixth Army's surrender. He could have also been at one of the airfields just outside of the Stalingrad pocket, that would later evacuate as the Soviet thrusts widened. \n\n\nEdit: However, after Sixth Army's surrender, Wehrmacht and German Allied soldiers (Romanians, Hungarians, Italians, Croatians etc...) were all over the place within the city itself and the open steppe outside of the city. The Soviets had to hunt everyone down. Some units put up resistance after Paulus gave the surrender orders on February 2nd, but for the most part most units were too exhausted and weak to fight on. Some areas went unoccupied by Soviets for a day or two, but the Axis soldiers were told to lay down their weapons and wait for the Soviets to come take them in to captivity. But 14 to 15 days after the battle was impossible, unless he was outside of the Stalingrad encirclement all together.\n\n\nSome good books to checkout on Stalingrad and it's aftermath, from a more personal level are:\n\n\n*After Stalingrad: Seven Years as a Soviet Prisoner of War*\nBook by Albert Holl\n\n\n*Survivors of Stalingrad: Eyewitness Accounts from the 6th Army, 1942-1943*\nBy Reinhold Busch \n\n\nThe former is very daunting and detailed, and is truly lets you feel how the author felt. The latter book has several different mini biographical accounts of the battle and the aftermath. Remember all of the people who are quoted in that book were either wounded and escaped via plane, or were captured and spent years in captivity. So they have some very detailed personal accounts of the end and aftermath of Stalingrad." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dw9xu4z" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "In 1522, Sebastian Cabot, a rather important man in discoveries for kings of England and Spain, himself born in Venice (to a Genoese born John Cabot who moved to Venice and obtained Venetian citizenship before moving to Bristol in 1490s and discovering Newfoundland for the English in 1497) sent messages to the Venetian Council of Ten with a secret proposition that he wished to lead his mother country (Venice) in reaching the Far East. At that point neither \"colonization\" nor \"america\" was of really top interest to any. Reaching Far East, China (Cathay) and India and Spice islands was considered much more profitable and most desired to go there. Council of Ten, intrigued by a proposal, especially from a prominent figure like Sebastian, sent dispatches to their Ambassador in Spain named Gaspar Contarini to meet somehow with Cabot, see if he is serious, and see what he proposes. The two managed to meet in some rather underwhelming secret meetings - Cabot arrived at night - and conversed on the issue. The following is a relevant excerpt from the message Contarini sent to the Council on the talks:\n\n > **But with regard to the possibility of such an issue I am very doubtful. For I have some slight knowledge of geography, and, considering the position of Venice, I can see no way whatever by which she can undertake these voyages.** It would be necessary to sail in vessels built at Venice, or else they must be built outside the strait. **If they are built at Venice they will have to pass the Straits of Gibraltar to reach the ocean, which would not be possible in face of the opposition of the King of Portugal and the King of Spain. If they are not built at Venice they can only be built on the shore of the western ocean ; for they cannot be constructed in the Red Sea without infinite trouble.** First it would be necessary to make an agreement with the Turk ; and, secondly, the scarcity of timber would make it impossible to build ships. Even if they were built, the forts and armed vessels of the Portuguese would make it impossible to continue that navigation. Nor can I see any possibility of building ships on the western ocean, Germany being subject to the Emperor. **So that I can perceive no way whatever by which merchandise could be brought to Venice from those ships, or from the ships to Venice** ; but, being an inexpert person in such matters, I merely made these observations to him. He replied that there was much in what I said, and that truly nothing could be done with vessels built in Venice or in the Red Sea. But that there was another way, which was not only possible but easy, by which ships might be built, and merchandize be carried from the port to Venice, and from Venice to the port, as well as gold and other things. He added : \" I know, because I have navigated to all those countries, and am familiar with all. I told you that I would not undertake the voyage for the King of England, because that enterprise would in no way benefit Venice.\" I shrugged my shoulders, and, although the thing appeared to me to be impossible, I would not dissuade him further, so as not to discourage him from presenting himself to your Highnesses, and I considered that the possibilities are much more ample than is often believed. This man has great renown, and so for the present we parted.\n\nFrom the above message we can see the difficulties Contarini himself considered. To go West, or East for that matter, they either had to go through strait of Gibraltar where they would be contested by the Iberian powers, on the way there, or back. The other option was to cooperate with the Ottoman Empire, and build ships on the Red Sea, which as he states would be incredibly difficult politically and logistically, and again would have to compete with the Portuguese already in the Indian Ocean. \n\nBottom line was, the Venetian ambassador was aware of Venice's geographical and political reality that prevented it to effectively join the exploration and later colonization efforts of other nations, which you will notice, all had easy access to the Atlantic.. The central geographical position that enabled Italian states to be so effective in the Mediterranean also meant they were excluded for any real possibilities of doing commerce through the oceans.\n\nFor the proposition of Sebastian Cabot, we know only that after some additional meetings and Cabot even going to Venice and pitching his proposal, no expedition was ever made. We do not know what exactly was he plan nor how would Venice be able to work around the above mentioned restrains. From his later work for Spanish and English we know Cabot wanted to reach Asia by North Western or North Eastern passageways, but in that was never successful. \n\nThe correspondence of the Contarini with Venice can be read in [this free PDF](_URL_0_) from page 216. My quote comes from pages 221, 222 specifically" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/columbus/Columbus-Journal.pdf" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d4ktjl8", "d4ktzdn", "d4kv7ur", "d4kygix", "d4l041n", "d4l0fpz", "d4l477j", "d4l5y14", "d4ll3kp", "d4lqkwb", "d4mbve8", "d4mvhtg", "d4n1p8n" ], "score": [ 25, 11, 10, 3, 10, 5, 22, 10, 7, 10, 5, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "**Scene, DFD in regular text giving a pitch to a producer in italics**\n\nOkay, so I have this idea for a musical. Setting: France. The people are revolting against their King-\n\n*You mean Les Mis, we already have Les Mis, Ne-*\n\nNo no, I swear its not Les Mis. The people are pushing republican ideals of freedom and libert-\n\n*Yeah, Les Mis, look we dont need another Enjoras to-*\n\nNo no, this is THE French Revolution!\n\n*Wait, how many Revolutions were there...*\n\nSo, there was the main one, the one I want in 1789, then the Revolution of 1830, then the one in Les Mis was...\n\n*Goddamn it, was France some Banana Republic during this time or something?*\n\nI mean, basically. The Nobility were bad at trying to keep the spirit of nationalism and republican ideals at bay as both the main French Revolution and Napoleon effective-\n\n*Okay okay, yawn, just tell me what's so musical about yet another French Revolution.*\n\nWell, we could start with the ultimate starter, the Tennis Court Oath when-\n\n*A Tennis Court Oath? What is this some sort of Monty Python skit?*\n\nNo, you see the Estates General was assembled to find ways to gain more taxes as France was on the verge of bankruptcy.\n\n*So you want to talk about nineteenth century economics, Nex-*\n\nNo, it's eighteenth and we don't actually see the economic policy because the Third Estate, think those Revolutionaries in Les Mis, they were trying to be shoved out of voting by the nobili-\n\n*So you want to start on a protest avoir parlimentary procedure. This sounds like a Monty-*\n\nNo, this is what happened. The people were mad and wanted equal legal rights from noble-\n\n*Okay, so people are angry, want freedom. Add some Braveheart stuff, add a love story, and everyone ends up free. NEXT*\n\nBut that's not what happen- (gets shoved out of producers office)\n\nEdit: fixed some mistakes", "I always really like Jason Segal's puppet Dracula show in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I would like to see something similar, but with the Conquest of Mexico. It's kind of hard to laugh at all the death and destruction surrounding the Conquest, but I think someone could pull it off.", "Little known fact: Progressive Mayor of New York City Fiorello Laguardia - who is a great bad ass, known to few who haven't read the Robert Moses Biography *The Power Broker* (which might make a good musical, actually) - had a [musical](_URL_1_!) done about him back in the day. It was produced during his lifetime, and he saw it.\n\nProgressive Congressman Barney Frank [played the title role](_URL_0_) in a production after he retired. I kicked myself for having missed it.", "A bio-musical of Heinrich Schliemann would be wonderful. I just found this [blog post](_URL_0_) (really, I had no idea it existed until I googled Sophia Schliemann just now - I really really want it to be right!) that describes his many loves and heartbreaks. Some of his love letters set to song, for the sophisticated audience, would be hilarious.\n > Unfortunately, as it seems, marriages in Greece are always arranged in great haste, even only after the first meeting, and for this reason half of them dissolve within one year. My feelings repel such disastrous practice. Marriage is the most splendid of all human institutions if its sole motives are respect, love and virtue; but marriage is the most ignoble bond and the heaviest yoke if it is based on material interest or sensual pleasure. Wealth contributes to matrimonial happiness, but it does not create it by itself and the woman who would marry me only for my money, or to become a great lady in Paris, would bitterly regret to have left Greece, because she would make me and herself wretched. The woman who marries me, ought to make it because of my worth as a man.\n\nTreasure hunting bastard.", "[Felipe Angeles](_URL_1_). He was a military officer during the Mexican Revolution. He worked loyally for Madero, and when given the task of suppressing the Zapatistas he tried to offer amnesties as well as military force, and also kept good discipline in his army, at a time and place where the armies often tended to resort to brutality. When Madero was betrayed by Huerta, he managed to defend himself so well during trial that Huerta was forced to exile him, instead of having him shot. He returned to Mexico to work for Carranza, formulated the three-prong strategy that Carranza, Villa and Zapata used to defeat Huerta. Carranza did not treat him well, so he went to work for Villa's army of the north and became a brigadier general, providing a much-needed expertise in artillery to Villa's normal pell-mell cavalry charges. When Villa suffered defeats by Carranza and Obregon in 1915, Angeles tried farming in the US for a bit ( not successfully) and tried negotiating some compromise for the war ( also not successfully). When he was finally convinced the US was going to invade, he returned to Mexico to serve under Villa, but Villa's army had become little more than a small army of bandits, not really capable of much, and Angeles left. He was pretty soon captured ( betrayed by a Villa officer now loyal to Carranza) and put into a show-trial. It was there that he made an impassioned defense of socialism . Carranza being very much a part of the ruling elite, this was obviously not in any expectation that it would save Angeles...he must have assumed he was going to be shot, and he was.\n\nHe was a man of intelligence, honor and decency, at a time when most of the men running Mexico and fighting in the revolution were very flawed.\n\nSongs? The Mexicans have never lacked the ability to write their own...[here's](_URL_0_) \na *corrido* about Angeles. I don't think hip -hop can exist in 3/4 tempo...but who knows?", "My go-to crazy historical story has to be Tsar Nicolas II and his family. There are so many human angles to play on in that story, from Alexei's illness to Nicolas's own difficulties ruling. And think of the amazing, show-stealing character of Rasputin! The story's been done before, but as Lin-Manuel Miranda said, \" hip-hop is the language of revolution,\" so I think the story of the last Tsar could definitely get a hip-hop treatment.", "**Left Bank Story - The Smash-Hit Musical about Forbidden and Tragic Love in Twelfth-Century Paris**\n\nThe year is 1115 and young, intelligent, vivacious, rebellious Héloise arrives in Paris to live with her stuffy uncle Fulbert. It's not long before she falls in love - with her tutor, the gorgeous, brooding, tormented genius Peter Abelard.\n\n*\"Peter! I just met a man named Peter! I just kissed a man named Peter! Peter! Peter! Say it loud and there's music playing! Say it soft and it's almost like praying...\"*\n\nCue a whirlwind, Romeo-and-Juliet-esque romance, and a secret wedding, as both lovers have finally met their intellectual equals, ready to cast off the shackles of their repressive environment and burst forth into a brave new world.\n\nThen, tragedy.\n\nHéloise falls pregnant, and while away in Brittany giving birth, uncle Fulbert find out about the affair. He confronts Peter, attacks and castrates him and denounces him to the university. [This is getting quite graphic, so it might be worth taking a left out of Jason Segal and /u/Mictlantecuhtli's book and making this a Muppet-based musical]\n\nWhen Héloise returns, she finds a different man than the one she left. Bitter, angry and ashamed, Peter tries to salvage what's left of his intellectual career and teams up with Uncle Fulbert to send Héloise to a convent, despite her final plea to help change to world with her.\n\nThe final scene flashes forward to Peter, now at the height of his fame, foremost philosopher and theologian in Christendom, receiving one last letter from Héloise, sung by her off-stage.\n\n*\"I preferred love to wedlock, freedom to bond; but if I lose you, what is left for me to hope for? I am the most wretched and amongst the unhappy I am unhappiest.\"*\n\n**[Curtain]**\n\nNinja edit: So it turns out that this musical is actually a [thing](_URL_0_), although this one seems to have a more sappy, up-beat, true-love interpretation than my one proposed. And no Muppets.", "I would like a large-scale musical take on the career of Gilbert and Sullivan done in their own style. Actually, \"I would like\" doesn't even come close to covering it.\n\nI am aware of the existence of the film *Topsy Turvy* (1999). It's not nearly enough.", "I think a Chinese opera about the life and times of Nelson Mandela is the next logical progression from here.", "I'd love to see a musical based on the sinking of the Méduse. If that doesn't ring a bell, maybe [this](_URL_1_) will jog your memory. Yes, it's the story behind one of the most famous and iconic paintings to come out of Romanticism. And what a story it is. \n\nIn a way, it's the classical shipwreck story you've seen before - an incompetent and unworthy captain ignores the advice of his more experienced crew and manages to run the Méduse aground off of the coast of Africa. The ship showing signs of breaking up, it's decided to abandon ship. Most of the 400 people on board crowded into the ship's longboats, but 146 men and one woman ended up on a quickly constructed 20 by 7m raft - nicknamed *la Machine.* Though initially towed by the longboats, worsening seas led to the longboats cutting the ropes to the raft, setting it afloat. \n\nLeft to the elements and with no means to pilot the raft, things on the raft quickly went south. Fights over rations, general panic and hopelessness led to twenty people dying in the first night. A storm hits, leaving only the centre of the raft safe. Many die, being swept off the raft or dying in the desperate fighting to get to the centre of the raft. Supplies dwindle, reports of cannibalism and on the eight day its decided to throw the weakest survivors overboard - leaving fifteen men. They're eventually rescued by the brig *Argus*, although an additional five would die within days of being rescued. \n\nNow, my reasons for picking this episode are as follows:\n\n* There's an interesting political dimension in all of this. The shipwreck followed shortly after the Bourbon Restoration, with Louis XVIII trying to place Royalists at the head of the navy again. This led to the appointment of Viscount de Chaumareys as captain of the Méduse, despite the fact that he had hardly sailed in 20 years. The multiple terrible decisions he made that led up to the running aground and to the abandoning of the raft would be held against him in an eventual courtmartial - but only after the accounts of the survivors caused a huge - and politically loaded - scandal. He got off easily though, in what was said to have been a whitewash. This whole aspect leaves a lot of room for on the one hand interesting plot points and tensions, and on the other hand for relevant parallels to be drawn to more modern politics. \n* Most of the action would take place first on the ship, then on a 20 by 7m raft - a terribly confined space, which aside from opening the door to some spectacular scenography also puts up some severe limitations on the writing and the framing of the story - in a good way. It's also very suited to the stage.\n* Musically, the sea is an incredibly giving source of inspiration. \n* The imagery of the painting is very, very fertile soil to work from. The painting shows the moment when the few survivors on the raft spot a ship on the horizon. It's an intensely powerful moment - a light at the end of the tunnel, a ray of hope which quickly turns to desperation as it appears the ship doesn't spot them. You can see the tension in most of the characters, clawing at the ship in desperation - the human will to survive and all that. In the forefront, we see an older man holding his son in his arms, utterly defeated even if rescue is near. It's all imagery that can easily be incorporated into a musical/play. \n* There's obviously some very interesting things to be said about the human condition, human nature, inhumanity, whatever you want to call it. The raft being abandoned to what would've been their certain death. Not just nature, but also the survivors on the raft claiming lives in the fights over the rations/better positions on the raft. The cannibalism. Men slipping into the sea, first dragged during the storm, then drifting away when they're too weak to cling on to the raft. The desperation, the question while ten men survived, what did they survive as?\n\nAll of this could easily lead you to believe it'd just be a cheap Les Mis clone - desperation, some French politics, inhumanity - but I see this as a more Brechtian piece. Not just endless melodrama, but a furious condemnation of the the ills of society and its causes. A stark depiction of humanity and inhumanity. Imagine *Ballade über die Frage: \"Wovon lebt der Mensch\"?* but at sea. I want a tale about humans and I don't want it to be pretty. \n\nI've probably thought about this too much. Here's [a cool and good oratorio](_URL_0_) about the story as a parting gift. ", "A hip-hop musical, al la *Hamilton*, about Spartacus and the Third Servile War. It could start and end with a chorus of various revolutionaries and opponents of slavery throughout the ages. The first scene, with the chorus singing in the background, would be a group of slaves, Spartacus among them, being marched to the gladiator school of Capua. This would be mirrored in the last scene as the chorus sings behind a group of Spartacus' followers being marched to their crucifixions. It could focus on both Spartacus as a man and Spartacus as a symbol of liberty.", "*Ethan!* The true story of Ethan Allen, one of the pivotal figures in Vermont history. He and his brother Ira bought huge tracts of land in Vermont when it was part of the New Hampshire Grants and sold them to NH residents/settlers.The problem was, the next English king sold the same lands to New York settlers. Geographical knowledge was thin at the time.\n\nEthan (he was a big guy with a prodigious capacity for alcohol) and his buddies \nwent around beating up the NY settlers and throwing them off the land, thus sparking a conflict between Vermont and NY that lingers to this day. But Ethan - and buddies, probably mostly drunk at the time - rowed across Lake Champlain and captured Fort Ticonderga. The garrison was asleep. Ethan Allen said he claimed it \"In the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!\". Other accounts said he told the commander, \"Come on out of there, you old bastard!\". I prefer the latter, since Ethan was a Deist in all likelihood.\n\nThe cannon were dragged south to Boston, where they proved useful.\n\nEmboldened, Ethan later struck north into Canada. It didn't go well. He was captured and imprisoned.\n\nHis brother Ira, though, the apparent brains of the family, ended up, ah... quite well off.\n\nAn old friend actually wrote the music for this traji-comedy, but the \"book\" was weaker.", "I'd love to see a musical about the July Crisis; something really dramatic, foreboding, tragic. " ] }

[]

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

[ [], [], [ "http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/barney-frank-stage-debut-fiorello-article-1.1249585", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiorello" ], [ "https://stoa.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/the-women-of-heinrich-schliemann/" ], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czyG-58_vLk", "http://www.ufv.ca/jhb/Volume_7/Volume_7_Meade.pdf" ], [], [ "http://www.abelardandheloise.com/Audio.html" ], [], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CkJqyS2ta8", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/JEAN_LOUIS_TH%C3%89ODORE_G%C3%89RICAULT_-_La_Balsa_de_la_Medusa_%28Museo_del_Louvre%2C_1818-19%29.jpg" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "flofj48", "flohs86" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "unfortunately i’m not sure when history becomes the present—or if it ever stops! however, historians studying the digital age will still be 100% necessary because history isn’t just about trying to figure out what happened, but interpreting and explaining it. historians studying the 21st century won’t be doing the same research historians trying to understand ancient china do, but they will still look at historical trends, the context surrounding certain events, and the way events are interconnected. for example, the job of a historian studying the US 2008 presidential election isn’t just to find out who won and by how much, but to understand the significance of obama’s win, why he won (such as the context of the bush presidency, evolving social values, and trends in presidential elections), and the way his presidency affected the culture and social values of america during his presidency. that’s something you need training for, not just the ability to google election records!", "It doesn't. In many ways, the work of a historian starts now - preserving primary sources, documenting life, saving artifacts from being destroyed, and generally trying to make the future historian's job easier. \n\nYou can also see it here that a lot of history is comparative to the modern world - to understand the history of food, you often have to compare it to modern society, or study current events to understand how the past may have worked. COVID-19 probably gives historians of past plagues some insight into how and why humans acted in some cases. \n\nAs to your question about digital documentation, I dare you to try to find your high school photos from your first digital camera. Hard drives die, storage media become obsolete, and most importantly, a lot of things just aren't worth saving in the moment. We'll probably retain records of the President's speeches, but the prime minister of Lithuania's epic declaration in 2023 that won't be seen as relevant until 2 years later? \n\nLastly, media bias still exists. In 100 years, historians will stumble on a decade of fake news documenting all kinds of things spread on Facebook. Did people really believe that vaccines were caused autism? \n\nI'm sure the day the printing press was invented, someone said that now everything would be copied so often that nothing could be lost anymore. \n\nIn this subreddit, the rule is 20 years back, but that's because we need rigid rules. But in reality, historians have to pull from all places and times to learn what they can of the past." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e9rlgv5" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "While there were was an account from the book \"City Of God\" in the 5th century about a person being forced into a nail-studded box as a form of torture, and a similar account by Polybius in 100 BC, these accounts are suspect at best. There's little to no evidence that Iron Maidens were used in the early-late medieval period at all.\n\n \"The first historical reference to the iron maiden came long after the Middle Ages, in the late 1700s. German philosopher Johann Philipp Siebenkees wrote about the alleged execution of a coin-forger in 1515 by an iron maiden in the city of Nuremberg. Around that time, iron maidens started popping up in museums around Europe and the United States. These included the Iron Maiden of Nuremberg, probably the most famous, which was built in the early 1800s and destroyed in an Allied bombing in 1944.   \" [From this article from Live Science](_URL_0_)\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe only concrete uses of the iron maiden we have records of are from the Hussein Family using them to torture people (The above article has a paragraph on the bottom about that as well). That, and as stage props at Iron Maiden concerts." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.livescience.com/55985-are-iron-maidens-torture-devices.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cj48jrb" ], "score": [ 19 ], "text": [ "It's incredibly unlikely.\n\n1. We have some, though very little, evidence of Buddhist ideas appearing in the Hellenistic world. However to influence Jesus you would need even more than this, you would need some evidence of engagement or impact on 1st century Judaism.\n\n2. Your core contention, \"the cosmology were similar\" [sic] is just *prima facie* incorrect. Cosmologically: a monotheistic religion compared to a non-theistic worldview; the centrality of grace in Christianity, compared to the concept of karma; the total absence of the idea of reincarnation in Christianity. There simply are minimal significant parallels at a theological level, let alone evidence of influence at a surface level." ] }

[]

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

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ce1b1z4" ], "score": [ 18 ], "text": [ "Definitely not my area of expertise, but it should be said that one of the most famous sections of an already-famous book, [Alexis de Tocqueville's *Democracy in America*](_URL_0_), accurately predicted in 1835 that the U.S. and Russia would eventually become bitter rivals for power on the world stage given their trajectories as of the early 19th century.\n\n**The relevant section, which is in the first of the two volumes:** *There are now two great nations in the world which, starting from different points, seem to be advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans. Both have grown in obscurity, and while the world’s attention was occupied elsewhere, they have suddenly taken their place among the leading nations, making the world take note of their birth and of their greatness almost at the same instant. All other peoples seem to have nearly reached their natural limits and to need nothing but to preserve them; but these two are growing…. The American fights against natural obstacles; the Russian is at grips with men. The former combats the wilderness and barbarism; the latter, civilization with all its arms. America’s conquests are made with the plowshare, Russia’s with the sword. To attain their aims, the former relies on personal interest and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of individuals. The latter in a sense concentrates the whole power of society in one man. One has freedom as the principal means of action; the other has servitude. Their point of departure is different and their paths diverse; nevertheless, each seems called by some secret desire of Providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world.*\n\nSpooky, isn't it?\n\n**To try to answer your question a bit closer to World War II:** If I remember correctly, Stalin was angry that the U.S. and U.K. chose to focus on the African rather than European theater at first. He saw an attack on Germany's territories in western Europe as being one of the few things that might draw German attention away from Russia. However, I'd much rather have one of our WWII experts comment on that." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "ekdmejo" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "There's roughly two factors playing there.\n\nFirst, a matter of political and cultural identity : the distinction between a Barbarian and a Roman in the Vth wasn't necessarily cultural (Barbarians being increasingly \"Romanized\", not unlike Later Jin were in Chinese history, while preserving a political and identity distinctiveness) but both political and genealogical.\n\nTechnically, a Barbarian was whoever followed and obeyed a Barbarian petty-king : they were part of a people federated with Romans, but not Romans themselves.Whoever else that ultimately obeyed or served the Roman state was a Roman, even if they had Barbarian origins.But Romans weren't \"Genealogy-blind\", so to speak, and Roman citizens whom relative were Barbarians (critically if these relatives were leading Barbarian peoples) were often considered as semi-Barbarians at _URL_0_'s why people as Stilico or Ricimer, in spite of being generalissimos and de facto co-emperors in their times never were in position to hold the purple (although Stilico might have attempted to do that for his children, there's no real sign Ricimer really tried to pull something like this.\n\nIn the case of Odoacer, it's even more clear, as he was proclaimed king of several federated peoples. Regardless of his romanity and his military service to the Roman state in the 450's-460's, one couldn't be Barbarian and Roman Emperor.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nAnother factor was that the Empire well survived in the Eastern provinces : the emperor in Constantinople was still powerful and had a de-facto seniority in legitimacy : several late emperors were never considered such by them including Romulus Augustulus. Constantinople supported Julius Nepos' claims to the imperium in 476 while he only controlled Dalmatia (whom he personally inherited leadership).\n\nOdoacer, like all other Barbarian and Roman warlords of the Vth century that cut for themselves a part of western Romania, needed some legitimacy especially as senatorial elites in Italy still well survived the general political collapse. Not able to be emperor himself, and unwilling to replace an illegitimate emperor by a new one (especially as Orestus himself was at least Roman, and that Ricimer's emperors were at least placed with assent of Italo-Roman elites rather than just put on the throne out of the blue), Odoacer wanted to appear as a vice-roy of sort for the legal imperial authority.He then send the imperial insignias to Constantinople, acknowledged a formal allegiance to Constantinople and to Julius Nepos (that remained stuck in Dalmatia) doing so.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nLate western Empire was falling prey to warlordism, mostly Barbarian (Euric, Gondioc, Clovis, etc.) but Roman as well (Marcellinus, Syagrius, Ricimer, etc.) that took over structures of the collapsing empire.But while stabilizing and legitimizing their rule they had to rely on at least formal imperial acknowledgement and legalism either having to build a compromise with the regional Roman elites, either due to the inherited \"ideology of power\", trough a state-building evolution in the Vth to VIth centuries. And this evolution wasn't just a matter of inner perspective, but as well outer as the Eastern Roman Empire remained a very powerful polity able to intervene in Italy and Africa directly, and sending subsides and prestigious goods to Barbarian kings acknowledging this relation.\n\n**Sources**\n\n\\- *Late Roman Warlords,* Penny McGeorge\n\n\\- F*all of Rome*, Peter Heather\n\n\\- *Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West,* Guy Halsall" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "best.It" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d417mj9" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "The Polish issue was one of the more contentious ones of the Congress of Vienna and as such it has a tendency to obscure some of the other areas of negotiation. One of the initial goals of Prussia's diplomats at the Congress was to have Prussia absorb the whole of the Kingdom of Saxony and spent a considerable amount of effort to achieve this goal. Neither Britain nor Austria was willing to countenance a total Saxon partition, but this gave both Russia and France a degree of latitude for their own agendas by remaining on the fence. For Russia's part, Emperor Alexander I desired a restoration of Poland under Romanov tutelage. Such an entity not only would have been composed of Russian Poland, but also parts of Prussia and Austria's bounty from the partitions. This enlarged Polish entity would, in Alexander I's calculations, show the Poles that he was a firmer champion of Polish rights than either Austria or Prussia and even the departed Napoleon, whose Duchy of Warsaw never satiated Polish nationalists' aspirations. Alexander I played both sides of the Saxon issue during the opening rounds of the Congress. In the summer and autumn of 1814 he offered Prussia a degree of support over Saxon partition in exchange for a freer hand in Polish boundaries while simultaneously incorporating Saxon volunteers into his corps of body guards during the celebrations of the Battle of Leipzig anniversary. \n\nIn the winter of 1814/15, Prussia's diplomats found themselves diplomatically outfoxed on the Saxon issue. Metternich had proposed Prussian minister Karl August von Hardenberg in October 1814 that Austria would back a Saxon partition *sans* a rump Saxony around Dresden and the *Bund*'s control of the Mainz fortress in exchange for Prussian support of against a reborn Polish state. Von Hardenberg was incensed by Metternich's offer, but the October letter and subsequent negotiations gave Alexander I a pretext to dress down both Prussian King Frederick William III and his chief minister on 5 November and Alexander I falsely claimed that Metternich had promised Russia support over Poland in exchange for the preservation of Saxony. In the meantime, Metternich had managed to secure both France and Britain's support over the Saxon-Poland issue. Alexander I's sabre-rattling over Poland made it appear to some contemporaries that war was in the offing in early 1815 and both Alexander I's and Metternich's machinations meant Prussia was diplomatically isolated. Thus as this crisis in inter-Allied relations died down in the spring of 1815, Prussia had to scramble for whatever favorable concessions it could achieve. \n\nFor Prussian statesmen, this meant both accepting a truncated partition of Saxony and the continued existence of the Wettin monarchy south of Prussia and trying to have the most defensible borders against what would soon be known as Congress Poland. This meant giving up the earlier partition lines, which Prussia had already agreed to the previous year in the hopes of gaining Saxony. The spectre of a resurgent Russian-backed Polish nationalism also played a role in Prussia's acceptance of losing some of the Third Partition territory. Johann Gottfried Hoffmann, one of von Hardenberg's chief advisors, noted in Prussian memos that the Poles in West Prussia and Posen could be gradually Germanized under enlightened Prussian administration which was part of a larger Austro-Prussian process to make the Polish population of their territories less \"Polish\" and more regional in their loyalties. \n\nIn light of the Saxon issue, it is not that Prussia did not try to get the Third Partition territories back, but rather Prussian statesmen ceded them partly in hard recognition that the Russians were going to get them anyway but also in the hopes that such a concession would give them leverage to absorb Saxony. Frederick William III's diplomats were correct on the first count, but badly miscalculated on the second. As a result, Prussia had to settle for lesser Saxon gains and non-contiguous territory on the Rhine. \n\n*Sources* \n\nKraehe, Enno E. *Metternich's German Policy. Volume II*. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983. \n\nVick, Brian E. *The Congress of Vienna : Power and Politics After Napoleon*. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014. \n\n " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "csenlwh" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "It's from his [first state of the union](_URL_0_), and he's expressely saying that while revolution is justified if the constitution is being negated, it is not justified by policies as regard slavery (at this time he's not talking about emancipation but policies on fugitive slaves).\n\nIt's best to read the whole thing but I'll pick out a couple of bits;\n\n > in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was \"to form a more perfect Union.\" But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.\t\n\n > It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.\n\n > All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied?\n\nHe rejects secession specifically here;\n\n > For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.\n\n > ...Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism.\n\nAnd finishes with \n\n > In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to \"preserve, protect, and defend it.\"\n\nSo to sum up; you have a right to revolt if the government does not abide by it's constitution, but in current policies regarding slavery it is not doing this, so the government's duty is to enforce the union." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cqgbvy2" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "hi! while's it's possible you may get answers here, this question would be worth x-posting to /r/AskAnthropology" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ckn7aa9", "ckn9p91" ], "score": [ 2, 4 ], "text": [ "I can recommend a great book on the topic: The Brothers, by Stephen Kinzer. A biography of the Dulles brothers, who concurrently served as the sec. of state and the head of the CIA, it explains their motivations -- many of them economic -- behind US policy toward Guatemala, Cuba, Vietnam, the Congo etc. ", "The problem is that you're assuming motivations can be and are exclusive of each other. Economic motivations and considerations do not obviate ideological or political or strategic motivations and goals." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdy6oz1", "cdy7bh4" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The question ist basically unanswerable in the manner you posited it. To provide any meaningful answers we would need more clarification. Are you asking: \"Why did the Cold War never get hot on a global scale?\" or \"Why was there no major war between european countries after WW 2?\" or a number of other more specific questions.\n\n", "Other than nukes? Ability to engage in proxy warfare with your rival without directly involving yourselves in conflict. For example how the Chinese and Soviets helped the Vietnamese or how the Americans helped the Mujaheddins, and may other instance." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dj6y7u9" ], "score": [ 3006 ], "text": [ "Awesome question. **An answer to your question lies at the crossroads of the rising middle class in 19th century Western society, Western fascination with the Orient, and noir detective novels.** I'll refer you to Stacey Pierson's *From Object to Concept: Global Consumption and the Transformation of Ming Porcelain*, which is spot-on what you're looking for, and some of the works of Maxine Berg, who edited *Goods from the East, 1600-1800* and has written extensively on trade between East Asia and western Europe.\n\nFrom the 17th century onward, Chinese porcelain was exported in bulk to Western Europe, which saw it as a luxury commodity. The Dutch East India Company was a huge importer, and other European nations were eager to follow suit. Chinese porcelain was seen as a high-quality item when compared with contemporary European ceramics. Its delicacy, design and durability made porcelain a major consumer good in the Eurasian trade. Berg's [\"In Pursuit of Luxury: Global History and British Consumer Goods in the 18th Century\"](_URL_7_) (*Past and Present*, 2004) describes this trade and goes on to explain that when it came to Asian manufactured goods (including porcelain), \"these goods were ... not the ancient or Persian luxuries of corruption and vice, the gold and rubies of the Indies. They were luxuries associated with a civilized way of life, appealing especially to the middling classes.\"\n\nEuropean manufacturers were no slouches, of course. When they saw the prices porcelain was fetching, they were eager to duplicate this \"white gold.\" Starting in the 18th century, they managed to do just that. Porcelain moved from a luxury product to a bourgeois one. In the 19th century, mass production allowed it to become a lower-class consumer good as well. At the same time, the men and women who worked in the factories creating European ceramics (and a bewildering variety of other products) had the money for hobbies and interests beyond the means of the lower class.\n\nOne important thing to know about the middle class, and particularly the British middle class in the middle of the 19th century is the uncertainty of it all. Men and women alike were striving to join the upper classes, but they were uncertain whether their industrial employment was acceptable in polite society. I've written before about the [rise of the beard in the 19th century West](_URL_3_) as a reaction to the crisis of masculinity among the urbanizing middle class.\n\nThis uncertainty about middle class life and constant striving toward respectability meant there was a surge in affectation: Middle-class households attempted to imitate aspects of upper-class society as best as they could afford. One of these affectations was the collecting of ceramics. The Chinese porcelain imported in the 17th century was extraordinarily high quality and highly collectible. In 1889, [the *New York Times* quoted a *Saturday Review* piece](_URL_6_) that explained, \"To a native collector an unquestionable piece of Sung Dynasty crackled porcelain is much what a Mazarin Bible is to a book collector among ourselves, and the best specimens of the products of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) are scarcely less valued. Vases within which are painted with lions rolling balls, or dragons with phoenixes, fetch prices which would astonish even the eager buyers at the salesrooms in King Street; and when genuine pieces of blue and white of this period are offered for sale they find a constantly rising market. It is recorded that about a hundred years ago a pair of cups of this last kind was valued by native collectors at £300.\"\n\nAs Pierson writes on page 62 of her book, \"the notion of connoisseurship of such ceramics ... was not novel at this time at all, especially when connoisseurship as an activity was gaining in popularity and recognition through collector's clubs and related literature. ... Art dealers were also active in this arena with a number of shops in London featuring what were still often called 'oriental ceramics'. The art market was well developed and connoisseurship naturally accompanied this.\"\n\nChinese porcelain, not just the high-quality material manufactured at Sevres or by Wedgwood, had a special cachet in this time period. During the 19th century, there was a surprising affinity for Chinese products and Western products that imitated Chinese styles in the technique known as *chinoiserie.* Authenticity was prized just as it is today, and the combination of the period's Sinophilia with the Euro-American penchant for antiquarianism meant older Chinese porcelain was valued. \n\nMing porcelain itself was singled out for particular treatment starting in the 1870s. Charles Dickens' periodical, *All the Year Round*, mentions it specifically in its April 1875 issue, and the *Art Journal* references it as well that same year. Now, that's different from *the Ming vase*, which develops out of the general idea of Ming porcelain a few years later.\n\nIn 1885, *The Decorator and Furnisher*, in a series of essays about Boston artists' studios, discusses the way high-quality Japanese and Chinese porcelain is displayed: \"You notice there is nothing in the room of a very white tone that is exposed to the light. A bust of Venus, in plaster, is in the dark corner on the piano top, side of it rests a brass tray and nearby is a Ming vase catching the light in silvery spots.\"\n\nAs Pierson points out, this description is unusual for the time because it doesn't identify the porcelain as a \"Chinese vase\" or \"Old China\" or \"Blue China,\" but literally as a *Ming vase.* This is the period when we start to see people come to think of *the* Ming vase as a particularly high quality piece of art.\n\nThree years later, the *New York Times* publishes its first mention of *the* Ming vase in [a short story entitled (appropriately enough) *The Ming Vase*](_URL_4_), which awards that vase special, magical qualities appropriate for the Orientalist beliefs of the period in the West. \n\nIn the late 19th century and early 20th century, ceramics collecting guides [take pains to point out the details of specific kinds of porcelain](_URL_1_), including Ming. Moreover, there's evidence that even though Ming is considered a quality item, it's not beyond the means of particularly focused middle-class buyers or of upper-middle-class buyers (at least in the early stages). In 1886, [there's an account of an 8-inch Ming vase being sold for £13 in London](_URL_0_). \n\nAs Pierson shows, Ming porcelain starts to show up in fiction at the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century. Edith Wharton's stories are a good example of this. In *The Fruit of the Tree* (published in 1907), there are shorthand references to \"Ming,\" referencing Ming porcelain and thus demonstrating its position as a high-class object. Fascinatingly, Pierson says that there's actually a divide between fiction and reality at this point. Qing porcelain, according to auction records, was fetching higher prices than Ming. \n\nDiscussing [a new show at the Metropolitan Museum in 1916](_URL_2_), the *Times* wrote, \"A very considerable public is acquainted with the polished beauties of Chinese porcelain, but as yet comparatively few have had opportunity to become even superficially familiar with the noble line of Chinese ware antecedent to the true porcelain, although possessing certain of its characteristics. ... When the public learns the game it ardently pursues it, and one may predict in the near future a public hot on the trail of Sung and Tang.\"\n\nInstead, it was Ming porcelain that took the title and the public's interest, continuing to feature in popular fiction. In the 1920s, Pierson writes, there are repeated stories about unscrupulous art and antique dealers, mysteries involving murders or crimes targeting the Ming vase, and more. There's *Quinney's Adventures* in 1924, with a story involving a Ming vase fought over by two collectors. The winning collector lords his victory over the other, only to accidentally drop it and shatter it. For many of these stories, the Ming vase takes the role that the Maltese Falcon would hold in Dashell Hammett's eponymous work.\n\nNow, what about the smashing of the Ming vase in comedy? Well, there's nothing particularly unique about the vase in that regard. It's simply a widely known object that's both fragile and valuable. The comedy comes from its accidental destruction. [It might as well be a crystal football](_URL_5_). As Pierson writes, \"By 1968, it had become a widespread literary and colloquial stereotype for something rare, precious, priceless, elegant or sophisticated.\" \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9401E5DB133FE533A25750C2A9649D94679FD7CF", "http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F06E4D6103DEE32A25750C0A9639C946397D6CF", "http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=950DE4DE1439E233A25756C0A9659C946796D6CF", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6cgaa2/how_would_i_a_man_who_cant_seem_to_grow_facial/dhvkjhf/", "http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F07EFDB173AEF33A2575AC1A9649C94699FD7CF", "http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/7821303/alabama-crimson-tide-crystal-bcs-trophy-shattered-mishap", "http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9505E2DD1F3BE533A25756C2A9679C94609ED7CF", "http://enseignement.typepad.fr/files/bergpastpresent2004-1.pdf" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dkq9s23" ], "score": [ 13 ], "text": [ "the \"batwing\" saloon doors did exist, but they weren't quite as hollwood westerns depict.\n\nfor one, they were usually much larger than in the movies (big enough that they could be locked after hours to keep out intruders). in ronald james' \"virginia city: secrets of a western past\" he argues that movie producers made the doors smaller in order to make leading men appear taller. \n\nthey were also not as ubiquitous as in hollywood westerns. james argues that these cafe-style doors were preferred because they A) made it easy for people carrying large parcels to enter hands-free (you couldn't leave your stuff outside on your horse or it might get stolen) and B) shielded church-folks from having to see the drinking, whoring and opium-smoking going on inside (many saloons also functioned as opium dens). \n\nbut these doors would be impractical in northern climates and as such, they would not have been used." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d3e7vb8" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "At one level, the 'frenzies' for performers like The Beatles, Elvis and the Backstreet Boys have clear similarities to each other: it's hard not to notice the demographic of teenage females when they're screaming that loudly. Clearly each of them were something of a pop culture phenomenon. \n\nThe Backstreet Boys' biggest success lies slightly outside of the 20 year rule in this subreddit, and so I won't linger on them. What I will say is that, by 1993 (when the Backstreet Boys formed according to their Wikipedia page), teen idols and boy bands were a specific subgenre of pop (John Seabrook's recent book *The Song Machine* discusses this, and the Backstreet Boys in particular in some detail, from a music industry perspective). Boy bands like the Backstreet Boys were often put together by entrepreneurial businessmen and/or record company executives hoping to make money from merchandise and sales. The tropes of the boy band were, long before 1993, well known and easily parodied. By 1993, a boy band like the Backstreet Boys was basically business as normal for the music industry.\n\nIn contrast, the frenzy surrounding Elvis Presley in 1956-57 and the Beatles in 1963-64 was *not* business as normal. Screaming teenage girls were not entirely unprecedented - Frank Sinatra in the 1940s had screaming teenage fans called 'bobby-soxers', but the sheer scale of the frenzy around both Elvis and the Beatles was unprecedented. Before the end of World War II, youth culture was much less prominent in popular culture than it is today. The concept of the 'teenager' that we take for granted today was still relatively new (Jon Savage's book *Teenage: The Creation Of Youth Culture* deals with this in detail). It was only with the post-war baby boom and the unusually large demographic of young people that it became clear that youth culture was something that advertisers and TV executives could profit from. As a result, when an act like Elvis or the Beatles came along, they could find a new way of appealing to an emerging market that broke new ground in some way.\n\nSo when Elvis came to prominence in 1956 or so, the teen idol wasn't really an established category of performer, because the idea that teens might have their own culture was only developing. There were teen idols before Elvis (e.g., Frank Sinatra and Johnnie Ray) but by the time Elvis came to prominence, youth culture was increasingly prominent and commercially powerful, and Elvis was better able to exploit this than Sinatra or Ray. \n\nThe frenzy around the Beatles was bigger than the one around Elvis. This was partly because of demographic reasons - thanks to the baby boom, there were simply more teenagers in the UK and US in 1964 than there were in 1956. However, there were a lot of ways in which the 'manias' were reasonably similar. Where Elvis popularised the idea of the teen idol, [I argued here](_URL_0_) that the Beatles also popularised the concept of the pop group. Similarly, Elvis and the Beatles both had a wider demographic of fans than teenaged girls; almost every 1960s-era male pop musician biography has some sort of reminiscence about hearing 'Heartbreak Hotel' and how it changed their lives; 1970s-era male musicians often discuss the Beatles' appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show in a similar way. \n\nAnd Elvis and the Beatles were both phenomenally successful at the height of the frenzy; Elvis spent most of 1956 at the top of the Billboard charts, and the Beatles spent most of 1964 at the top of the Billboard charts. It's probably fair to say that the Beatles were more popular than Elvis at the height of the frenzy; every single in the top 5 of the [Billboard chart for April 4th 1964](_URL_1_) was by the Beatles. In contrast, Elvis had a month or so in late 1956 when he had both of the top two singles of the week (specifically 'Love Me Tender' and the double A-side single 'Don't Be Cruel'/'Hound Dog'). However, Billboard's charts in 1956 were calculated somewhat differently to how they were calculated in 1964, and they may not be directly comparable.\n\nSo, no, Beatlemania and Elvis-mania weren't dramatically different at the time. For you to ask the question here, I suspect you've noticed the hushed tones in the way that the Beatles are talked about and you're curious about that. And the difference between the Beatles and Elvis is what happened to Elvis and the Beatles later in their career. Where Elvis's cultural influence receded as he essentially became a light entertainer, the Beatles have never lost their cultural influence. The Beatles, more or less, have become the emblematic musical icon of the baby boomer demographic. Because so many baby boomers first came to love music through the Beatles, and because Beatlemania was the point at which they first heard about the group, Beatlemania holds a special place in baby boomer hearts. And because pop music history has largely been written by baby boomers, or people employed by baby boomers, Elvis and 1950s rock'n'roll has often been seen as a brief flowering of rock music that receded, while Beatlemania is seen as the starting point of rock music as we know it. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4f2zm2/when_did_the_band_name_come_around_as_in_a_group/d25saeh", "http://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100/1964-04-04" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fl6oh6l" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "The premise of the question is just false. China is, even today, hugely culturally, linguistically and ethnically diverse, and there has been immense change over time. [Just have a gander at what we have in the FAQ](_URL_0_) and you should find that things don't stay the same at all. Of especial interest, I think, is the [post on the evolving Mulan tale](_URL_1_) by /u/JimeDorje." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/asia#wiki_china", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/doylzp/in_disneys_mulan_how_would_mulan_have_brought/f5uwp8k/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d6ii4yz", "d6ii5qe", "d6iqbge", "d6jclil" ], "score": [ 12, 20, 15, 2 ], "text": [ "Dealing with this in my next big project, which addresses the racism of H. P. Lovecraft and his contemporaries like Robert E. Howard and Clark Ashton Smith - along with ancillary subjects like their opinions on Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, the second rise of the Ku Klux Klan, anti-Semiticism, etc. It's been quite a contentious subject the last couple of years, subject to a great deal of superficial analysis, misreadings, misunderstandings, and \"presentism\" - judging Lovecraft & co. by contemporary views on and understanding of race.\n\nThe Nazis are a case in point: Lovecraft was partially in favor of Hitler's rise to power because of a combination of factors: strong opposition to Bolshevism, a trend in his political thinking towards fascism, and a degree of anti-Semitism on Lovecraft's part. But it wasn't a uniform or unqualified approval, as can be shown by two different quotes:\n\n > \nAs for Germany today—to call it a “madhouse” is to exaggerated in the grossest fashion. The details of Nazism are deplorable, but they do not even begin to compare in harmfulness with the extravagances of communism. You seem to forget that most of the German people are quietly going about their business as usual, with a much better morale than they had last year. If the Nazi destruction of certain books is silly— & there is no reason to deny that it is—then there is no word to express the abysmal idiocy & turpitude of the bolshevik war on normal culture & expression. Germany has not even begun to parallel Russia in the destruction of those basic values which Western Europeans live by. When I say I like Hitler I do not imply that his is a & blindly against the disintegrative forces which more educated & sophisticated people accept without adequate evidence as inevitable. His neurotic fanaticism, scientific addle-patedness, & crude gaucheries & extravagances are admitted & deplored— & of course it is quite possible that he actually may do more harm than good. Once can scarcely prophesy the future. But the fact remains that he is the sole remaining rallying-point for German morale, & that virtually all of the best & most cultivated Germans accept him temporarily for what he is—a lesser evil at a special & exacting crisis of history. Objections to Hitler—that is, the violent & hysterical objections which one sees outside Germany—seem to be based largely on a soft idealism or “humanitarianism” which is out of places in an emergency. This sentimentalism may be a pleasing ornament in normal times, but it must be kept out of the way when the survival of a great nation hangs in the balance. The preservation of Germany as a coherent cultural & political fabric is of infinitely greater importance than the comfort of those who have been incommoded by Nazism— & of course the number of suffers is negligible as compared with that of bolshevism’s victims. If what you say were true—that others could save Germany better than Hitler—then I’d be in favour of giving them a chance. But unfortunately the others had their chance & didn’t prove themselves equal to it. [...] Your hatred of Nazism—especially in the light of your extenuation of bolshevism’s vastly greater savageries—appears to me to be a matter of idealistic emotion unsupported by historic perspective or by a sense of the practical compromises necessary in tight places. Emotion runs away with you. For example—you get excited about four Americans who were mobbed because they didn’t salute the Nazi flag. Well, as a matter of fact, did you ever hear of a nation that didn’t mob foreigners who refused to salute its flag in times of political & military emergency? [...] Still—don’t get my wrong. I’m not saying that Schön[e] Adolf is anything more than a lesser evil. A crude, blind force—a stop-gap. The one point is that he’s the only force behind which the traditional German spirit seems to be able to get. When the Germans can get another leader, & emerge from the present period of arbitrary fanaticism, his usefulness will be over.\n\n•H. P. Lovecraft to J. Vernon Shea, 8 Nov 1933, 000-0655, *Letters to J. Vernon Shea* 202-203\n\n > As for our energetic contemporary Der Schön Adolf—as I said before, my attitude concerning him is simply one of negative tolerance—as a lesser evil in the absence of any really first-class man with enough leadership & magnetism to keep the German people out of Chaos. [...] Whether Herr Adolf will do more permanent harm than good in the long run still remains to be seen. So far the outlook isn’t especially promising—he evidently lacks Mussolini’s capacity for development & mellowing, & his attempted regulation of Germanic culture seems to grow less instead of more rational. He has borrowed the Soviets’ idea of a narrowly artificial culture or “ideology” separate from that of Western Europe— & if this concept (with its foundation in definitely false science & rather infantile emotion) lasts long enough to colour a whole new generation, the ultimate result will be highly unfortunate.\n\n•H. P. Lovecraft to Robert Bloch, 2 Feb 1934, *Letters to Robert Bloch and Others* 98\n\nEven with the caveats, the views look bad *by today's standards* - and even in his own day, Lovecraft faced arguments with his friends and correspondents regarding his prejudices, tentative support of the Nazis, and other matters - but they weren't views unique to Lovecraft and they were defensible views to hold, at the time. Lovecraft didn't live long enough to know of the horrors of the Holocaust or repudiate Hitler, and that really shouldn't be held against him.\n\nI'd like to think part of the problem is just that there's so much material available (over two dozen volumes of Lovecraft's letters have been published), that people don't want to dig through it and put into context and try to understand why he thought what he did and what informed - and changed - his views over time. At the same time, though, very few scholars or fans have really grappled with what Lovecraft & co.'s racism back in the 20s and 30s means today - which is all the more relevant given the explosion of popularity of Lovecraft and the Cthulhu Mythos over the last couple of years.\n", "Thank you for bringing up this quote, I didn't know it yet. \n\nPersonally I encountered this phenomenon in a recent course I took about the Norman Invasion of England 1066. One of the main changes the Normans brought were the huge romanesque cathedrals which were not the norm before 1066, except for the 1065 finished Westminster.\n\nIf you go into cities like Cologne today, the cathedrals are still breathtaking. But my professor pointed me to the fact, that in medieval times and especially before the later middle ages there weren't many other stone-, let alone two-floored houses in most cities. So if you approach a city as a medieval person and you can see this huge stone cathedral from 20 miles away, you don't have to ask who's the boss around here. Same goes for stone castles the Normans brought to England.\n\nAnother example would be sound in the middle ages and before. In our modern times we are constantly surrounded by sources of sound and noises. But if you are a peasant in a medieval village, what sounds may there be? The sounds you do during your work, maybe some animals, maybe the wind. So, if now somebody rides towards your village, you will here it very soon. Also, if that person is wearing heavy armor and has people following him, you sure know that's someone important.\n\nUnfortunately these phenomenons are hard to grasp especially for the non-elite people of these times, for they rarely wrote this stuff down. But it still is really fascinating. It's not only about understanding the way people thought, but also about understanding how their environment was different from ours.", "In my work, it's all about trying to channel the idea of \"it's not all about you.\" In studying African history, especially during the eras of high imperialism and colonialism, many if not most sources come from the colonizers or at least have been mediated through them; at the very best, you might get an oral account that's been mediated through colonialism itself in some fashion. What's been hardest for historians of South Africa in particular to \"get\" is that *it's not always about the settlers, or the whites, or whatever designated superior grouping existed to produce records.* The idea that African politics--both internal and interstate--might not even involve Europeans or their colonial power in the process of precipitating some really major developments has been slow to take root. \n\nFor example, in thinking of the Venda kingdoms of South Africa, their actions don't really seem to make sense without considering the political, social, and sometimes military struggle between the great houses for the allegiances of the smaller ones. Colonialists, and generations of historians who followed, boiled it down to \"X was a violent brute, and attacked Y, so the state was justified 20 years later in destroying X.\" In particular, I've re-read several conflicts through colonial sources as well as the marvelously transcribed work of a Venda historian (and also venerated elder!) to see that what the Europeans and the Boers took as \"erratic hot-headedness\" was actually consolidation in the face of a fractious succession. Europeans were involved in the sense that they provided an escape valve for unseated pretenders, and that they eventually attacked the king, but the king's own actions were entirely in keeping with an effort to prevent the spinning away of the semi-major houses in this situation. That's a minor example, because it does engage with \"the colonial,\" but it's not *about* the colonizers in itself. In other, older cases, colonists from the coasts are incidental figures--no more, no less--watching events unfold that don't concern them at all.\n\nSo really, one thing that's very important is to remember that your historical actors don't care about what you do, or pay attention to the people and places you do. The records that have survived provide only a few very specific vantage points on a much wider world, where people could know much less--or much more--than those sources let on. The possibilities are dizzying, and the evidence is almost always circumstantial.", "Mythology = stories, concepts, virtues, and unvirtue put into words\n\nMetaphors and symbolism first showed up in the ancient stories from all cultures (language is a universal communication tool).\n\nFrom my understanding of myths, they were likely metaphysical beings... they did not manifest into our reality. The traits and virtues of specific heroes and villains were inherent pieces of these figures. (Could proclaim someone to be blessed by the god of war, if he were a particular good fighter etc).\n\nMetaphor makes stories more relateable, especially when the tales are awe-inspiring (un believe able -- > hard to believe). Attribute to gods what SEEMS impossible. And realize that Philosophers knew more than single individual historical figures for specific reasons" ] }

[]

[ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4nnz82/in_game_of_thrones_sam_tarly_is_constantly_mocked/d466arq" ]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cbdy1wy", "cbdy6oc", "cbdy7ap", "cbdy93c" ], "score": [ 33, 10, 25, 7 ], "text": [ "[All my knowledge comes from the book Destiny Distrupted](_URL_0_)\n\nTamim Ansary goes into great length to describe the fortifications of Baghdad saying that in his opinion it was the most well defended city during that time period (at least on par with Constantinople). It was built between the narrowest part of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and had walls multiple layers of towering walls surrounding it. \n\nIn the \"Islamic World\" at that time Baghdad was the end all be all. It was a cultural and scholarly city, rich in trade, and arrogant with power. Up until that point Islam had spread rapidly and suffered few defeats and no demoralizing ones. The Library of Baghdad is less famous, but probably more important than the Library of Alexandria in just the sheer amount of books and knowledge that it held. Backing up these realities are the teachings of Islam that preach it is the one true religion and all must acknowledge it. The common thought was \"with God on our side, how can we lose?\" \n\nSo when Baghdad DID fall it wasn't just barely, it was complete and utter defeat and it destroyed the Islamic world's confidence in itself. \nThe Khan had no bridge with which to cross the river to continue his conquests, so he ordered the books of the library to be thrown into the river and the troops to walk across them. It was said that the river ran black for a month! The defeat of Baghdad was not a local event, but sent shock waves throughout the entire Muslim world and in the author's opinion it has never recovered. Even today Islam reviles the invading Mongols and sees nothing great about Genghis Khan or Hulagu Khan. They destroyed Islam's confidence, their knowledge, and a part of their culture.\n\n", "I would like to mention that the image of genghis khan can differ in islamic countries. Arabic countries tend to picture him as a warmonger and monster, turkic countries describe him often as some kind of national hero and great leader. ", "Not particularly fondly, particularly among Sunni Arabs. And it depends on which Mongol, as Tamerlane sacked Baghdad again in 1401. 1258 was certainly the beginning of the end of the Islamic Golden Age, but Tamerlane was the real nail in the coffin for Medieval Iraq. Soon afterwards, the Portuguese mastered the seas and made the Silk Road obsolete, destroying Baghdad and Basrah as trade centers.\n\nThere's quite a lot of traditional poetic lamentations about both Hulagu and Tamerlane's sack of Baghdad. The particularly chilling imagery was how the Tigris ran black from the ink of the books from the Baghdad Grand Library - all the wisdom and culture of Islam being washed down the drain. This is also particularly poignant as the Abbasids had popularized one of the hadiths about \"the ink of scholars being more valuable than the blood of warriors.\" Tamerlane, perhaps intentionally mimicking Hulagu, was also known for having a fetish for decapitation and building pyramids of said human skulls. His Baghdad pyramid project supposedly consisted of 90,000 skulls cemented into 120 towers.\n\nAlso worth noting is some of the wierd cultural shifts that the 1258 fall of Baghdad prompted. The Abbasid Caliphate arose in Iraq and stole the throne from the Damacus-based Ummayids in the 8th century in a sequence of events that makes Games of Thrones look mundane. (For brevity purposes, skim _URL_0_) As victors, they spent the next 400 years, \"The Islamic Golden Age\" dictating what Islam was. They even went so far is to create the key Islamic history meme of \"The Rightfully Guided Caliphs,\" also known as all the caliphs BEFORE their rival predecessor Ummayid Caliphate. Sure they rose to power making keys allies with the Persian Shias (especially the 4th and 5th Imams), but they generally screwed them once they seized victory as their Shia allies expected the Imam to become Caliph and Shia made mainstream. Sure they were cosmopolitian, integrating Western and Chinese expertise to create their empire, but it was still Sunni Hashimite Arabs as the ruling class.\n\n...and then the Mongols went and butchered that ruling class from Uzbekistan (Samarkand) to Baghdad. Persian Shias arose, and the Abbasids Caliphate consolidated in Egypt. The Abbasids became reliant on Mamluks, a warrior-caste that were technically still infidel slaves of Central Asian ethnicity, but ended up gradually seizing power throughout the Islamic world up through the late Ottoman era. (Conservative Islamic historians particularly distain how an ethnically foreign slave caste rose to power relatively peacefully and frequently through meritocracy, but have to acknowlege it because the Mamluks were the ones who eventually beat the Mongols!) The Ottomans themselves were ethnic Turks, and ruled the Islamic world until post WWI. It was then that the Sunni Arabs only kinda started to get their sovereignty back, having been dominated by some kind of ethnic foreigner since 1258.\n\nSo to summarize, from a modern Sunni Arab perspective, 1258 was when the Islamic world was lost to them due to the Mongols. When Baghdad fell, they lost their primacy as foreign converts (Mamluks, Persians, and the Turks) ran the Islamic world up through the 20th century.", "The Ottomans loved the Mongols, so did the Safavids and Mughals and the Ak and Beyaz Koyun Tribal confederations. That's because they were all Turkic or Mongolic in origin. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.amazon.com/Destiny-Disrupted-History-Through-Islamic/dp/1586488139/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1375260200&sr=8-2&keywords=islam+history" ], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As-Saffah" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ckary3o", "ckas8yn", "ckat8rz" ], "score": [ 32, 3, 6 ], "text": [ "People make a lot of claims about there being black confederates. Recently [Virginia got in a controversy about their 4th grade textbook repeating the claim that there were thousands.](_URL_1_) Mostly though, it is myth. About 99 percent so.\n\nUndoubtedly, black slaves played an important role in the Confederate Army, not just as laborers, but also thousands of body servants brought to war with their master. While there are verified reports of isolated instances where these men wielded arms against Union soldiers in dire situations, they were never organized into any sort of unit of black soldiers - free or slave. [One representative example I have read](_URL_0_):\n\n > But unless readers think that black Confederates were truly enamored of the South’s cause, Stauffer related the case of John Parker, a slave forced to build Confederate barricades and later to join the crew of a cannon firing grapeshot at Union troops at the First Battle of Bull Run. All the while, recalled Parker, he worried about dying, prayed for a Union victory, and dreamed of escaping to the other side.\n\n > “His case can be seen as representative,” said Stauffer. “Masters put guns to (the heads of slaves) to make them shoot Yankees.”\n\nHowever, at the very end of the war there was the eventual, reluctant endorsement of raising black regiments that the Confederate Congress passed in March of 1865. The idea had been raised previously and immediately shot down, but with pretty much no other alternative at that point, the measure passed. However, the bill made no provision for granting freedom to slaves who served (and of course they needed the blessing of their master). With so little inducement, not to mention the fact that all were well aware liberation was at hand, only a few handfuls ever showed up in Richmond before its capture a few weeks later. And support within the Confederate ranks was mixed as well. While some supported the desperate measure, others were vocal in their opposition, such as the fire-eater Robert Toombs, who stated, *“The day that the army of Virginia allows a negro regiment to enter their lines as soldiers they will be degraded, ruined, and disgraced.”*\n\nNow as I said though, it is 99 percent myth, not 100 percent!\n\nIn Louisiana, there was an exception. The societal views of race differing from their fellow Southern states, free people of color and mulattos enjoyed a much greater degree of acceptance, and even served in the militia. With the beginning of the Civil War, a unit of some 1,000 black soldiers was raised in New Orleans as the Louisiana Native Guard. Except for the regimental commanders, even the officers were drawn from people of color. The Native Guard never saw use, and was never even issued arms or uniforms, which they had to provide out of pocket. With the capture of New Orleans in early 1862, the Native Guard disbanded, never having seen action, let alone any real use. Shortly thereafter, the Native Guard was reformed under Union control, incorporating a number of the former Confederate soldiers.\n\nI've heard that Tennessee had a similar native guard type unit which similarly never saw combat - never even received arms, but I've not read enough about them to comment more than saying it existed.", "Follow up question: Prior to the civil war, black men had served in the US Navy for decades, and continued to do so through the civil war.\n\nWhat about the CS Navy, were black men employed at sea?", "Noted Civil War scholar James McPherson [answered](_URL_0_) this as well in the AMA he did in /r/AskHistorians." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/09/black-confederates/", "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101907974.html" ], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1z6em9/dr_james_mcpherson_author_of_battle_cry_of/cfr74c7" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "du5rdsr" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "No discouraging any from contributing any new information, but this question has come up before\n \n* /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov in [Did the Nazis ever question Hitler's Jewish ancestry?](_URL_0_)\n\n* /u/skirlhutsenreiter in [Did Hitler actually have any Jewish origin?](_URL_2_)\n\n* /u/QuirrelMan in [Did Hitler himself have a Jewish grandparent?](_URL_1_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/25ly14/did_the_nazis_ever_question_hitlers_jewish/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4917ij/did_hitler_himself_have_a_jewish_grandparent/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fyhga/did_hitler_actually_have_any_jewish_origin/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cumlria" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I don't have a clear answer for this, but let me ask in return: What makes you think that Colombia had a greater communist threat than other South American countries?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d4fbvgu" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "There's no real confusion, it's just a quirk of Indo-European language naming conventions.\n\nPhoenicians were a sea-faring Semitic civilization the existed along the coast of the Fertile Crescent in the modern Middle East. They founded a lot of polities (mostly city-states like the Greek colonization) in that area that all more or less operated independently. They maintained cultural and trade ties, and occasionally helped each other out in conflicts.\n\nCanaan is one Phoenician geographic polity that existed in parts of modern-day Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel (the southern Levant, and the setting for much of the action described in the Bible). The Greeks tended to refer to large geographic regions or entire civilizations by the name of a small part of it. This is why all Africans outside Egypt were called Libyans at one point, and why all Phoenicians were sometimes called Canaanites. Think of how modern-day Romance language speakers call Germans Allemani: they're using he name of one Germsnic tribe to refer to all Germans." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ed183re" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I also see that that parrot picture is floating around in a couple places, and even the cover of a book(!), but isn't actually attributed to a specific person anywhere, rather being attributed to the newspaper it was printed in, so I'm wondering if there's someone we could contact about that. Not looking for money, just seeing if we can verify the attribution." ] }

[]

[ "https://imgur.com/W95vawP.jpg", "https://imgur.com/hPuze6B.jpg" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cy678sl" ], "score": [ 13 ], "text": [ "Royal houses are traditionally like surnames -- the children inherit that of the father, hence Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II are members of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. SCG was changed to Windsor during World War One because of anti-German sentiment.\n\nThe reason the House will stay that of Windsor for Charles, et al, is because that's what the [Queen decided](_URL_0_) in 1952." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheRoyalFamilyname/Overview.aspx" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7prnrv", "c7py67u" ], "score": [ 9, 2 ], "text": [ "The office of Dictator in the Republic was not the same in all instances. Not all had the same *causa*. The most common one was *rei gerundae causa* (\"for the matter to be done\") indicating that the dictator's extraordinary magisterial powers were only granted for a specific task, usually to address an external threat or put down rebellion. Generally it was only used for military crises on the Italian peninsula itself and not for overseas or far-flung engagements. Many men held the office in the history of the Republic, so while sources are very thin on many of them it would be pretty unlikely that there weren't at least a few who didn't do a good job.\n\n From the founding of the Republic until the end of the Punic Wars, Roman dictators fell reasonably under their constitutional purpose, and there was no significant or destabilizing abuse of the powers of the office (not, at least, in the broad view of history). However, when the office was revived in 82/81 BCE, the context was entirely different and the extraordinary powers of the office of dictator was an instrumental part of the transformation of Roman political institutions away from the republican tradition.\n\n**Lucius Cornelius Sulla kills the republic in order to save it**\n\nUnlike cases before where Romans had unified to address an external threat, the last dictatorships of the Republic were set in the context of internal political strife. It all kicked off as the political struggle between the *populares* and *optimates*. The former being a political faction that sought to empower (and draw support from) the plebs, while the latter supported the traditional Patrician oligarchy represented by the Senate. Whether over conflicting ideology and policies or just self-serving power grabbing, each faction came to see the other as such a danger to either Rome or themselves that they resorted to violence, coercion, corruption, and other uncivil and unconstitutional means to attack or defend against the other.\n\nThis terrible period kicked off with the assassination of the Gracci brothers and continued through the power struggle between Gaius Marius and Sulla. Marius and his supporters lead a Coup in Sulla's absence, leading Sulla to march his army on Rome (the first Roman general to do so) and then again when Marius lead another army to Rome upon his return from exile, then Sulla again retaking Rome a second time. Each taking advantage of their turns in power to purge their political enemies and seize their property.\n\nUpon retaking Rome, Sulla was appointed *dictator legibus faciendis et reipublicae constituendae causa* (\"dictator for the making of laws and for the settling of the constitution\") by the Senate (Marius and Sulla setting the precedent for coercing Senators). His dictatorship was held in perpetuity, with no end date. For the most part, Sulla seemed to have used his extraordinary powers to try to restore the institutions of the Republic and to stamp out what he saw as rampant corruption, and he surprised everyone when he stepped down voluntarily when he had pushed through his agenda. However, he and his rivals had set the precedent for using political machinations, unconstitutional power grabs, and violence for political ends. Sulla's use of the military and the office of dictator circumvented and corrupted the traditional institutions of the republic in an effort to restore them. His example was followed by Julius Caesar, who used the measures that Sulla had legitimized to seize power in Rome.\n\nIt is notable however, that while the office of dictator was abused and used as a tool in the processes that lead to the end of the Republic, there are underlying factors in the decay of the Republic that explain the abusive use of dictatorship. Originally, the dictator was powerful because the Senate was powerful and legitimate and delegated authority to the dictator, consuls, etc. However, as the military increasingly became loyal to their generals first and the Senate second, the principal of Might-Makes-Right came to turn the tables. By the end of the Republic, the Senate still had legitimacy, but the Generals, like Marius, Sulla, and Caesar, held the real power. They could then use that power to coerce the Senate to grant them legitimacy through important offices like consul or dictator.\n\n**Edit:** I should note that I am oversimplifying the procedures of Roman governing institutions. Dictators were appointed by the consuls with a *senatus cunsultum* from the Senate. But even this oversimplifies the evolution and flux of the unwritten constitution of the Roman Republic. Needless to say, there may have been a lot more complicated maneuvering required to have oneself appointed dictator than we tend to appreciate.", "Machiavelli was speaking specifically about the early dictators, and not of Sulla and Caesar, who he disliked. He was primarily working off of Livy's work, and as this was before the rise of scientific historiography, he regarded them as being basically true accounts. Going by Livy, you could easily come to the conclusion that all dictators were good." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d7gtlen" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "If you look at [this map](_URL_2_) of a fairly typical trench layout, you'll see that the trenches themself are not that confusing. The no man's land ranged from a couple of hundred yards to, in some extreme cases, ten to twenty yards. ([Source](_URL_1_)) \n\nOn average the second line support trenches were about a hundred yards away, the third line reserve trenches another 100 to 300 yards. Of course those distances varied from battlefield to battlefield.([Source](_URL_0_))\n\nWhat made the trenches confusing was being out in the no man's land, after long artillery shelling most landmarks around the battlefield were gone. If you lost orientation it was easy to go towards the wrong trench, stumbling into your enemies lines. The closer the trenches were to each other, the easier it also was to run into an enemy patrol. \n\nIt is fair to say that the confusingness of the trenches is tied to circumstance. \n\n\"All quiet on the western front\" has a good part about being desoriented in the no man's land, trying to figure out where the own trench is. The book is a good read and covers many of the questions you had." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare#Trench_defensive_systems", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare#Implementation", "http://www-tc.pbs.org/greatwar/images/ch1_trenches_top.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdpjrgm" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "In India there is a concept called \"Bhookh Hartal\" (literally \"hunger strike\"). When people go on strike/protest they sometimes declare that they wont eat food until their demands are met. This is essentially negotiating/blackmailing with a gun to your own head. It is supposed show how dedicated the person is to the goal, even willing to give up his/her life for it. \n\nGandhi did essentially the same thing. The example i can think of is the time he went on a fast unless the hindus and muslims stopped the riots in Kolkata. The hindus and many muslims venerated him and would not have wanted him to die and the separatist muslims were probably scared of the backlash his death would have created. he was thus able to bring peace to a riot hit and communally charged place by threatning self harm." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cm38eu9" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "Yes, a few. Search for \"lost\" and \"loss\" on [this page](_URL_0_) and you'll find a few. In some cases, it is not always clear whether the weapons had nuclear cores in them, and in some, it is only components that have been lost (e.g. the secondaries of multi-stage weapons). A brief, probably incomplete list:\n\n* 1956 Mediterranean sea crash — two cores lost\n* 1958 Savannah, Georgia crash — H-bomb lost, potentially without core\n* 1961 Goldsboro crash — secondary unrecovered\n* 1965 Japanese waters — a plane carrying an H-bomb rolled off of a carrier, was never recovered\n* 1968 Pacific ocean — a submarine, the USS Scorpion, sank for reasons unknown, with two nuclear torpedos\n\nWe know the general area of these bombs.\n\nThis just includes known and admitted-to US losses, and the US is by far the most transparent nuclear weapons state. You will notice that many of these involve the flying around of live nuclear weapons, which is something the US did extensively in the late 1950s/early 1960s. If you don't fly nukes around, then your planes with nukes don't crash, etc. So other countries may or may not have better safety records." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "csza49d", "cszf9qa", "cszk9oi", "cszmdsj", "cszol50", "cszopjm" ], "score": [ 117, 54, 2, 14, 2, 10 ], "text": [ "I can't make a direct comparison, but Paul Preston claims that the Spanish Civil War has created nearly as much volume of English language scholarship as has the Second World War. That is a staggering amount of writing. Sadly, I do not have the numbers that Preston used to make this claim so it is difficult to measure the two on that basis. Given how involved much of the world was in Spain--volunteers from all over the world, major involvement from Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union, pointed \"non-intervention\" from France, the UK, and the US, the religious dimension, the atrocities, the art, the literature, the history, and more--it is not surprising that there has been so much interest in the subject. So if I were to point to a civil war that has captured the imagination on the same level as the US Civil War I would nominate the Spanish Civil War as a strong contender.", "I'd like to first question the basic concept: is there any evidence that the US Civil War is actually 'uniquely regarded' outside the US at all? I would've thought outside the US this would be a fairly obscure piece of history, maybe only relevant because it meant the end of slavery in the US.", "I don't think you are too far off. Reading old Vietnamese newspapers and journals from the 1940s and 1950s, the US Civil War is mentioned quite a bit. But so too is the Chinese Civil War that was ongoing at the time. These writers are preoccupied with the topic because Vietnam was immersed in its own civil war from 1945-1955 and they drew on notable comparisons.\n\nThe Chinese war is mentioned because it was contemporary and had a great impact on Vietnam's own fate. The reason why the US Civil War is mentioned has more to do with the course of American history. Usually the authors wrote about their hope to avoid a hugely destructive war like the US Civil War. But, they note that the US was able to persevere after the war and still defeat the Axis countries and become one of the world powers after WWII. Their hope was that Vietnam could do the same.", "To any people, their own civil war will probably take presence. England's Civil War led to the rise of Constitutional Monarchy and everyone here knows far more about both that and the War of the Roses (an earlier, Dynastic conflict which was essentially a civil war). \n\nThe Japanese will put more emphasis on the Boshin War, the French on the Revolution, the Russians on their Civil War, as with the Spanish and Japanese. Many developing nations have civil wars that have only just ended.\n\nSo honestly, no. We've all heard of the American one because America is the World's sole superpower, the War wasn't special in comparison go other Civil Wars but as all media is so American Centric, everyone is familiar with your history. And to be clear, by 1861 America was far from Small, it was continent spanning and one of the Great Powers. America hasn't been an underdog since at least the 1830s.", "The ACW was rather unique insofar as you had a collection of semiautonomous states secede from a larger union of semiautonomous states in order to form a new union in the belief that they had a legal right to do so, but were subsequently brought back into the previous union status quo pre bellum. \n\nSwitzerland, afaik, is the only other country to have ever experienced a similar civil war scenario. ", " > Is it because we were one of the last nations to abolish slavery and that made the war a grotesque world set piece?\n\nWe weren't one of the last nations, not even close.\n\n > Was it because some generals, like Sherman, became famous beyond our borders?\n\nI doubt many outside the US heard of Sherman.\n\n > Or is it possibly just because the U.S. in the 20th century dominated the movie industry and our pop culture clout simply spread knowledge like that?\n\nBingo." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cldip0j" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The largest campaign to reclaim the west was undertaken under the reign of Justinian in the 6th century, most famously under the leadership of General Belisarius. The campaigns were successful in reclaiming Italy, as well as the southern coast of Iberia and some former Vandal-held North African possessions.\n\nA mixture of warfare and plague meant that these possessions were impoverished and could provide little back to Constantinople, so ultimately the wars probably weakened Byzantium's position with respect to more proximal threats (i.e., Persia -- and, in the longer term, the Arabs). Nonetheless, they held onto the Exarchate of Ravenna until the 8th century, and held onto some Southern Italian possesssions until the 11th century." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "czoq98g" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "As a native of the northern part of Flevoland (Noordoostpolder) I can tell you something about how it worked for my area. \n\nFlevoland was populated by having people apply to be settled there. Applying for settlement was popular because it gave people a possibility to become a farmer, an opportunity they did not always have at home. For example, a younger son of a farmer would have less chance of inheriting his father's farm, and often even less chance of buying one for himself. People could thus apply for settlement in the area, but they would have to pass a government inspection and interview in order to qualify. To give an example of how strict this was, someone I know had his family's application rejected because the farm they lived on wasn't tidy enough.\n\nMany of the houses and farms were also assigned to those who worked in the area when it was drained and prepared for settlement. The best houses were built for higher level management, slightly nicer ones for engineers, and others for regular workers. When I was growing up most of the people in my street were former engineers who had worked to drain the area. Fun fact about this is that they basically had the chance to design their own houses, which is reflected by the enormous gardens their houses have.\n\nIn later phases there was less strict control of who could move to the area. At this point the agricultural sector also began attracting supporting industries and the population increased. \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dby72z2", "dbyod3p" ], "score": [ 9, 5 ], "text": [ "The best resource for this would be the [Trans-Atlantic Slave Voyage Database](_URL_1_), which is freely accessible online. If you go through the filters on the left of the page in the \"General Variables\" section, you can select filters for pirates seizing slave ships. [After a quick search](_URL_0_), I found 121 slave ships that were captured by pirates or privateers. A rough outline of the data shows that most of the seizures took place in the eighteenth century (79), and that about half of the ships had slaves on board at the time of seizure. You probably would want to look at the voyages individually to see if there are any instances where pirates freed the slaves on their own accord. For almost all the voyages I found, the pirates sold the slaves in the Americas. \n\nOf the 50 ships where we know their main port of sale, here is a rough breakdown:\n\nSpanish Americas: 13 ships\n\nUS/British Colonies: 7 ships\n\nFrench Caribbean: 23 ships\n\nBrazil: 3 ships\n\nOther: 4 ships\n\n\nThe Voyage ID's in question are:\n20770\n21390\n37014\n11963\n30090\n30115\n5050\n24810\n25553\n25684\n25761\n25153\n32474\n36225\n36237\n35234\n34190\n34260\n34720\n48909\n46917\n46919\n41553\n41554\n41572\n42832\n42903\n39028\n41885\n41894\n42177\n46708\n37029\n36192\n549\n33118\n16250\n16289\n18269\n17120\n10141\n30705\n30141\n30171\n27176\n27178\n27182\n26099\n26332\n27001\n24505\n24508\n24532\n82704\n90428\n92593\n78231\n77245\n77254\n77685\n77745\n76527\n75996\n76017\n75276\n76400", "As a related question, was it really possible for pirates to preferentially target ships based on cargo at all? I know the trade lanes were reasonably well-established, to the extent that one might know that, say, a given Portugese ship coming toward Brazil from Africa would be likely to be carrying slaves, or a given English ship sailing on the route from Jamaica to England might be carrying rum, but how reliably would they be able to prey on those trade lanes? Would it be mostly catch-and-release until they found a particularly valuable cargo, or would they simply seize any ship of the correct nationality that they stumbled across and take anything of value?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://slavevoyages.org/voyages/3oqvLAaQ", "http://slavevoyages.org/" ], [] ]