Datasets:

---

Pavithree

/

askHistorians_9381

like 0

{ "a_id": [ "cwxocci", "cwxp2a1", "cwxp4z7", "cwxqqe2", "cwy3fow", "cwyfqhd", "cwyg3ha" ], "score": [ 729, 354, 64, 25, 27, 6, 3 ], "text": [ "Yes. In 1798 Tennessee Senator [William Blount](_URL_1_) conspired to give control of Louisiana and Florida to the British. He owned a lot of land in the southwest which had lost significant value as a result of a fear that the French would gain control of Louisiana and cut off access to the Mississippi. The conspiracy was an attempt to give control of Louisiana to England with guaranteed access to the Mississippi for the U.S., and in turn, drive the land prices back up in the southwest. Instead, one of his fellow conspiritors turned in a letter written by Blount outlining the plan to a government agent. The house immediately voted to proceed with impeachment hearings, but not before the Senate essentially expelled him by voting to sequester his seat. The hearings never went anywhere and were eventually dismissed. He went back to Tennessee, and died a couple of years later. To my knowledge, he never actually faced any formal punishment other than a badly marred reputation. Oddly, because he was a was an original signer of the Constitution, there is now a [statue](_URL_0_) of him in Philadelphia at the Signer's Hall.", "[Congressman Samuel Dickstein](_URL_0_) was a Congressman from New York who was shown, according to papers found in Russian archives in the 1990s, to have accepted payment from the NKVD (predecessor agency to the KGB) in the 1930s. According to those Russian sources, Dickstein was basically a run-of-the-mill criminal and was turning over secrets mainly for money, although Dickstein claimed to his Russian handlers otherwise. I'm not certain that anything Dickstein turned over was *classified*, but he certainly worked as a Soviet agent. It's also worth noting that those Russian sources also mention that Dickstein admitted to them (i.e. the Soviets) that he had previously spied for both British and Polish intelligence. \n\nNone of this was known until Russian archives opened, so long after Dickstein died. As an aside, [there is still a street](_URL_1_) (or was in 2013 anyway) named for Dickstein in in the Lower East Side of Manhattan. ", "You might be interested in this thread about Richard Nixon regarding his actions at the end of the Vietnam war\n\n_URL_0_", "Has there ever been a historical determination regarding allegations about a KGB memo stating Ted Kennedy wanted to work with them in exchange for their help in defeating Reagan electorally?", "I have a follow up question: presumably no security clearance is required to be a senator or congressman since it is a fairly fundamental right to run for public office. Do politicians on the various national security committees who have access to highly sensitive information require top secret clearances the same as any civilian or military person?", "[Abscam](_URL_0_) was an FBI sting operation started in 1978. The original target was members of organized crime rings, but the front operation was very successful (the FBI posed as liaisons for a wealthy Arab sheikh), and the penetration led the agency toward contacts in the political realm. \n\nAfter handing out $400k in bribes, the FBI found several politicians willing to grant asylum to the sheikh in exchange for cash. Six congressmen and a senator were convicted. \n\n\n\n", "I do believe that in a round about way information was passed on to British agents prior to World War 2. The British sent agents specifically to socialize with American high society for a twofold purpose: 1) Gather information about American leanings towards the British cause 2) influence the wives of government officials to advocate on behalf of the British to their husbands. The agents were encouraged to use any means necessary, including sleeping with their wives. While the book never mentions specifically what information was given to the British, it does say a significant amount of classified information was passed to the British, all regarding the governments stance on the war. \n\nSource: *For The President's Eyes Only*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.tryphilly.com/natcon2.htm", "http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/To_Arrest_An_Impeached_Senator.htm" ], [ "http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/samuel-dickstein-congressman-russian-spy-111641_Page3.html#ixzz3FU8vICnT", "http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/a-street-named-for-a-soviet-spy-goes-largely-unnoticed/" ], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ylubl/was_there_any_truth_to_the_rumors_that_during/" ], [], [], [ "https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2005/february/abscam_020705" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cv101ce" ], "score": [ 32 ], "text": [ "Hiya I answered a [similar question] (_URL_0_) to yours a few weeks ago, it was a little more broad in the area the user was interested in however I would think a lot of it is still applicable. I'll post the relevant sections below (please note that I'm not a Historian of the Mediterranean): \n\n > ...Psychiatry itself was fairly unscientific with it dating back to the ancient greeks. Psychiatry in the Greeks mind was the field of the spiritualists & that of the supernatural with exorcisms being commonplace, this was the definition of Psychiatry until the mid 19th century when it started to be recognised as a medical discipline & not just a subsidiary of Philosophy.\n\n > However there were some people that thought those with mental illness should be treated in a humane way (even if their theories as to what was causing their distress & how best to cure it was distorted by the limitations of the age) This \"humane treatment\" does date back to the greeks & romans but I will say that I'm not too familiar with their methods so I can't go too in depth:\n\n > In the 4th Century BC, No other than Hippocrates:\n\n > \"theorized that physiological abnormalities were causing mental disorders. He viewed the brain as the seat of consciousness, emotion, intelligence, wisdom and reasoned that disorders involving these functions must be located in the brain and were not inflicted by the Gods\"\n\n\n > And in 129 BC, Greek physician Asclepiades advocated humane treatment of the mentally ill, he freed them from confinement & gave a prescription of diets & massages. Roman physician, Galen;\n\n > \"adopted a single symptom approach rather than broad diagnostic categories, for example studying separate states of sadness, excitement, confusion and memory loss. Galen extended these ideas and developed a powerful and influential school of thought within the biological tradition that extended well into the 18th century.\"\n\n[In this next bit I talk about medieval Iraq, specifically Baghdad but i'm sure it can be applied to 8th century \"Al-Andulus\" (Islamic Spain and Portugal) as well]\n\n > Skipping gleefully forward into 8th Century Baghdad, we see some of the first psychiatric hospitals. These hospitals were humane as muslims believed the mentally ill were incapable of doing things yet deserving of treatment. You can see [here in this painting](_URL_1_) of a Muslim doctor treating a mentally ill patient. This treatment can be linked to the Islamic belief of \"Greater Jihad\" (أكبر الجهاد; al-jihad al-akbar), Whereas \"Lesser Jihad\" (الجهاد الأصغر; al-jihad al-asghar) is *an outer physical struggle against the enemies of Islam*, Greater Jihad is *the struggle against oneself*.\n\n[After this point, I move the audiences' focus to the 19th Century and beyond as this is what I'm most comfortable with, so I won't post that part of the answer. However if you're interested in reading about that I've posted a link to the original answer in full, above. I will post some of the sources i used relating specifically to the medieval section]\n\n > ...**Further Reading:**\n\n1) Penguin Classics' \"*Hippocratic Writings\"*\n\n2) Jacques Jouanna's *\"Hippocrates\"*\n\n3) Michael Bonner's *\"Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice\"*\n\n4) Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi's *\"A History of Baghdad\"*\n\n[...]\nIf you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask :)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3fc4uj/when_were_the_first_psychiatric_asylums/ctp0fu7", "http://www.lymberis.com/_images/baghdad.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cldnblr" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "[Here is an album of 52 pictures of Amtraks](_URL_0_). There were a number of different versions, but the basic concept is a tracked vehicle--angled at both ends--usually with a ramp for vehicles or soldiers. [Here is one that's carrying a jeep](_URL_3_). The early versions were open topped, while later versions added a roof for protection. Most were lightly armed with a machine gun or two. [Here is an open topped Amtrak in the water](_URL_2_). [Wikipedia lists the number of different kinds of Amtraks used](_URL_1_), and you can see that there were a bunch of different types. In that respect, an \"Amtrak\" is a bit vague as a description--it's more of a category than one particular vehicle." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://ww2db.com/photo.php?source=all&color=all&list=search&foreigntype=A&foreigntype_id=301", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Vehicle_Tracked#Variants", "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Tracked_landing_vehicles_%28LVTs%29_approach_Iwo_Jima%3Bfig14.jpg", "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/LVT-4_1.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "crvwlt4" ], "score": [ 52 ], "text": [ "I'm going to provide some sources for this when I get off my phone and back to my desk. \n\nFour of the accounts that we have concerning Pope Urban's preaching of the Crusade write as if they were present - these are scribes and scholars of the day. They would have brought word to their respects be courts and patrons. Fulcher of Chartres wrote the earliest account of the Council of Clermont and while we do not have a direct transcript of what Urban II said there, we can begin to piece it together from what he, Robert the Monk, Baldric of Dol and Guibert of Nogent wrote of it. The accounts would be repeated, garbled and spread through word of mouth. \n\nFulcher's account does not mention any Crusade for Jerusalem and some hypothesize that it was a secondary objective added after the gathering of the nobles for the first crusade. (*Pope Urban II's Preaching of the First Crusade* H.E.J. Cowdrey) This is significant (to me) because it is the earliest of the accounts that we have of the council. \n\nOnce the word reached your court, you have some decisions to make. The declaration that one was going on crusade was simply that - a declaration. The actual process was somewhat more difficult. Traditional pilgrims traveled to Jerusalem unarmed. (*Early Crusaders and the Cost of Crusading*- Jonathan Riley-Smith) The Council of Clermont specifies warriors for Christendom, and if you're a man of any means that will also require whatever additional men and material you can muster. \n\nGoing on crusade was an enormously expensive endeavor. As a minor noble your best bet is to hook up with a greater lord who is also going on crusade. There were several routes considered but the First Crusade took the land route which is a lot of hostile ground to cover. You're going to need to liquidate as many of your assets (land) that you can and call in any debts you are owed to get the capital you need for this adventure. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdaif50", "cdaj298", "cdajfp9", "cdajhe5", "cdajknj", "cdakmqz", "cdakpgd", "cdalarv", "cdalihj", "cdaluwj", "cdam4in", "cdamkhk", "cdamq5k", "cdan2mj", "cdapl3b", "cdapplw", "cdaqri1", "cdarl9w", "cdarpuq", "cdat0go", "cdaub5c", "cdav05f", "cdaw83o", "cdaxi77", "cdazbq4", "cdazwyw", "cdb06r2", "cdb1i2i", "cdmsz9c" ], "score": [ 257, 6, 99, 91, 58, 45, 8, 325, 33, 17, 25, 23, 3, 17, 15, 2, 6, 14, 17, 4, 6, 12, 8, 3, 5, 24, 2, 7, 3 ], "text": [ "I had a perfect moment of this that really made me think about it. When writing my dissertation I was working with war letters from Union soldiers in the American Civil War.\n\nI was reading letters from this guy who's wife was pleading with him to just leave and come home. He refused largely because of his ideas of honour, and of course he didn't want to let his friends down. His wife kept pressuring him and it intensified when he received a field promotion. He wanted to come home but he just couldn't get out without deserting. \n\nThe crescendo of anxiety reached its pinnacle when his wife threatened to have an abortion. She had become pregnant when her husband was on medical leave from his regiment after being injured at the Battle of Chantilly. It is an astonishing threat, considering the moral and legal implications at the time. The guy was understandably shocked by her thoughts of abortion, telling her that he believed it was a “verry dangerious operation to tryphle with [sic]” and that she “ought to know better.”\n\nThankfully she didn't have the abortion, it was probably just an empty threat. But it really illustrated for me just how real these people's lives were. ", "For me, I read an article that had a list of all the various graffiti that, I believe, was still preserved at Pompeii. The general low brow and ribold nature of it really put history in a very human context. ", "I think the study of War can provide some of the best examples of this, it is so easy to get lost in the statistics of it, what does it mean that the Soviet Union suffered 2,067,801 'irrecoverable losses' between the 22 June and 1 September 1941?\n\nFor me though the greatest shock came whilst reading \"Castles of Steel\", a great work about Naval Warfare in WW1 though one that cannot be claimed to make it seem personal. The Authors focus on the 'great' figures of the time leaves little room for the lives of sailors serving upon these vessels. \n\nIt is during the Battle of Jutland that my own story took place. The largest naval battle of the First World War it pitted the Grand Fleet of the Royal Navy against the German High Seas Fleet. The British were to lose three Battlecruisers (A form of Dreadnought that carried the heavy guns of a Battleship but with lighter armour to allow for higher speeds) to one German.\n\nHMS Lion was the flagship of the British Battlecruiser squadron which found itself engaged against its German counterpart. The British suffered losses; HMS Indefatigable blew up followed by HMS Queen Mary twenty minutes later. Lion was hit heavily at the start of the engagement with one shell going through the Q turret and exploding, killing all but two inside and starting a fire.\n\nIt is at this moment that Major Francis John William Harvey steps into the fray, an officer serving within the turret and a specialist on Naval Artillery. He was mortally wounded by the explosion but immediately realised that the fire was going to spread to the ammunition within the turret and detonate it, destroying the ship and killing all almost all on board.\n\nHe then staggered to the voice pipe and ordered the doors to the turret closed and the magazine flooded before turning to the Sergeant and instructing him to go to the Bridge and give a damage report. This done he collapses and dies just seconds later. His actions save the Lion, without this the Ship would surely have been lost and like the Indefatigale it would just be viewed as '1019 dead and 2 survivors' or like the Queen Mary '1266 dead and 9 survivors'\n\nIt is all to easy to read accounts of the Battle and just view the men serving as automatons, toiling within the bowels of the Ship until a shell claims them. But they weren't, they were people who lived and died on their Castles of Steel and did all in their considerable power to save their vessels.\n\nI'm sorry that I spent so long describing what was an event that lasted around thirty seconds, I have not seen a single question about Naval Warfare in WW1 in the last week or so I've been frequently looking here so I do not know the level of understanding the average reader has. ", "Since I focus in on art history I have to say the paintings of little Golden Age Dutch home interiors (Pieter de Hooch's \"The Bedroom\" was one of my favorites). It's like those moments when you are going home in the dark, and you pass by apartment buildings that have some windows lit up giving you a clear view of the room from the outside. You can't help but look, and notice little things like a chandelier, the furniture arrangement, or what the people are doing. You are suddenly reminded that there is a world entirely foreign and unfamiliar to you inside that room, where people have their own routines and activities, and it's quite a weird feeling. These Dutch paintings show us a glimpse of someone's home, and I can see the little personal touches like their selection of decorations, Delft tiles on the walls, how clean and orderly everything is. I'm safe to look, because they're unaware of my presence, as if it were dark outside. It always reminds me that even though times were very different from now, people all over the world still have homes to take care of and families to love.", "A common way of doing this is with something like the Pompeian graffiti or the scraps of personal writings we have from papyri or the rare wooden survivals. But for me, this only goes part of the way. It helps break down the barrier between us an people in the past by giving us an obvious behavioral connection to the past, showing that in many ways they acted similarly to us, but to me at least, it doesn't make the past come alive. It is still a little cold to me. Instead, I like to populate the landscape, and try to imagine the diversity of existences. For example, there is a fantastic passage in Varro's *De agricultura* (II.10.6) about shepherds:\n\n > \"As to the breeding of herdsmen; it is a simple matter in the case of those who stay all the time on the farm, as they have a female fellow-slave in the steading, and the Venus of herdsmen looks no farther than this. But in the case of those who tend the herds in mountain valleys and wooded lands, and keep off the rains not by the roof of the steading but by makeshift huts, many have thought that it was advisable to send along women to follow the herds, prepare food for the herdsmen, and make them more diligent. 7 Such women should, however, be strong and not ill-looking. In many places they are not inferior to the men at work, as may be seen here and there in Illyricum, being able either to tend the herd, or carry firewood and cook the food, or to keep things in order in their huts.\n\nOnce you get past the creepy concept of \"breeding\" herdsmen, it actually presents one of those very rare snapshots of a lifestyle that is completely lost without it. There are numerous little passages in that book that casually describe little aspects of shepherds' lives, such as their own private rites, their close connection with dogs (which they sometimes use to rip off purchasers) and their folk beliefs (that goats breath through their ears). Teams of shepherds gone for weeks or months didn't write texts or leave much in the way of archaeological remains, but they were an indelible part of the landscape and these little trifles let us see them again.\n\nOr it can be even simpler than that. Along the stretch of the Tiber between Rome and Ostia, a few little pier posts have been found, and that makes us realize that *of course* the owner of that little farmhouse would have a little dinghy in case he wanted to cross the river. Or we see a food stall on a Pompeian painting and realize that, *of course* these streets would actually be filled with people hawking their wares, or carrying peddlers carrying their goods from town to town, not to mention the carts that left their grooves on every Roman street--streets that someone might need [stepping stones](_URL_0_) for when it rained.\n\nMy favorite new example of this is one of the little forts in Egypt's Eastern Desert in which maybe twenty soldiers were stationed. We learned from a papyrus sheet that the standard rotation in a given fort was about 5-7 months, and that is what really clicked for me. Here you have a soldier who has been there for, say, maybe three months and is just counting down the days until he can go back to Alexandria, where it is still too goddamn hot but at least there was something to do. It isn't so much that it tells a story as that it makes it clear that there really are stories to tell. They may be gone now, but it is still very powerful to me to know they once existed.", "This particular story is not as much about history as it is about history's connection with the present. We always see historical individuals as belonging to a certain \"scene\", i.e. you wouldn't imagine a Civil War soldier to be around in the 1930's. Yet, this happened. In the case of military veterans, there are those who lived an amazing amount of years and who makes one wonder at how one individual, that for example saw action in the Civil War, managed to live as long as to experience the early 1950's in the US. This was the case for James Hard, the last Union veteran who fought in battle. \n\nHere's an excerpt from *The Chicago Tribune*, March 12, 1953:\n\n > Rochester, N.Y., March 12, [1953] - James A. Hard, the oldest veteran of the Civil war, died tonight. The high spirited, cigar smoking veteran underwent amputation of his right leg above the knee 10 days ago. The amputation was made because of a progressive circulatory deficiency in Hard's right foot. His death cut the list of surviving Civil war veterans to five - one a Union man and the others Confederate.\n\n > Hard joined the Union army at 19, four days after the firing on Fort Sumter started the Civil war. He fought as an infantryman at the battles of Bull Run, Antietam, and Chancellorsville. While a soldier, he met Lincoln at a White House reception and later saw him twice reviewing troops in Virginia.\n\nAnother more extreme and more controversial example can be found in Congo. David van Reybrouck, a Belgian author, travelled to the DRC for several years as he was researching for his book on the modern history of the Congo. There, he got in touch with a man named Etienne Nkasi. Mr. Nkasi claimed to have been born in 1882, making him a grand total of 126 years old at the time of their first conversation in late 2008. While van Reybrouck was suspicious about the claim at first, his own research into it did make the picture clearer and the experiences that Nkasi spoke about where just those that had happened during the 1880's and 1890's, and which he only could have known from his own experience. van Reybrouck took what he was told by Nkasi and compared that to well documented events happening at that time.\n\nAmongst the things van Reybrouck was told (and wrote down) was Nkasi's memories of seeing the railway between Matadi and Kinshasa being constructed (which happened between 1890 and 1898) and meeting and being educated by missionaries who were known to have been active in his region of Congo as well. Nkasi moved to Kinshasa in 1921 and it was there he would die in 2010. While a story such as this is rightfully controversial, it is still an interesting discovery and for a man who could possibly have been this old, the world we live in now seemed extraordinary. In their first meeting on November 6th 2008, Nkasi asked van Reybrouck if he could ask a question. He had heard a rumour and he just had to have it confirmed: \"Is it true that they had elected a black president in America?\"", "I find information about eating and toiletries to be very humanizing. Sometimes one gets wrapped up in thinking of Patton as directing tanks 24/7, 365 while on duty. In reality he had to take breakfast, use the restroom, sleep, shave, just like everyone else. Same goes for all historical figures, obviously. Makes you realize how remarkable all great accomplishments are when you factor in just how few usable hours there are in a day. ", "**Part I**: *Structure, Agency, and Tearing Down the Walls*\n\nWhen it comes to history, I tend to think about, in Chuck Tilly's terms, \"[big structures, large processes, huge comparisons](_URL_6_)\": societal conversions that take place over centuries, state centralization, bureaucratic rationalization, slow moving legal frameworks, etc. It's easy to get caught up in these big pictures. I'm also Jewish, which means I've been learning the Holocaust almost since I could articulate the difference between past and present. Normally, I'd apologize for the length of this post, but I apologize for nothing but my misspellings and grammatical errors. I've tried to break it up to make it more readable. I also reedited it the next day to fix some errors and expand some sections.\n\n1933-1945 was an era of large structures, of mass oppression, of cruel legal regimes. How can you even understand what six (or ten, or twelve) million of anything are? What do six million grains of sand look like, nevermind six million human beings with lives, with families, with loves, with stories. Writing about Poles killed by the Nazis, my favorite poet Wisława Szymborska wrote in her poem \"[The Hunger Camp at Jaslo](_URL_1_)\" (there's another slightly different translation of it called \"[The Starvation Camp Near Jaslo](_URL_10_)\"):\n\n History counts its skeletons in round numbers.\n A thousand and one remains a thousand,\n as though the one had never existed:\n an imaginary embryo, an empty cradle,\n an ABC never read,\n air that laughs, cries, grows,\n emptiness running down steps toward the garden,\n nobody's place in the line. \n\nThe numbers we need to talk about are literally too huge for us to fully visualize or understand. Here is an era where the state not just rationalized but mechanized, and used all its capacity to mete out death. I only really learned about two types agency in the many discussions I had about the topic while growing up: what \"he\" did (among the more conservative of my parents generation, the only agent in the Holocaust was Hitler) and what the Jews did, who very occasionally engaged in hopeless resistance (the only time agency of Jewish victims was discussed was with reference to violent resistance). The world, I was taught, \"did nothing\". But mostly, there was an emphasis on the fact there was nothing that could be done--an emphasis that the structures were too powerful, the barbarism too immense.\n\n(*This part is adapted from an older post*) The one piece of Jewish agency that I always grew up with, that put the historical moment in stark terms, was this short reflection from within the Warsaw Ghetto, months before the actual Uprising, which was one of the events of Jewish agency that we most talked about. This is **[Emmanuel Ringelblum](_URL_8_)**, an ethnically Jewish historian with PhD from Warsaw University, who was trapped in the Ghetto (your should read about him and the [Ringelblum Archive/Oyneg Shabbos](_URL_4_), which was his attempt at documenting life in the Warsaw Ghetto). As I grow older and move forward with my own doctorate, I see him more and more as a model of what I likely would have done. He collected information, furiously documented, but also organized quality of life events and helped distribute food to the needy. He escaped with the help of the Polish resistance as the Ghetto was being liquidated, but was captured and murder by the Nazis within a year. The section I'm quoting below is him writing from inside the Ghetto in 1942, months before the actual Uprising, and I think sets the scene for the Ghetto Uprising fairly well (because of the Ghetto's liquidation was scheduled to coincide with Passover, in my fairly left-wing family, it's traditional to read this section as part of the Passover *Hagadah*):\n\n > Most of the populace is set on resistance. It seems to me that people will no longer go to the slaughter like lambs. They want the enemy to pay dearly for their lives. They’ll fling themselves at them with knives, staves, coal gas. They’ll permit no more blockades. They’ll not allow themselves to be seized in the street, for they know that work camp means death these days. And they want to die at home, not in a strange place…\n\n > Whomever you talk to, you hear the same cry: The resettlement should never have been permitted. We should have run out into the street, have set fire to everything in sight, have torn down the walls, and escaped to the Other Side. The Germans would have taken their revenge.\n\n > It would have cost tens of thousands of lives, but not 300,000. Now we are ashamed of ourselves, disgraced in our own eyes, and in the eyes of the world, where our docility earned us nothing. This must not be repeated now. We must put up a resistance, defend ourselves against the enemy, man and child.…\n\nI can only remember seeing my father cry twice: when, while at the theater, the director announced Yitzhak Rabin had been shot and murdered and when we read this passage at Pesach. My father cried almost every year. It puts you firmly there, \"What would I have done? Would I have run out into the streets? Set fire to everything in sight? Torn down the walls and escaped to the Other Side?\" I was never comfortable with my own answers. When, if ever, would I have become \"set on resistance\"?\n\nBut that quote from Emmanuel Ringelblum is only half of what I wanted to share. The other half, that really hit me much more in college, was that other people had agency. Everyone had agency. And some people chose to use it. Christopher Browning's *Ordinary Men* shows this well. The Germans who were actually doing most of the work of mass killings weren't particularly notable. You should read the book, or at least this [*New York Times* review of it](_URL_2_). These were lower and middle class men from Hamburg, not ideologues, but fathers and uncles who were too old (in their 30's and 40's) for conscription into the military. And they murdered thousands of people. Few men asked for transfer, and they were allowed to opt out without punishment. Most agreed to follow the orders to murder. I don't even like to ask myself what I would have done.\n\n**Part II**: *What Would You Do For a Stranger at Your Door?*\n\nWhat I want to focus on, however, is a tiny class of people who decided *not* to just follow orders. Who decided to do the \"right thing\", not just the easy thing, and risked (and in some cases received) censure for their actions. For me, at least, it's easy to understand the \"ordinary men\" who do evil under orders--Hannah Arendt's whole notion of the \"[banality of evil](_URL_3_)\", that even monsters like Eichmann were not psychopaths or fanatics or all that different, really, from the rest of us. That I've accepted and internalized. It's slightly harder, for me at least, to understand the ordinary men who do a tremendous amount of good completely on their own initiative. There are times when banal evil outweighs the every day acts of loving-kindness ([*chesed*](_URL_0_) in Jewish thought), but we must eternally ask ourselves: which side are we on? What have we done to hate evil and love goodness?\n\nIn Hitler's Europe, emigration turned out be the only safe option. My grandfather left Germany in 1937, my grandmother left Austria in 1938. In fact, because of the time they had to prepare for emigration, Germany Jews survived in much higher proportions than their Eastern European co-religionists. To leave, one needed a visa, and these were hard to get. The story in my family is that my grandfather \"saw what was happening\" early on and already in 1934 started learning English and schmoozing with the staff at the American Embassy in Berlin, which eventually escalated to daily visits, or so our family lore says. Still, it took him three years to get the visa. My wealthy grandmother was able to get out of Anschluss Austria only through family connections.\n\nAfter the invasions, Eastern and Southeastern Jews did not have the same time to prepare. Far fewer of them got out. Thousands that did get out, however, got out with the help of diplomats who behaved selflessly. I get shivers every time I read about them. These men, outwardly equally ordinary, did what so many could have done and so few did. They should eternally be remembered. [As the traditional saying in Judaism goes](_URL_7_), \"may the memory of the righteous be a blessing.\" While there are almost 25,000 recognized \"[Righteous Among the Nations](_URL_9_)\" who saved Jews, either individually or in groups, this group of men who in their official capacity worked to save Jews, deserve not only our praised but our emulation. They are an important counterpoint to the \"banality\" of Eichmann's evil and Browning's \"ordinary men\" who committed perhaps the most inhumane event in human men. These ordinary men--bureaucrats, often the standard for boringness and ordinariness--remind us that we always have a choose, we always not only can, not only should, but morally we *must* consider the consequences of our actions.\n\n**[Chiune Sugihara](_URL_5_)** is who I always start thinking about. He was the Vice-Consul for the Empire of Japan in Kaunas, Lithuania. Single-handedly (or, more accurately, only with the aid of his wife who helped him copy out papers, and some help from his Dutch counterpart) he saved *thousands* of lives. He spent reportedly 18-20 hours a day copying out visas for Jews wishing to escape. Even as he was reassigned away from the city, he continued to hand out visas from the train. After the War, he said almost nothing about it. He left the Japanese foreign service in 1946 and lived after the war a middle class clerk and businessman. Reflecting on what he did in Lithuania, after survivors tracked him down to thank and honor him, he said,\n\n > You want to know about my motivation, don't you? Well. It is the kind of sentiments anyone would have when he actually sees refugees face to face, begging with tears in their eyes. He just cannot help but sympathize with them. Among the refugees were the elderly and women. They were so desperate that they went so far as to kiss my shoes, Yes, I actually witnessed such scenes with my own eyes. Also, I felt at that time, that the Japanese government did not have any uniform opinion in Tokyo. Some Japanese military leaders were just scared because of the pressure from the Nazis; while other officials in the Home Ministry were simply ambivalent. \n\n > People in Tokyo were not united. I felt it silly to deal with them. So, I made up my mind not to wait for their reply. I knew that somebody would surely complain about me in the future. But, I myself thought this would be the right thing to do. There is nothing wrong in saving many people's lives....The spirit of humanity, philanthropy...neighborly friendship...with this spirit, I ventured to do what I did, confronting this most difficult situation—and because of this reason, I went ahead with redoubled courage. \n\n\"The kind of sentiments anyone would have\" did not lead universally to the course of actions Sugihara committed himself to. He makes morality sound simple, as if it is more complicated to be immoral than moral: \"I do it just because I have pity on the people. They want to get out so I let them have the visas.\" ", "For me, it was the *Calendar of Coroner's Court Rolls for the city of London*, 14th century. Morbid I know, but it's essentially a bill of mortality for any and all 'unrightful deaths' of common Londoners 600 years ago. It really puts things into a frightening reality, especially the sad records of children's deaths. I remember one that summarized the drowning death of a little boy on his way home from school, that he had stopped on London bridge and tried to hang off the bridge by his hands and had slipped and fallen into the Thames. It's just such a clear picture of a sad, *completely human* accident. Just a little boy being a little boy. \nIt struck me that all of those medieval people I always read about were individual, breathing, thinking beings and not just numbers or guesstimates in a book. Most of them are now long forgotten, no record of their existence at all. But this record of the accidental drowning of a little kid goofing around 650 years ago is still here. Whenever I see a picture of London bridge and the Thames I think about him.", "Probably the first time I can remember this happening is when I was reading about the Baroque composers, Bach and Handel. Both these men are nearly household names today even among those who don't like \"classical\" music and both were entirely larger-than-life even in their own day. Little stories like how Bach *walked across Germany* to study under the great organist Buxtehude, only to be turned down flat. He then behaved basically like a groupie, hanging around constantly until Buxtehude agreed to teach him. Then turned around and walked back across Germany. And did I mention he'd told his employer he'd only be gone for a few weeks? He was gone three months--and was given back his job. As well, there was a position with Buxtehude available later that both Bach and Handel wanted, but it came with the precondition of marrying Buxtehude's daughter. Both Bach and Handel took a pass.\n\nBy the way, Bach was an amazingly entertaining human being. I highly recommend reading about his life if you get a chance. Handel was as well, but he was a bit more of a disagreeable ass. Bach was mostly an agreeable ass, so there's that.\n\nAlternatively, it's when various historical players intersect unexpectedly in new places. Too often, we read about so-and-so who did such-and-such during whatever period, and that's that. We have no idea who this person was outside of that event or any sense that they had a life before and after. But when, for example, General James Wolfe (back when he was a major) unexpectedly turns up after Culloden to (allegedly) rob Thomas Bowdler's aunt at the orders of General Hawley, or Captain James Cooke turns up to survey the St. Lawrence River before the Seige of Quebec, or when you find out that Liszt was Wagner's father-in-law, it really drives home that these were people.", "I have a picture of a drawing of two little girls playing with things that dates back to pre-Dynastic Egypt. It's just a cute little picture from thousands of years ago of kids being kids. ", "I visited Pompeii whilst at university. It's a fascinating place - there's funny (and rude!) graffiti on the walls which say things like, \"I screwed the barmaid\" and \"Rufus loves Cornelia\", as well as hand drawn phalluses everywhere! The mindset of people 2000 years ago was not too dissimilar from today. :) \n\nHowever, it's also a really sad place at the same time. You can see original casts of the bodies of people who died in the ash from Vesuvius, [THIS](_URL_0_) one is particularly sobering. ", "Reading \"A Tale of Love and Darkness\" by Amos Oz. The novel looks at Israeli-Palestinian relations pre-Israeli statehood from the most microscopic of levels - the experiences of Oz as a child trying to decide whether to buy Palestinian or Israeli cheese, having a garden party at an Arab neighbor's home, etc. It's extremely evocative and extremely personal.", "The museum of the Royal College of Surgeons in Edinburgh is incredible. One exhibit features the preserved face of a soldier who was killed in WWI. It's been cut out from his head, from across the mouth including the top lip, up to the forehead, moustache and fatal bulletwound included. It's incredibly grisly, but it's so well preserved that it connects you with the past in a very direct way. \n\nLooking into the very real face of this man who fought and died in the Great War almost a century ago was perhaps the most profoundly moving experience I've ever had in a museum. ", "I was doing research in to Victorian post mortem photography and while they can be unsettling from a modern perspective to look at, it just struck me the love that must have existed in these families. \n\nBabies were usually laid out to look like they were sleeping while older children and adults were usually set up to appear alive, sometimes family members would pose with them in the pictures. \n\nSo to sit with your parent, sibling or child at the height of your grief, pretending like they are alive or just sleeping, just so you can remember their face. It makes me tear up just thinking about it.", "For me, it was poking around Norwich Cathedral. In 1643 it was ransacked by Puritans demanding adherence to their strict law. You can still find a musket ball lodged in a bishop's tomb.\n\nTo think that it was shot by some real person hundreds of years ago and stayed lodged in a bit of stone through so much history, it just blew my mind.\n\nSimple, I know, but kinda awesome.\n\n_URL_0_", "Studying documents, particularly Notarial Registers, from the Middle Ages. There you have marriage contracts, wills, and mundane business transactions that outline the daily lives of medieval people. You'd never know you could bring them to life by reading chronicles and religious tracts.", "I wrote a paper on the correspondence between Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome about 6 months ago. I really never planned on it, I just happened upon this book in the library that included their surviving letters to each other while researching the Vulgate. It really entranced me and I completely changed topic while in the middle of my original research. \n\n\nMost of the content was a lot of argument and discussion about theological issues, but there is a flavor that you can only get from private correspondence. And it was between two Saints, two Doctors of the Church! The guy who wrote Confessions and the City of God is talking to the guy who is responsible for the Vulgate! I never even considered that possible. From reading the letters I eventually got the feeling that Augustine thought Jerome was a grumpy old man, and Jerome thought Augustine was just this know-it-all who wouldn't leave him alone. Maybe I extrapolated a bit too much, but I just had this sense that Augustine voraciously needed to argue and find truth and share that truth and Jerome just wanted to be left alone to write in Bethlehem. I should note that almost all of Jerome's letters were much shorter than Augustine's and he only really seemed interested in talking about the Septuagint if I remember correctly. Either way, he certainly didn't seem very long winded or loquacious.\n\n\nI eventually just got to the point where I realized that honeslty, these Saints were very human too. Sure they were talking about incredibly serious things, but the character involved just made them seem more alive than ever before. They finally had personality. The respect they had for each other, the dislike in some situations, the disagreements. At the same time, you have these great minds having great conversations, but you also realize it's just two guys talking, and you kinda forget that they eventually become Saints and Doctors of the Church. At least for a little bit.", "There are a couple of pieces from Roman history that have brilliantly humanised such a foreign people to me. There are two that leap to mind. First is the Papyrus Oxyrhynchus:\n\n'Theon to his father Theon, greeting. It was a fine thing of you not to take me with you to the city! If you won't take me with you to Alexandria I won't write you a letter or speak to you or say goodbye to you; and if you go to Alexandria I won't take your hand nor ever greet you again. That is what will happen if you won't take me. Mother said to Archelaus, \"It quite upsets him to be left behind (?).\" It was good of you to send me presents ... on the 12th, the day you sailed. Send me a lyre, I implore you. If you don't, I won't eat, I won't drink; there now!'\n\nChildren being upset because dad's away on business is a 2000 year old tradition, apparently. The other is on a more somber note, a poem by Catullus. Frequently i am amazed at the ever-present pragmatism and general toughness of the Roman people. It is good to be reminded that they are people, and they felt futility and loss and hopelessness just as we do:\n\n'Journeying over many seas and through many countries \n\nI come dear brother to this pitiful leave-taking \n\nThe last gestures by your graveside \n\nThe futility of words over your quiet ashes. \n\nLife cleft us from each other \n\nPointlessly depriving brother of brother. \n\nAccept then, in our parents’ custom \n\nThese offerings, this leave-taking, \n\nEchoing for ever, brother, through a brother’s tears. \n\n -‘Hail and Farewell.’ '\n", "I can narrow down 2 events in my life that have humanized history, and led me to my fields of study. \n\nFirst off, when I was 8 years old, my dad and I were driving around and he began telling me about our upcoming summer vacation. We were going to Hawaii in a few months, and he was telling me all about what to expect: the culture, the natural beauty, and the rich history of the islands. His excitement began to build, and finally he could barely contain himself when he said \"you know, your mom and I are even planning a special trip, so we can take you kids to go see Pearl Harbor.\" He looked at me, and I was expressionless; I had absolutely no idea what Pearl Harbor even was. He was shocked. \n\nThe next night after dinner, he went to Blockbuster (ya'll remember those??) and rented \"Tora Tora Tora\" and let me stay up past my bedtime so I could see what it was all about. \n\nI was hooked. \n\nBy the time we visited Pearl Harbor that summer, I was all over it. I knew names, dates, times of attack, casualty statistics, battleship/aircraft silhouettes, etc. I remember looking at a 3-D topographical map of Oahu, and outlining the different flight paths of the first and seconds attack waves. There was an older woman who was also standing on the opposite side of the table, and after finishing my explanation, she looked at my mom and said \"ma'am, your son is absolutely correct.\" \n\nAfter that trip, my dad and I would travel all throughout my home state and go to airshows and aircraft museums, just so I could see a glimpse of the WW2 era fighters and bombers. I was lucky; I grew up in a household that not only embraced my love for History, but had an active part in making sure that I was given every opportunity to experience it firsthand. ", "When I began the archival work for my MA thesis, I started with the US Army Intelligence files of some of the central characters I was dealing with. At the front of the files were their original identity cards, filled out in their handwriting, with their real signatures and fingerprints. \n\nIt's an interesting moment when the person you've found in secondary sources becomes a real person who once held the very piece of paper you now have in your hands. ", "For me, it's been the use of technology and the first attempts at science in the Ancient Near East.\n\nFrom Egypt to Canaan, we have evidence of the use of cisterns, door locks, earthquake-proof architecture used by the Phoenicians, the existence of board-games, mass-produced pottery, diplomatic letters (i.e. the Amarna letters) in the Bronze Age, accounting, even Assyrian siege machines ([the resemblance to modern-day tanks is remarkable](_URL_0_)), used for war and destruction, can show us the level of intelligence used by people in the Ancient Near East. Even thousands of years ago, [Imhotep](_URL_1_), one of the chief officials for pharaoh Djoser, wrote entire medical treatises; he was the guy who built the first pyramid.\n\nThe people in those times may have had savage moral codes (where \"an eye for an eye\" was taken literally) and were ignorant about our place in the universe and the microscopic nature of diseases, but they were as intelligent as we are. They were smart, they were inventive. \n\nI used to think of ancient civilizations as inferior and primitive. But how can I argue against the people who invented writing itself? If we're superior to them, it's because they gave us the tools to surpass them. As Isaac Newton said, \"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.\"\n\nEDIT: As for emotional, common-day stuff, I remember reading a few Canaanite blessings and prayers filled with emotion, joy and grief; but I lost the links, sorry.", "During my research while I was at home with a broken leg for a few weeks, I focused on the Pacific theater of WW2. I never quite understood how horrid the invasion of Japan was, until I discovered the Rape of Nanking. As most people know, it was horrible within itself. What made me really open my eyes as to the horrific things that occurred was that John Rabe, a Nazi Party leader in the area, recorded what happened, and how he tried his hardest to save as many people as he could.\n\nHe wasn't scared to use his position in the Nazi party for good, and he risked his life to save so many others. Although, I read his accounts before I saw any of the photos, so I'm guessing his imagery prepared me for what I saw later, and didn't shock me as much.\n\nIt kind of humanized the whole thing for me, because I saw that no matter the party affiliation, there was some humanity through it all. In all my reading on WW2, all I heard was massacres and atrocities, and it was refreshing to hear about someone actively doing something about it in the open. It also shocked me that he wasn't hung or forgotten about, but instead became an important Emissary for Germany after the war. For quite a lot of people, the war was the end of it, but he kept on going. I feel too much disconnect between the end of the war and occurrences afterwards... as though there is some imaginary gap where there is actually quite a lot of action.\n\n", "Reading Les Rois Thaumaturges was essential in helping me for the understanding that medieval history was more than an account of battles, kings, and the lives of 'great' men.\n\nThe idea that what people believed and how people lived, be it beliefs over the royal curing of scrofula, or the impact of changing religious pasterns during the reformation fundamentally altered the way that i viewed and studied the past.", "I just came back from my College's Remembrance Sunday service. Instead of a sermon, they read out the names of the nearly 350 college members and staff who died in the two world wars. It's an incredibly powerful service, particularly because had I been born a hundred years earlier, one of those names would probably be mine. The Dean who takes the service advises us to put a face that we recognise (friends or family) to every name read out, and I don't think there's a single person in the chapel who hasn't run out of faces long before the final name. It's a hell of a connection.", "It's always a bit harder for achaeologists to humanize their subjects especially the farther one goes back in time because we don't know their personal stories. To be perfectly honest when I excavate a burial I am not usually thinking about the person I have before me. I know other people who are more affected by, say, the burial of a mother and her child but most are not. \n\nThat said there are always moments when one suddenly connects with the people one studies and realizes that they, too, were people with hopes and dreams however alien their world seems to us.\n\nTwo of those moments I have mentioned before in this subreddit so I'm going to copy and paste here:\n\n > I'm sure many of you are familiar with the birch bark letters of medieval Novgorod. Among the many wooden and leather finds ([some of them rather scary](_URL_7_)) that survived from medieval Novgorod due to the wet conditions there, there are documents, written on birch-bark in the 11th to 15th centuries. \n\n > Among them there are several drawings by a young boy named Onfim. They offer a fascinating glimpse into a child's life at around 1200. \n\n > Onfim was about seven years old and he was learning to write on birchbark. But he obviously got bored with it and started to [draw pictures.](_URL_1_) What's fascinating about them is that in [look](_URL_5_) and content they are exactly like modern day children's drawings (and what we must imagine they have looked like in all times). \nWhere modern children draw guns and planes Onfim drew [warriors on horses](_URL_2_) with swords and flowing capes. He [drew a picture of himself as a warrior and labled it with his name.](_URL_6_)\n\n > He also drew [himself as a wild beast](_URL_4_) (conveniently labled \"I am a wild beast\") which brings a message to a friend of his (\"Greetings from Onfim to Danilo\").\n\n > More pictures and background can be found [here](_URL_3_). Thanks to /u/madanan who only recently made me aware of Onfim in /r/archaeology.)\n\n.\n\n > I can't really say that I have one specific favorite remain (is this really the correct pluralization?). That said, I've mentioned before in this subreddit that I rather like to think that someone in 15th century Paris [buried their dog with its favourite watering bowl](_URL_0_). I'm probably projecting there, but it's a nice thought.\n > \n^(Source: Danièle Alexandre-Bidon, Une archéologie du goût. Céramique et consommation (Paris 2005)^).\n\nedit: Wow, thanks for the gold, anonymous redditor! I really appreciate it.", "For me, it was when I was studying modern Japanese history and read \"Musui's Story,\" an autobiographical account of a samurai from the mid- to late-Edo Period named Katsu Kokichi. The idea of samurai that people often get about samurai is that they were honorable, noble, loyal; basically everything good you would want in a warrior. Katsu Kokichi is the exact opposite of all of those things; lazy, drunk, disrespectful, other negative adjectives. I'm an amateur historian, so something like this that sort of removes you from the stereotype and indeed puts you directly in contact with the opposite was a really interesting experience for me. I would strongly recommend Musui's Story to anyone that's interested in samurai and modern Japanese history.", "Mine were two very small things. While studying for my BA, I took an internship in an university archive for two weeks. One of the projects assigned to me was a full list of German academics and professors during the Weimar Republic. I had to look up their personal files in the archive and copy certain pages (the CV, the topic of their PhD thesis, that sort of thing). In the course of that, I came across the file of a professor who had moved to the university after the war. It was a thick file, so I had to search for a while until I found the pages I needed. While doing that, I found a letter by one of his students, starting with \"Dear Professor...I hope you have had plenty to eat!\" Now, the letter was from 1946, when food was scarce in Germany. Still, it seemed a little silly. The letter itself was a plea by the student to the professor to testify for him in a denazification trial, because the student had joined the SS \"only under duress and as a donor\" - or so he claimed.\n\nSoon after I found the file of a vaguely jewisch-sounding man. Sure enough, the page on top of the file declared that, since Jews weren't German, they couldn't have PhDs from German universities, and that his PhD had therefore been revoked.\n\nIt is easy to reduce Nazi Germany to a raving madman and goose-stepping soldiers, but these two files brought a simple fact home to me: for most of the time, the Nazi state and its regime of terror was disgustingly trivial and petty. the revocation of a PhD was a deliberate personal slight against a Jew, yet at the same time, it read almost as if his application for a job had been turned down.", "I am descended from so many of the founding people of New France. When doing in-depth genealogy research on my French Canadian ancestors, I understood the various relationships through marriage and family. \n\nReading the court documents, I found it amazing that these people were constantly suing each other over everything from lost sheep to dissolved engagements. Often vicious enemies had to make peace down the road as their children married in later years. 1600's small-town soap operas!" ] }

[]

[ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1p22pc/what_in_your_study_of_history_have_you_found/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dv49y/tt_youre_at_a_party_the_people_around_you_find/", "http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pbk2m/what_in_your_study_of_history_makes_you_smile_or/" ]

[ [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.utexas.edu/courses/italianarch/jpgs/9908020055.jpg" ], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesed", "http://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/wislawa-szymborska/hunger-camp-at-jaslo/", "http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/12/books/the-men-who-pulled-the-triggers.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyneg_Shabbos", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiune_Sugihara", "https://www.russellsage.org/publications/big-structures-large-processes-huge-comparisons", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorifics_for_the_dead_in_Judaism", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Ringelblum", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righteous_Among_the_Nations", "http://www.piie.com/blogs/nk/?p=4079" ], [], [], [], [ "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pompeii_Plaster_cast_of_a_victim.jpg" ], [], [], [], [ "http://www.norwich12.co.uk/norwich-cathedral/when.htm" ], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Assyrian_battering_ram.jpg", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep" ], [], [], [], [ "http://i.imgur.com/Nb08I.jpg", "http://farm1.staticflickr.com/52/133240908_b228e804be_o.jpg", "http://www.goldschp.net/SIG/onfim/onfim7.jpg", "http://www.goldschp.net/SIG/onfim/onfim.html", "http://www.goldschp.net/SIG/onfim/onfim1.jpg", "http://farm1.staticflickr.com/52/133241129_3bd66db922_o.jpg", "http://www.goldschp.net/SIG/onfim/onfim2.jpg", "http://farm1.staticflickr.com/45/133943732_677336ff0a_b.jpg" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cslbia1", "cslpk6s" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Helos are a nightmare. \n\n/r/AskEngineers is your best bet unless you want to ask over at /r/engineering or even worse /r/AerospaceEngineering ", "Helicopters have more moving parts, greater complexity, and far greater power requirements when compared to the equivalent fixed wing airplane. Helicopters weigh more because of all these parts, and then need more powerful engines, and that led to some early helicopters simply not having the power to leave the ground, even when the mechanics had been worked out. Science had to progress a little further for rotary wing to literally get moving.\nEven after helicopters flew, they were limited by their cargo capacity to very small loads, while fixed wing airplanes were orders of magnitude more capable. Fixed wing planes went through a similar period of non-recognition, and it took Billy Mitchell sinking a number of captured naval ships after WWI for a more widespread understanding of what flight could accomplish. Military helicopters were used for medical evacuation in the 1950s, and became iconic in the 1960s and 1970s; for instance Apocalypse Now.\n\nSome specific issues helicopters have with flying are:\n-Rotor Downwash: Helicopter rotors have a positive camber, more so towards the end of the blades, and a positive angle compared to the direction of rotor movement. When the rotors create lift, they also induce a downwash, air moves from the top of the aircraft to the bottom of the aircraft. Beyond blowing objects below the helicopter around, this down flow of air lowers the angle of attack of the rotor blades, reducing the amount of lift they have. However, the physical angle of the rotor blade remains the same and still increases the induced drag of the rotor. This phenomenon is worse in a hover, and decreases as the helicopter moves faster. Above a 'translational lift' speed, each rotor blade has moved into new air that is not flowing down relative to the helicopter, which reduces power requirements.\n\n-Asymmetrical Lift: When a helicopter flies forward, the rotor blades are moving at different speeds relative to the airflow. The advancing blade, as it's moving at the same speed as the helicopter, sees faster airflow and greater lift. The retreating blade, moving in the opposite direction of flight, sees a slower airspeed. This imposes an absolute limit on helicopter speed, as the aircraft speed, plus the very tip of the rotor can not exceed the speed of sound without greatly increasing drag and losing control. Helicopters compensate by Flapping and Hunting. \n\nFlapping rotors physically move UP and DOWN as they rotate, with the retreating blades, which normally produce less lift, falling, which increases the angle of attack of that blade relative to the wind and increases lift. The advancing blade rises, which lowers the angle of attack, which lowers lift. \n\nHunting is the forward and aft motion of the helicopter blade. The advancing blade bends backwards, effectively slowing its speed, and the retreating blade bends forward, speeding it up. Both of these actions combined aim to balance lift laterally on the helicopter.\n\nHigh amplitude vibrations can cause physical damage to components. Vibrations can be lateral, caused by a mass imbalance of the rotor blades. If the center of mass of the blades is offset from the center of rotation, everything bounces around like a cheap ceiling fan.\n\nVertical Vibrations are caused by an imbalance in lift between individual rotor blades. While there are differences in the same rotor blade depending on it's phase (advancing, retreating etc.), there can be differences in the multiple rotors themselves. A difference in construction, camber, physical twist, causes rotors to fly differently, and bounce the aircraft up and down.\n\nThe solution is that everything has to be delicately balanced within grams. That takes fine manufacturing tolerances, and fine instrumentation to detect anomalies, and correct them, not only at the factory, but in routine operation.\n\nMethod of control: While Longitudinal and Lateral control in an airplane vary the angle of ailerons and elevators, which a single control influencing a single axis, with engine power driving the plane forward it is the rotors of a helicopter that influence both axis of control as well as power, and do so by different the amount of lift provided by each rotor blade throughout the phase of rotation.\n\nWhen you integrate a trig function, it shifts 90 degrees. Likewise, the input to helicopter controls must happen 90 degrees prior to their greatest influence. Control is maintained by moving the rotor disk's direction of lift, and the 'Cyclic' controls have to be twisted 90 degrees to make that happen.\n\nSimultaneously, the power controls raise of lower the lift of the main rotor equally at all points of rotation. So the total input on each rotor blade depends on where it is in rotation, the collective/power controls, as well as the cyclic controls.\n\nThe speed the rotors spin at is important. Too fast causes damage; too slow causes a lack of control and an eventual crash. There needs to be a system to maintain proper speed. The simplest system is a pilot controlled throttle, but more powerful, faster control systems reduce pilot workload and increase safety and flight envelope.\n\nControls: It's more difficult to fly a helicopter because it's unstable. Each control input influences each other control input. To take off, you raise the collective, increasing the pitch of each rotor blade which increases lift and increases drag. As drag increases, the blades slow down, requiring increasing the throttle on the engines to maintain rotor speed. As the torque from the engines increase, the airframe twists in the opposite direction, requiring an anti-torque input from the tail rotor. Increasing the lift from the tail rotor provides anti-torque, stabilizing the un-commanded yaw from the engine, but also increases drag requiring an additional engine output. The anti-torque also has a lateral component, pushing the aircraft sideways. This unintentional sideways thrust from the tail rotor is balanced by on opposite input from the cyclic. As each rotor blade passes 90 degrees away from the direction of intended motion, the twist of the rotor decreases in order to decrease lift. 90 degrees afterwards, while the lift of that rotor in that position has now increased, the blade's deflection is greatest, and the entire lift vector of the rotor disk has tilted, providing a horizontal component which counters out the tail rotor's unintended lateral thrust. However, this horizontal lift from the main rotor has reduced the vertical lift, requiring an increase in collective, and...start all over again. There are a constant set of forces in balance, each of which influence the other.\n\n-Anti-Torque: As the engines move the rotors faster, the body of the helicopter twists in the opposite direction with equal force. This needs to be corrected; the primary methods are an aerodynamic force on a moment arm, like a tail rotor, fenestron, or rotating cylinder, or two main rotors spinning in opposite directions. Each have their own engineering issues. Tail rotors require a significant amount of power, and add a great amount of complexity to transmissions and controls. Multiple main rotors (See CH-46 and CH-47) need to be synchronized to ensure the Hunting, Flapping Main Rotors can't strike each other or the airframe.\n\n-Reliability: All of these combined mean that helicopters require a great deal more effort to produce, fly, and maintain, than an equivalent Fixed Wing aircraft that doesn't have the same number of moving parts, controls, and tolerances, and cost is always a huge driving factor for technology adoption.\n\nFixed wing airplanes require lightweight engines, and the ability to influence the lift of a single wing. Rotary wing require the same knowledge, as well as another enormous body of conceptual information, manufacturing ability, and so forth. \n\nSource: _URL_0_\nAlso Fly helicopters." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.airvectors.net/avheli_2.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d6of7r7" ], "score": [ 11 ], "text": [ "This is a great question, although the answer is that basically by the time of the Napoleonic wars ship construction didn't differ that much between fleets -- ships would be expected to operate in multiple theaters of war. But we can use the question to talk about differences between British and French shipbuilding, as well as some types of ships that would be used in the Mediterranean and not the Atlantic. \n\nThe first thing we might want to do is to explains some differences between the Med and the Atlantic. The Mediterranean is, of course, a much smaller sea and has major choke points at predictable spots, allowing fleets to keep watch on shipping more easily than in the Atlantic. The Med has essentially no tidal action; tide variations are reckoned in centimeters, while the Atlantic ports of France, Spain and other countries have tidal variations of meters or several meters. And the Mediterranean is generally calmer than the Atlantic; although I don't want to underestimate the force of storms in the Med, they simply don't compare to the fury of storms in the North Atlantic and the conditions ships would need to face there. \n\nSo let's talk about types of ships first, then shipbuilding. In the Mediterranean, even through the period of the Napoleonic wars, we do see galleys making up a small portion of a fleet, though not in large numbers and generally in the Italian states. The largest force of galleys belonged to Venice, but their close cousins, oared gunboats, were fairly ubiquitous and used to protect ports and choke-points at sea. The galley and the gunboat can both use sails, of course, but the fact that they use oars as their primary means of propulsion means they can be used to harass sailing ships and run away independent of the wind. Both also mounted cannons at their bow and stern (some small gunboats only had a bow cannon) rather than on the broadside.\n\nThe Med was also unique compared to the Atlantic in having a large number of [xebecs](_URL_2_), used especially by corsairs but also adopted by some navies. The xebec would usually have oars but also carry lateen sails, while some types of xebecs (polacre-xebecs) would carry a square rig on the foremast and lateens elsewhere. Some navies used large xebec-frigates, which could switch rigs between square sails and lateens -- the fictional battle in Patrick O'Brian's *Master and Commander* was based on a real action between *HMS Speedy* and the Spanish xebec-frigate *El Gamo*. (The crew of the *Speedy*, with 14 guns and 54 men, boarded and captured the 32-gun *El Gamo*, which carried a crew of about 320 men, after a short action.) \n\nBut in any case, you were asking about ship construction. I'm going to quote at some length from an [older answer](_URL_0_) which gets to some of the differences among British and French shipbuilding philosophy. \n\n > At this point, then, it's worth pausing and considering what was happening in the world of ship design in Europe. The large French ships, at least nominally, were being built to a plan dictated from Versailles, although individual yards could and did make modifications particularly to hull shapes that could change a ship's seaworthiness. But the French designs were being dictated from academic studies (the French were the first to conceptualize of a metacenter of a ship, and to theorize about metacentric height) and they were not built well. French ships were lightly built, fastened with nails instead of treenails, and their designers favored very long hulls and taunt (very high) masts, meaning their ships would be very fast off the wind. But their performance suffered greatly close-hauled (that is, beating into the wind) and in any kind of a sea state. They were designed with light timbers to be buoyant, and carry guns high, but light timbers suffered greatly under normal hogging and sagging strains. Their theories also led them to believe that the working of a ship helped it to move faster, rather than simply causing great strain on a ship's inward parts; all these things meant that French ships had high building costs and maintenance costs and short lives, and dockyard constructors knew they were building poor ships. (I should mention, in fairness to the French, that they had natural interests in the Mediterranean that the British did not until after the capture of Gibraltar; their ships performed excellently in that odd tideless sea.)\n\n > In contrast to this, British designs were by midcentury and later being voted on in the broad sense, but it was up to individual yards and shipwrights to build to specifications. British ships tended to be shorter than comparable French designs, but they were more heavily timbered; their weight helped them perform well going to windward and in heavy weather; and they had full hull forms that could be stored for long voyages, either spending time on blockade or long periods of time overseas. They were meant to be inexpensive to build and maintain, in a navy that knew that they would have a difficult time keeping pace simply out of their own building in matching their needs.\n\n > In any case, in practical terms, the French designs didn't actually tend to be faster than the British; given the technical constraints at the time, speed can't be accounted before merely by construction. The main limiting factors seem to be the cleanliness of ships' bottoms (which docking and coppering, both British advantages, contribute to) and the ship's trim, rig and the skillfulness of the crew. British ships often outsailed French ships in conditions that should have favored the French. (To briefly break the 20-year-rule, skill at sailing even today[1] makes the difference in races between boats built to be identical.) Moreover, ships captured by the British tended to be faster after re-rigging, re-stowing of holds and re-hanging of decks, suggesting that there was technical knowledge in the shipyards' hands that was not there for the French.\n\n > I would be remiss here also not to mention the American navy, which largely adopted British shipbuilding practices (because in practice their yards and their methods had been British for a century or so before the Brits lost the colonies). The nascent American navy, famously, built six frigates to be (oversimplifying here) the equivalent of battlecruisers, heavier than any British frigate but able to run away from any British ship of the line. There were supposed to be two classes of frigate, three in each class, but idiosyncrasies among the shipyards meant that they had wildly different performance. \n\nI've written [other answers before](_URL_4_) about ship design and shipbuilding, here are a few: \n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_6_\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_5_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/44sivx/ship_design_and_construction_in_the_age_of_sail/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3pn7v5/what_changes_occurred_in_the_construction/", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xebec#/media/File:Chebeck-Antoine_Roux-p43.jpg", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2709jm/how_would_a_britishhms_frigate_built_in_1715/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/profiles/jschooltiger", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2nydmp/how_did_the_british_navy_remain_dominant_for_such/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2n5n5k/in_age_of_sails_how_various_navies_determine_the/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9rvwo9" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "This is an incredibly complex issue that would take books upon books to deal with. I doubt anyone will give you a good response here. \n\nMaybe try reading the subreddit rules before posting?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ekzffbc", "el4uje5" ], "score": [ 26, 15 ], "text": [ "It was pretty atrocious. \n\nOne of the major examples of this is the fate of the Aral Sea. The Aral Sea is an endorheic salt water lake, not unlike the Caspian and Dead Seas. The Aral Sea's inflows, primarily the Syr and Amu Darya rivers (I personally prefer the romanticism of their Greek names, the Iaxartes and Oxus, myself, but to each his own) and their tributaries, nourished a glorious and ancient civilization of Turks, Iranians and Greeks on the vast cold deserts and high mountains of Turkestan, the Pamirs and the Hindu Kush. This area hosted at least fifteen of the cities Alexander the Great founded, and at least nine of the ones he named after himself, not to mention the Silk Road, which is, in some ways, the axis upon which the history of the world has turned. More prosaically, these rivers supported a fairly huge population in an otherwise very inhospitable place. For example, the modern Uzbekistan contains most of the course of the Amu Darya, and has a population of about 35 million, compared with only 18 million in its vast northern neighbor, Kazakhstan, the climate and geography of which (mostly steppe) is theoretically more hospitable. And most of Kazakhstan's population, including its capital Almaty, are nestled up against the southern border (where the Syr Darya flows through the country, and where it has access to some of what remains of the Aral Sea) and the southern mountains, which are the source of both rivers.\n\nNo more, though. The Aral Sea has shrunk to less than 10% of its true volume, and is no longer even a contiguous sea. It's now four or five shallow, broad lakes, and it has been completely disconnected from the Amu Darya. The death of the Aral Sea, and its ancient economy and history, are the result of the Soviet government's desire, in the 1960s (the time of the so-called \"Red Plenty\") to turn the deserts into cash crop plantations, especially cotton, and to a lesser extent, food crops. To do this, the Soviets massively diverted the flow of the Amu and Syr Darya rivers, and these efforts did actually bear fruit. There is, today, a large amount of farmland in the area, and Uzbekistan produces a significant amount of cotton (which, not coincidentally, is also one of the most water-intensive crops in the world). But the cost was obscenely high. Since irrigation attempts began in earnest in the 1940s, the construction has been of poor quality, allowing huge amounts of water to go to waste, while starving the Aral Sea of its only source of refreshment.\n\nAs a result, the Aral Sea contracted by 90% in about 50 years, and the salinity skyrocketed. This not only destroyed the fishing economy in the region, but also destroyed the ecology of the sea itself and the inflow river deltas. The remaining water is also heavily polluted, which is an ongoing health hazard for the people who live there, as it has entered the drinking water supply, which is inadequate in any case. The dry bed of the sea, now a desert the locals call Aralkum, is equally polluted, and makes dust storms in the region incredibly toxic. These hazards contribute to a myriad of public health catastrophes, including abnormally elevated levels of everything from infant morality, to cancer to tuberculosis to blindness. In addition to all these contaminants, which affect soil quality for agriculture in the immediate region, the leftover salt from the evaporating sea has had the effect of literally sowing fields with salt. The end of the sea's moderating influence has also affected the climate, which is hotter in the summer and colder in the winter by some 2 to 6 degrees Celsius in both directions.\n\nAlso interestingly, certain Soviet planners had a personal dislike for the Aral Sea, which they called 'nature's error,' and considered its end inevitable, and thus its intentional destruction acceptable.\n\nCheck out this completely non-depressing gif: [_URL_0_](_URL_1_)", "To expand on /u/BillyDeeWilliams1990's post on Soviet landscape transformation projects and the demise of the Aral Sea, I can provide some insights on the history of environmental protection in the socialist German Democratic Republic. In public, living memory at least, the late GDR had a pretty bad environmental record. At the very least one can say that pollution of the environment, specifically issues of air pollution by the GDR's increasingly outdated heavy industrial sector and land devastation by extensive lignite mining, had become so bad by the mid-1980s that environmental issues were high on the agenda of oppositional groups in East Germany. By this time, the GDR's environmental problems had become linked by critics to the failing of its state economy. That doesn't mean that this was always meant to happen and the narrative of \"failing state economy\"- > \"obsolete infrastructure\"- > \"failure to protect the environment\" was actually a relatively recent one. For most of her history, East Germany's environmental record was comparable to West Germany's, i. e. in an age where ecological awareness was only beginning to develop in earnest, it was equally bad. When it comes to legal protections granted to the environment and its resources both states were not so different.\n\nGerman environmental protection in both German states built upon their common traditions of pre-war *Naturschutz* (nature protection) and *Tierschutz* (animal protection) that was of a more conservationist nature and focused on particular, confined landscapes or species that were identified as \"endangered\". Pre-war and post-war *Naturschutz* and *Tierschutz* policies led to the establishment of Germany's first nature and animal reserves. German *Umweltschutz* on the other hand is a later development. It is more holistic and concerned with comprehensive environmental issues that affect whole ecological systems and livelihood of humans and other species. Generally speaking, *Umweltschutz* movements in the West picked up steam in the late 1960s, were in part connected to the new left student and activist movements, and led to what resembles more our contemporary ecological awareness.\n\nJust as the Federal Republic, the GDR inherited the legacy of National Socialist \"environmentalism,\" which was very much mired in the trappings of *völkisch* and racial \"blood and soil\" thought. The Nazis are credited with the introduction of Germany's first real environmental protection law, the *Reichsnaturschutzgesetz* (RNG, the Reich nature protection law) of 1935. The history and environmental record of the Nazis and the RNG is complicated, the magnificient /u/kieslowskifan has [a great post on that topic](_URL_1_), suffice to say that it wasn't that great and when push came to shove industrial and agricultural policies and war imperatives always trumped environmental concerns.\n\nThe RNG was inherited by both Germanies, although the GDR was quicker in replacing it with her own *Naturschutzgesetz* in 1954. (In the FRG, the RNG stayed in place until 1976.) It improved upon the RNG, making way to a more scientific and observational approach to environmental protection to replace the earlier conservationist rural romanticism. The new law recognized the already established nature reserves and tried to accurately assess their worth and where necessary to improve and expand them. However, as part of the expansion of the one-party system and the consolidation of socialist rule after 1949, the independent club and association infrastructure of civil environmentalism was either abolished or integrated into party structures in the East. The 1954 law was in theory ambitious and progressive for its time, especially compared to the complacency about the topic in West Germany where environmentalism was still a small-time affair for volunteer clubs. In practice however, the guidelines laid out by the five-year plans of the state economy overruled other concerns. Especially the collectivization of agriculture and the great agricultural expansion and intensification plans decreed by the party conventions in 1963 and 1967 began to subject the rural landscapes of East Germany to an alarming transformation.\n\nIn 1968, the new East German constitution recognized the protection of the environment as a state objective, and in 1970 the *Volkskammer* adopted the new *Landeskulturgesetz* to replace the law of 1954. The new law envisioned a \"socialist *Landeskultur*\" (\"rural culture/countryside culture\") which would preserve ecological habitats while simultaneously providing the socialist agriculture with everything it needed. The *Landeskulturgesetz* was a very ambitious step in the direction of *Umweltschutz* ecological thought, acknowledging the preservation and replenishment of resources and human and animal living conditions as objectives equal to economic growth in theory at least. However, like the preceding law, socialist *Landeskultur* was very much subject to the same imperatives of the GDR state economy that since the 1960s was increasingly focused on the expansion of its consumer goods industries and on the stated goal of \"overtaking without catching up\" to the West.\n\nThe oil crisis of 1973 and the skyrocketing oil prices (which quintupled between 1973 and 1974) hit hard the chronically cash-strapped GDR economy that was dependent on importing almost all of its oil. The rising oil prices also led to higher prices on other commodities and goods as well that East Germany imported. The experiences of the 1970s led the East German economic planners to heavily intensify the extraction of domestic resources, mainly the lignite reserves in Lusatia. (The GDR was not alone in this, lignite saw a big comeback generally in that time due to the rising oil prices.) Lignite mining was extensive in the GDR already because after the war East Germany had neither access to the West German Ruhr Area coal mines nor the Silesian ones. However, lignite surface mining is a huge environmental hazard (and to this day a very contentious issue) that transforms whole landscapes into moonscapes and power plants running on lignite are among the worst air polluters.\n\nThe increased air and water pollution by the expanded lignite mining and burning and the fallout from often short-sighted agricultural policies had by the early 1980s piled up to the extent that environmental protection became a controversial issue. Faced with criticism by local activist groups, the state authorities in 1982 decided to keep environmental data gathered by its agencies secret from there on. East German secret police, the infamous *Staatssicherheit*, always wary of activism and associations independent from party structures, began to monitor environmentalists. Environmentalism became an oppositional movement in the GDR – a state which had enshrined environmental protection in accordance with human needs in her constitution long before the FRG did (in 1994). Environmentalist, \"green\" groups had connections to the secular and the Christian civil rights movement that emerged in 1980s in the GDR and that was partly responsible for the *Wende*, the peaceful revolution in East Germany in 1989 and 1990 and her subsequent reunification witht the West. (The civil rights movement, especially groups like Bündnis 90, actually had very diverse views on reunification and all that but that's a different story.)\n\nAgainst the backdrop of the incipient *Wende* and the free communal elections in early 1989, East German state authorities responded on May 18, 1989, to the increased demand for improved environmental protection by adding the new *Naturschutzverordnung* (\"protection decree\") to the 1970 law. The decree took up the progressive ecological thought of 1970 and expanded on it, calling for state capacities to be committed to re-building East German nature and replenishment of her resources. January 1990 saw the establishment of the *Ministerium für Naturschutz, Umweltschutz und Wasserwirtschaft* (\"water economy\"/\"hydrology\") that immeditaly began to enact an ambitious \"national park program\" that expanded existing nature reserves and founded new ones. Amidst the unravelling GDR state, the ministry's officers succeeded eventually in putting large swathes of East Germany under legal protection. The late \"state environmentalism\" also belatedly vindicated the suppressed environmentalist activism of the last decade as the new law explicity called upon civil society and volunteers to act in concert with state authorities in that regard. While the GDR phased herself out in the unification treaty of 1990, her environmental legacy is perhaps better than her earlier record as she brought extensive nature reserves into the new union of both Germanies.\n\n\n**Sources:**\n\n* Hermann Behrens & Jens Hoffmann (ed.): [*Naturschutzgeschichte Ostdeutschland.*](_URL_0_) Hochschule Brandenburg, 2013. – A fascinating online project that provides a good overview with lots of sources and interviews with contemporary witnesses. Also available in English.\n* Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung e.V. (ed.): *Umweltschutz in der DDR*, Vol. 1–3. Oekom Verlag: Munich, 2007. – If you can read German and have them available in a library near to you, these are extensive edited volumes by a host of authors that cover the whole range of issues from laws, resource extraction to activism.\n\n/edit: Typos, wording, formatting" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aral\\_Sea.gif", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aral_Sea.gif" ], [ "http://www.naturschutzgeschichte-ost.de/index.php?id=45", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5mywo6/nazi_ecology_how_important_was_it_in_the_ideology/dc7nesq/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "covnel3" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Could that be his prisoner number instead of a date? You can search the Dachau database [here](_URL_0_). Click on details in the results list to see the prisoner number.\n\nThe P B could maybe stand for przez Boga which is Polish for by or through God. That's a wild guess, though, based on the fact that he was a Polish priest and there's a cross in the center." ] }

[]

[ "http://imgur.com/a/O4qaE#0" ]

[ [ "http://www.stevemorse.org/dachau/dachau.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccafnf6" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Regarding the War of 1812, the United States was greatly hampered by a number of factors. First and foremost the US was a new country with a deep distrust of a professional military, and a lack of proper military resources that European countries could take for granted. For instance at the start of the war the Secretary of War had only a handful of people working for him, and there was no official system of resupply available( Quartermasters not being added to the department until after the war). American commanders often squabbled with each other and without a Supreme Commander or decisive secretary of war (until very late in the war at least) American military commanders were often free to do whatever they wanted. \n\nDomestic opposition to the war compounded with traditional Republican ideology also hindered the war effort. Jeffersonian and Madisonian Republican ideology had included a belief that free ships made free goods, along with a belief that an American embargo was the best means of getting Britain and France to agree to American terms. The irony of course was that by implementing the embargo, the United States stripped itself of the means of raising funds to fight a war ( a thing Federalists delighted in pointing out). Excise taxes along with efforts to create a second national bank ( BOTUS I having been narrowly defeated in 1811) were continually hampered by Federalists and states rights Republicans ( Here after referred to as Old Republicans). These two groups also defeated efforts by Madison in 1811 to build a large number of ships of the line and frigates in preparation for war. This meant that the United States was fighting on a shoe string budget for most of the war. US Army regular enlistment bonuses were less appealing than enlisting to fight in state volunteer units, and as such although legislation authorized the creation of a 50,000 man regular army, the actual number never exceeded 35-40k and at the start of the war the army numbered only about ten thousand and was scattered along the massive frontier and port forts. This meant that militia, private military companies, and state raised forces would have to provide the bulk of the military contingent. While all of these units can be effective they are much less consistent than professional soldiers tended to be. However it should be stressed that because of the lack of a professional military apparatus it wasn't until late in the war that US army regulars achieved a level of professional training and became the equals of their British counterparts, which is more profound in the units that trained under Winfield Scott. \n\nFinally there was New England Federalists often treasonous opposition to the war. A quick glance at a map reveals that the key states in any war between the United States and Great Britain would be New England and New York. However Federalists dominated New England consistently opposed the war including but not limited to: Refusing to Call out the state militias, refusal to abide by the embargoes, physical harassment of Federal army recruiters including attacks on those who joined the army, refusal to replace regular army garrisons with state troops, secret separate peace negotiations with the British, refusal to provide the government with key loans and possibly intentionally crippling Republican State banks. What all of this means is that the US government was greatly hindered in its' efforts to bring the war to lower Canada, and had to concentrate primarily along the Niagara front which was very defensible location." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d1m4gon", "d1m4rya", "d1m4tgf", "d1m8qsr", "d1m8ye8" ], "score": [ 16, 44, 47, 18, 24 ], "text": [ "\"Art of War?\" No one in all of Europe has heard of this text. The best text for the education of young princes in warfare is *De Rei Militari*, by the great Vegetius! This worthy ancient, though he was in fact a Roman, knew the glory of Christ and was extremely wise in all the ways of war. His genius and insight into battle is obviously the result of divine inspiration. Of course he could not have predicted some of the great changes in the methods of war since his day. The powder of our guns is more effective at reducing the walls of a fortification than any siege implement ever devised (with the possible exception of treachery). The true education in battle, of course, is practical experience, not books. No scholar, though he may describe the glories and hardship of war with keen insight, can understand battle unless he has fought in it. We have commanded soldiers since the age of [16](_URL_0_). Our military skills were further honed, like the edge of a sword, when Our royal father (may he rest in peace) commanded Us to suppress the revolt of the cursed Welsh rebel Owain Glyndŵr. By the time We took the throne following Our father's death in 1413, We were fully prepared to reopen war with the French and reclaim Our rightful throne of France. We were, by the grace of God almighty, totally successful at the field of Agincourt. We won Our crown and Our lovely Queen Katherine of Valois in the years after my victory. Reading Vegetius is well and good for the theoretical scholar and young nobles who are not yet old enough for battle, but by the time a prince becomes a man, he must be ready to take the field and command his men from the front ranks. ", "YOU WROTE THAT A GOOD GENERAL TURNS ENCIRCLED GROUND INTO DEATH GROUND AND FIGHTS WITH THE COURAGE OF DESPERATION! YOU KNOW THE FOUNDATIONS OF TRUE GLORY!", "Strategy is for the weak and foreign. All that is required for victory is to march out with your armies and smite the barbarians, crush their cities, and bring their kings to heel.\n\nI am the Pharaoh, the Great House, the Justice of Ra. I do not need deception, diversion or fancy formations. I simply mount my chariot and attack the foe like Horus defeats Set.\n\nWhen I fought the *Hmty*, the women-warrior Hittites at Qadesh I routed them utterly. My victory was ultimate, and there is no dispute about that.^it^wasnt^adraw\n\nThat, is my strategy for warfare, and I scoff at your cowardice on the battlefield.\n\n*You probably don't even have your own giant statue*", "In warfare it is the duty of a commander not to order, but to lead. Thus the legions are invigorated and fall upon the enemy with greater courage, or else defend themselves with sterner purpose. Rightly you have written that maneuver is of the greatest importance, and it was by maneuver that the Pompeians were overcome with such ease at Ilerda. But it is not by mere strategy or tactics that the truly great commander stands over his lesser counterparts. The great leader conquers by willpower and by audacity. To stop the Helvetii I hurried to the Rhone, making a hundred miles a day.^1 I crossed over the Rhine and over into Britain, where no civilized man had dared before. When enemies of the state threatened to overthrow the welfare of all Italy I crossed into Italy from my province, an act of daring that so stunned the enemy that they retreated before me without giving contest, so overwhelmed were they by the army's speed. I crossed the Adriatic under the noses of the Pompeian fleet, which might have crushed me with their numbers had I not been resolved to do the impossible. This is what makes a commander great, the will to do what cannot be done and the talent to accomplish it. And should the soldiers see this greatness they cannot but be motivated to do their best for their beloved leader. Thus against the Nervii I grabbed a soldier's shield when the line was wavering and threw myself into the fight, exhorting the centurions and men by name (for it is a commander's duty to remember the identities of his troops), and resolving the crisis in the ranks.^2 And at Thapsus I spurred my horse into the enemy ranks, crying \"Felicitas,\" and watched as my troops followed with ferocious looks.^3 Likewise during the final assault by Commius' men at Alesia I led the last of our reserves into the breach in our wall, and the men's hearts were gladdened when they saw me and recognized me by my cloak.^4 Thus the great commander does what cannot be done and is not bound by fear or even logic. \n\n1. According to Suetonius\n\n2. The action against the Nervii is related in Book Two of the *de Bello Gallico*\n\n3. From Pseudo-Caesar's *de Bello Africo*\n\n4. *de Bello Gallico* 7.88", "Great master! I have taken your teachings to heart. It is such a masterpiece that I have put your famous phrases \"Let your rapidity be that of the wind, your silence that of the forest. In raiding and plundering be like fire, be immovable like a mountain.\" on my banner.\n\nBut like you said, the pinnacle of excellence is to win without fighting. Time and again I have used shrewd diplomacy to turn my opponent's forces to my side. It is certainly not simple. But with the power of the Country of Kai behind me, I have made so many of the ji-samurai of Shinano and Kousuke turn to my side. That idiot Ogasawara Nagatoki tried to drive me from Shinano when I was weak, but he didn't even know I had most of his army already in my ~~pocket~~ Kimono sleeves. And with help of my talented brother using your teachings to catch Ogasawara completely off guards, we won a great victory. The idiot Shugo of Shinano in the end had to pack his bags and run off to the capital.\n\nUsing your guidance to use alliances to shape the enemy, I have allied with the great daimyos of the Hojo and the Imagawa. Through them, I have access to the seas, and the Hojo are certainly of great help against the stupid monk up in Echigo by the name of Nagao Kagetora.\n\nAnd once again, using your teachings to avoid the enemy's strengths and attack their weaknesses, instead of attacking the monk's huge army in Sagami, I instead took one of his castles on the border of Echigo and Shinano. Now he's running back to Echigo with his tails between his legs, and with that I've saved my friend Hojo Ujiyasu. The great Hojo lord is himself a smart man, using your teachings to not engage an enemy with momentum but wait for him to become spent, he held his own in Odawara Castle and weakened Nagao Kagetora's rear with guerrilla attacks, successfully holding out until I saved him.\n\nNow that the monk has invaded Shinano with a smaller army, and stupidly placed himself on top of a mountain to be cut off and surrounded, which I have promptly done. I am sure in the near future the great Takeda clan will finally be rid of this monk once and for all." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c9ye261", "c9yegjr", "c9yg6cs", "c9ygo6f", "c9yovp1" ], "score": [ 10, 6, 2, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "I'm not a mod but I do have two cents to offer:\n\n1) I enjoy talking about the American Civil War, even with those who know little about it and are simply curious. But there's only so many times I want to type out a monitor-full of explanation for why the war happened, the basics of antebellum Southern slavery, etc. I've passed over repetitive posts because I just don't feel like typing it all out yet again. I would honestly prefer mixing it up a bit with more in-depth discussions of antebellum/Civil War topics. /u/Irishfafnir is great for this and if anything I feel like I'm not stimulating or smart enough for him/her. I learn something and am engaged, keeps me coming back.\n\n2) This sub is called /r/ask*historians*, not /r/lets-all-have-basic-and-repetitive-discussions-about-history-super-happy-fun-time. The mods are (wisely) strict about keeping answers informative and people come here to learn. So let's flex our muscles. Sure, some threads will descend into drab debates over minutia (cause that *never* happens at the AHA meetings...) but historiography and details are major components of what historians do. Readers should be exposed to it.\n\n3) It can be really useful for readers of all skill levels (except maybe tenured faculty or something). Non-academics with general curiosity can be pointed toward books and articles they might not have known existed. Undergrads and grad students could discuss useful works for their respective projects (so long as no one here does someone else's coursework). I would LOVE to see grads here comparing prelim exam readings lists, sharing ideas, keeping up with trends in the discipline. I saw in a different post today that this subreddit might be one of the largest sites devoted to history on the internet. If that's true, then /r/askhistorians has the potential to become a valuable resource indeed. To do that, we'll need to grow beyond the simple questions like \"How many arrows did archers take into battles like Agincourt\" and \"Was the Civil War really about slavery? Like, really?\" Don't get me wrong, I think questions like that are fantastic and should always have a home here, but the study of history does, in fact, go deeper.\n\nIn my mind, this subreddit will always be an informal marketplace for ideas and discussion. By that I mean I won't be citing anything I read here without external verification, nor will I automatically trust something I read just because some person with flair said it. After all, it was Lincoln himself who told me not to trust everything I read on the internet. But we can still take ourselves seriously around here, and clearly already do. So why not have the serious conversations, too?\n\nLastly, for what it's worth, I happen to have read *The Radical and the Republican*. While I really liked Oakes in *The Ruling Race*, I found this work to be really underwhelming, almost like a puff piece. Granted, it's been a few years so I probably forgot a few of the details, but I remember both Lincoln and Douglass being painted with very broad strokes, like Oakes was polarizing their viewpoints in order to juxtapose them with each other. Maybe he just had an editor to satisfy or wanted to sell books, but it kept me from seeing anything truly insightful in the work.", "Yes it's ok to ask about specific books, just do a search to see if the topic has come up in the past beforehand.", "Not a mod disclaimer -\n\nI think it's perfectly okay. However, before you make a post concerning any given book, you may want to [message any one of the flaired users on the AskHistorians wiki page.](_URL_0_) \n\nFor instance, if you wanted to find out if *Changes in the Land* is a credible historical source, you could message user /u/giegs [Environmental History] or /u/stupidnickname [20th Century U.S. | Environmental History]. *Changes in the Land* is actually on my Amazon wishlist, and I've heard really great things about it (you have good taste in reading material!). If you want to research *The Radical and the Republican*, you might be able to message... well, any one of a couple of dozen users. There's no lack of mid 19th century Civil War era users that would be happy to discuss whatever you might like to know.\n\nHopefully this was helpful for you.", "Posts about historiography have always had their place in r/AskHistorians and are encouraged. As long as you can provide some kind of starting point for a good discussion, you will be fine. ", "Wouldn't the weekly \"Saturday Sources\" post be an appropriate & uncontroversial place for questions/discussions about books?\n\n > This thread has been set up to enable the direct discussion of historical sources that you might have encountered in the week. Top tiered comments in this thread should either be;\n\n > 1) A short review of a source. These in particular are encouraged.\n\n > or\n\n > 2) A request for opinions about a particular source, or if you're trying to locate a source and can't find it.\n\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/flairedusers" ], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1d8045/saturday_sources_april_27_2013/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dzl23u1", "dzlvwr8" ], "score": [ 2, 5 ], "text": [ "OP, you might consider x-posting to /r/AskLiteraryStudies for their take on this major work of Italian literature", "No, Dante did not believe that he fell asleep and was guided through a voyage of hell, purgatory, and heaven by the ghost of an ancient Roman poet. The *Commedia* is an *exquisitely* crafted, genius dream vision poem crafted around Aristotelian ethics, contemporary pastoral teaching, and one of the most important and famous spiritual/mystical texts of the later Middle Ages. As you learned in your class, it's also heavily political in who gets placed in hell and heaven, and political in a way that reflects Dante's own position.\n\n*However*.\n\nDante is drawing on a long medieval tradition of otherworldly visions and voyages that informed/influenced/created his and his contemporaries' ideas of what heaven, hell, and purgatory looked like! Unlike Dante's work, these texts, like the *Visio Tnugdali*'s hell voyage or Mechthild of Hackeborn's raptures into heaven in the *Liber specialis gratiae*, were recorded and accepted as actually having happened. So things like the *contrapazzo* punishments--hell (and purgatory) divided up by types of sin and everyone receiving their punishment as befitting their chief sin--go back centuries.\n\nNotably, the use of placement in hell to criticize one's political and ecclesiastical circumstances *also* goes back centuries...\n\nBut more to the point here, because vision texts believed to be authentic and 'fictional' dream vision poems both circulated in the Middle Ages, and by Dante's day people were *just* starting to be concerned about potential fraudulent visionaries, medieval authors developed a series of measures to distinguish \"true\" from \"invented\" visions. (Scholars of course emphasize that even \"true\" visions are a literary creation in that we only have the text, not the experience itself, so there is conscious human crafting of the perceived rapture/divine encounter regardless). The most important was, well, the author's reputation as a divinely-gifted visionary, which was...not Dante. Additionally, sleep/dreams are more generally a plot device in invented dream narratives, like *Piers Plowman* or the *Roman de la Rose* or the *Pearl*. And 'authentic' vision texts often contain some kind of insistence on that particular fact.\n\nIf you're interested, I have earlier answers about some of Dante's influences in the 'authentic' vision category:\n\n* [Since most of our physical and visual perceptions of hell come from Dante or later works, what did earlier medieval European Christians associate hell with in a visual or physical sense?](_URL_0_)\n* [Dante's Satan is guilty of treason. Milton's Satan falls because of pride. What was Satan's real sin, according to medieval theology?](_URL_1_)\n\nI tend to use Mechthild of Magdeburg's work because she's my favorite (and also because her vision of hell is A+), but you should know that scholars of medieval women's writing/religion generally think Mechthild of *Hackeborn* is Dante's \"Matilda.\"" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5z13di/since_most_of_our_physical_and_visual_perceptions/deurwwj/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7zl4wk/dantes_satan_is_guilty_of_treason_miltons_satan/duqgqpw/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cluk8k8" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "It's strongly a Christian celebration, and goes back to at least 313AD. The issue is on what date it's kept.\n\nThe popular conception is that it's Celtic in origin and the Church christianized a pagan celebration. It is true that *Samhain* is celebrated on the 1st of November, and it's a celebration opening Winter, but it was two English historians who introduced the notion that Samhain was the Celtic New Year and a feast for the dead, (John Rhys and James Frazer) but they way in which they did this was somewhat arbitrary. Rhys simply took much later folklore and extrapolated back, rather than having any early documents at his disposal. Frazer simply assumed that since there was a Christian festival, then they must have syncretized with a previous existing pagan festival. There isn't any evidence for either assertion. The other problem is that the celebrations were ultimately Germanic in origin, not Celtic, as the Irish kept the 20th of April as All Saints, so there goes the association with the Celtic new year.\n\nWhat we can say is that at least in popular folklore, the festival was associated with supernatural forces (in the same way the opening of summer is associated with fairies abroad), but it's not connected to the death or new year. The problem with folklore is that a lot of what is recorded is from the 16th century onwards - what we're asked to believe that these are accurate (or reasonably accurate) accounts of what took place prior to Christianization of Ireland, circa 5-6th centuries. That's a gap of a good 1000 years, so it's pushing the boundaries.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clrwvu9", "clrz031" ], "score": [ 4, 3 ], "text": [ "Oh, there are photographs you'd love. Well, maybe - you might hate them, because yes, yes, graves were re-used fairly routinely. And the remains...\n\nRemains in many places were regularly moved out of the cemetery and into the adjacent catacombs, where they were piled in niches in the walls. Some, like the [Catacombs of St. Gennaro in Naples](_URL_2_), are tourist attractions today. \n\nBut in some places, like the [Sedlec Ossuary in the Czech Republic](_URL_3_), the exhumed bones are used to make some rather elaborate decorations - chandeliers made from dozens of femurs, infant Jesus seated on an array of skulls, skulls and scapulae making the outline of a crown.... \n\nSimilar places can be found from [Poland](_URL_1_) to [Portugal](_URL_0_) and [Paris](_URL_4_).\n\nThey're really pretty amazing. \n", "Some of the Royal Parks in London couldn't be built on, even if people were allowed to do so, because the ground is too unstable because of the massive quantity of human remains buried beneath them. When the Tube was being built, some lines had to be diverted around the parks because surveyors concluded that the \"ground\" was to unstable to be tunneled through because the \"ground\" was essentially a mass of human remains. If you consider the numbers of people who have died and been buried in major European cities over the centuries, it could be argued that, when the graveyards were closed to new burials, graves were being dug into, and bodies were being buried in, human remains." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.evora-portugal.com/Attractions/Capela-Dos-Ossos-Chapel-of-Bones-Evora-Guide.php", "http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/kaplica-czazek-chapel-skulls", "http://www.catacombedinapoli.it/catacombe.asp", "http://www.ossuary.eu/index.php/en/ossuary", "http://www.catacombes.paris.fr/en/catacombs" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9qo7pv" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I admit I'm not an expert on this subject, but I have a friend who is a student from Bulgaria who briefly explained the country's involvement in World War II to me.\n\nBulgaria never considered itself to be an active member of the Axis. It joined under pressure only as Nazi troops approached its borders to invade Greece and Yugoslavia. Its king, for example, refused to take part in the Holocaust, and prevented Bulgaria's Jews from being taken to the concentration camps, which later led to the king being poisoned in response. \n\nWhen the Soviets finally reached Bulgaria after taking Romania, Bulgarian troops rapidly changed sides and actually (from what my friend tells me) ended up marching into Berlin with the Soviets.\n\nI think this could account for Bulgaria's good fortune in the treaty, since they were not \"real\" Axis. But again I'm no expert and am just giving you my best answer. :)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cx5tgzx", "cx5ty1v" ], "score": [ 177, 56 ], "text": [ "Although Zoroastrianism is not an Abrahamic religion and so the \"Magians\" of the Quran are not counted with Jews and Christian, *in practice* Zoroastrians were treated as sort of semi-dhimmis. The \"semi\" here is less a reflection of theology and more one of politics and security.\n\nIn the traditional Zoroastrian heartland, modern-day Iran and Iraq, Zoroastrianism was *the* imperial religion. While rural areas had been slowly converting to versions of Christianity and Judaism over the course of late antiquity, the aristocracy and imperial leadership was inseparable from Zoroastrianism; it was the imperial ideology.\n\nSo as Muslim armies swept in and established an Islamic administration, a couple things happened. Zoroastrians were allowed to maintain their houses of worship, religious practices, etc. There weren't enormous massacres or campaigns of *forced* conversion.\n\nOn the other hand, the Zoroastrian leadership of the Sassanids was swiftly dismantled. *Those* people faced a real choice of conversion or sudden obscurity. Conversion had its secular benefits. Al-Afshin had been an Iranian prince, but as a Muslim convert, he became a famous general of the Abbasid army.\n\nEarly Islam, too, inculturated a *lot* of Iranian-Persian culture, which helped make conversion more palatable. Even after the economic and political gains. Muslims were pragmatic, too: they often waived the requirement of circumcision for wary adult male converts. The cities of the former Sassanid Empire saw conversion to Islam fairly quickly, though Zoroastrianism hung on in more rural territories through the 10th and 11th century.\n\nThere are still pockets of it today, as noted elsewhere in this thread, but it had already been in decline as a faith outside the imperial hierarchy even before the advance of Islam. The Abbasids' adoption of so much else in Iranian culture and the attraction of participating in Muslim trade networks, armies, and civic life made conversion to Islam quickly attractive for the elite, even if Zoroastrianism itself was not banned.\n\nMajor source here is Jonathan Berkey, *The Formation of Islam.*", "\"Dhimmis were required to wear special clothes\", \"dhimmis weren't allowed to ride animals (lol)\" \n\n\"the first 8 centuries after Islam was founded were basically just looting and plundering surrounding areas until they converted to Islam\". \n\nI made a very lengthy rebuttal to the poster of these comments only to find it had already been deleted. I fucking love this subreddit and it's moderation team/standard. As someone who is very passionate and informed on the complex history of Islam, this sub is the one bastion of hope for me on this site and the frankly one of the few reasons I peruse reddit these days. Never change /r/Askhistorians. \n\nAnd for the record /u/IamaHistorian is *most assuredly* not. \n\nI know this isn't a post in regards to the topic but I just had to show my appreciation. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "di06t8d", "di09tz4" ], "score": [ 18, 45 ], "text": [ "The Welsh are descendants from the original Celtic Britons before the Anglo-Saxon migrations (though most modern-day Welsh people are probably indistinguishable from English people genetically), and they retained their distinct Celtic identity against the Anglo-Saxon English kingdoms through history long enough that they are distinct. Geography probably helped because the border between Wales and the rest of England is pretty mountainous. The only other British Celtic nation is Cornwall (Irish, Scottish and Manx are Gaelic Celtic), and they retain somewhat of a unique identity as well.\n\nWessex started off as a Saxon kingdom (etym. West Saxons) and eventually united and merged with the other germanic-speaking lands to form an English identity. You could say there are small variations in culture and language (at the dialectical level) between the different counties of England.", "Wales was a principality of England largely because it was conquered peicemeal. Largely because of its terrain, Wales was historically split into many small kindoms, as was Anglo-Saxon England. During the eighth and ninth centuries, the kingdoms of Wessex and Mercia occasionally vied for overlordship of the Welsh kingdoms along their border. According to the *Anglo-Saxon Chronicle* for example, the Welsh princes asked Alfred of Wessex for help against Ceolwulf II of Mercia in the late 870s, but he was Alfred's ally at this point so Alfred refused. In 893, Æthelred of Mercia brings a joint Mercian and Welsh army to help defend Wessex against a Viking invasion force, and in 916, his widow Æthelflæd leads a military expedition to *Brecanenmere* to punish a Welsh insurrection. During the tenth century, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms coalesce into a unified England based on Wessex, so English politics and culture becomes largely West Saxon. There is still some cultural separatism in Mercia and the Danelaw, and recurrant semi-autonomy in Mercia and York. Wales, during this period, however, remains largely divided into subkingdoms.\n\nFollowing the Norman Conquest of 1066, William becomes king of a unified England, and Malcolm III and David I rapidly \"Normanise\" Scotland in response, making it a unified \"modern\" kingdom to prevent the Anglo-Normans taking over. This is why, despite periodic English conquests, Scotland remains an independent nation for much of its history. Wales remains largely divided and the Anglo-Normans use this to their credit in a system of divide and rule. The \"Marcher Lords\" along the Anglo-Cambrian border are given relative autonomy to deal with Wales, and often act as glorified mercenaries, aiding one small kingdom against its neighbour in return for land, or perhaps marrying a son or daughter into the ruling family so that the kingdom eventually passes into English hands. Over the next few centuries, the kingdoms of Wales are slowly subsumed piece by piece into England.\n\nPart of this process was the introduction of the term \"Prince of Wales\". Independent kings were a challenge to the supremacy of England, so from the 12th century, many agreed to be \"princes\" and be vassals of England rather than be invaded. In the 1280s, through a combination of inheritance, alliance and conquest, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd was able to unify much of Wales under his rule and rebel against the English. When Edward I defeated this rebellion and killed Llywelyn, he decided to make his son Edward the Prince of Wales. This began the tradition of the heir to the throne becoming the Prince of Wales, and also made a unified Wales a sub-kingdom of England. Curiously, this was surprisingly close to an old West Saxon tradition following the events of 825 in which the heir to Wessex ruled over Kent and Sussex as a *subregulus* of Wessex proper.\n\nFor some comparisson, there is still a surprising amount of regional hetrogeny in England, despite the large-scale movement of populations since the industrial revolution. The most obvious one is in accents; the stereotypical West Country \"farmer pirate\" accent is prevalent in former Wessex, and in marked contrast to the Midlands accent of former Mercia. The Northern accents are also influenced by Scandinavians. In terms of material culture, archaeology shows that in terms of fashion, West Saxon designs were spreading in popularity across England in the tenth century, but with some regional variation.\n\nSome reading:\n\nWhitelock, D., *The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle*\n\nDumville, D., *The Annales Cambriae*\n\nGerald of Wales, *Itinerarium Kambriae* and *Descriptio Kambriae*\n\nDavies, R.R., *The Age of Conquest: Wales, 1063–1415*\n\nDavies, R.R. *Dominion and Conquest: The Experience of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales*\n\nDavies, W., *Wales in the Early Middle Ages*\n\nCharles-Edwards, T., *Wales and the Britons*\n\nCharles-Edwards, T., *Wales and the Mercians* " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ci2q681" ], "score": [ 27 ], "text": [ "We're going to paint a broad picture here, because \"medieval\" encompasses a huge period of time, but the **TL;DR** is this: *It's pretty much impossible to relate costs now to costs then.*\n\nThis is more difficult to calculate than you might think. In our modern day market economy we tend to compare and contrast how things are today with how they were, say, a generation ago. So, nowadays we might pay $3.50 per gallon of gas, but fuel only eats up (say) 1.5% of our total budget, whereas in the 1970s $1 gas was 6% of your total budget (I'm making these numbers up, but you get the idea). We get (sort of) an apples to apples comparison, in large part because we have similar priorities and also because we have a monetary system in which things like inflation and relative costs can be tracked. In the medieval era this really wasn't possible.\n\nLet's take a look at some stuff from the early modern era that might help give some perspective. It's not medieval, but it gives you a picture of how different things were. For example, a peasant woman would often work until her mid-twenties before getting married. What was she doing? She was saving money for a cow! See, that cow represented a source of livelihood for her and security in marriage. The cow produced calfs, which were useful for eatin' or making more cows (or money from selling them), and it produced milk, and when the milk and calving are over, she's still edible. Okay, so she paid money for the cow, right? She could sell milk or calves, right? How is that different from the modern day? Well, for one thing, she paid the *customary* price for that cow. In other words, price wasn't set by the market, it was set by custom. This could be monkeyed with a little, but in general trade was local and social pressures kept prices static. As you might imagine, when a failed harvest made food scarce and farmers inevitably raised their prices, people got upset. They often rioted. Sometimes the riot took the form of folks breaking into a storehouse and distributing food, other times it was more violent. Landholding worked differently too. Peasants would work land that they \"rented\" from the local lord. Their rent, though, was a proportion of the crop and social deference. In return the lord provided them a place to live, a place to bake bread (he usually had the ovens), he would even represent his peasants in court. So, no money changes hands *at all*. Instead, this was all about deference and power. It was a cooperative system in which money mattered little and when it was used, prices were set by custom.\n\nIf we go further back we actually find less money in circulation, which means that social obligations become even *more* important. The medieval era often saw Europeans working within a tightly knit web. They produced armor, not because they were paid in coin (though sometimes they were), but because someone provided something for them. The thing is, whatever was provided may have been ephemeral in nature or purely spiritual. Or, trade may have happened, but it would have taken the form of barter. It's all very difficult for us to imagine, but it's how things worked.\n\n\n* Peter Burke, Popular Culture In Early Modern Europe \n* Carlo Ginzburg, The Cheese And The Worms: The Cosmos Of A Sixteenth-Century Miller \n* Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel. Carnival In Romans \n* J. A. Sharpe, Early Modern England\n* Lawrence Stone, The Crisis Of The Aristocracy \n* E.P. Thompson, Customs in Common\n* E.P. Thompson, The Making Of The English Working Class\n* Merry Wiesner, Women And Gender In Early Modern Europe \n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eq2jvh7" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "In theory, yes. The portcullis was most often made of wood with some metal reinforcements, so was the gate itself. Application of some mixture that was both flammable and viscous could lead to the wooden elements being burned through or weakened enough to facilitate destruction with a kinetic force, such as the battering ram of even hand-held tools. But there are two main problems that anyone attempting such a feat would have faced. First, there were very few substances that could have been used to such effect short of Greek and Byzantine fire with the latter being of limited use as it required contact with water to ignite. Sure, there was pitch and tar widely available but ignition point of these substances are several times higher than that of gasoline and they generally need to be heated to 90-100 degrees Celsius to ignite. Any kind of oil was generally out of question, despite common use of 'burning oil' in fantasy. The flashpoint of animal and plant fats that were available in the Middle Ages are usually in the ballpark of 300 degrees Celsius (higher than the ignition point of dry wood), making them useless unless heated to the temperature similar to that of the melting point of lead.\n\nThe easiest way of application of such substance would have been shooting the heated container full of pitch from some kind of siege engine, with the clay jar being the most obvious as it can be easily heated to extremely high temperatures and will shatter on impact, releasing the burning payload. Such is the subject of the drawing made by Mariano di Iacopo, also known as 'Taccola', in his book 'De machinis' (on machines) published in 1449, where an incendiary barrel is shown being shot from a machine roughly resembling trebuchet \\[1\\].\n\nAny attempt of applying such a substance by hand would be extremely risky and difficult, because the gates were usually separated from the approach by a moat and people trying to set the gate ablaze would become a target of keen interest from the defenders able to attack them through murder-holes or from battlements. Hand application of burning, viscous substance to a large structure is also not a easy trivial feat either. Heating the pitch at o a necessary temperature after the application is very hard without a modern blowtorch. But where is a will there is a way. Aforementioned Mariano di Iacopo envisioned a protective wheeled vehicle, not unlike the shielded battering ram with the barrel containing burning substance mounted on the end of the protruding beam \\[2\\]. Another illustration in the book shows the application of such a device precisely to damage or destroy the gates of the besieged city \\[3\\].\n\nThe incendiary mixtures could have been different. Treatise 'Liber ignium ad comburendos hostes' (Book of fire for burning enemies) attributed to a person known only as Mark the Greek and published in the late 13th or early 14th century (with a possibility of it being a translation of the Arabic original) mentions several dozens of recipes utilizing such ingredients as rosin, colophony, gum arabic, naphtha (these two suggest Arabic or Byzantine origins of the book), various plant oils, tallow, wax, pitch, dried bird droppings (good source of nitrates and phosphates), 'white, red and lustrous sulphur' (possibly galena, cinnabar and pyrite) and quicklime. Some kind of incendiary mixtures had to be known earlier though, as similar substances were used to attack wooden fortifications and buildings during siege of Montreuil-Bellay in 1147 as described in 'Historia Gaufredi ducis Normanorum' (History of Norman duke Geoffrey \\[Geoffrey Plantagenet\\]) by John of Marmoutier. Similar methods were also used to destroy the Crusaders' siege towers during siege of Acre in 1190 (as per Imad ad-Din, some sources claim that the towers were destroyed during the sally).\n\nOf course, starting from the second half of 13th century one could have used the novelty that was the blackpowder, utilizing its explosive capacity. This would have worked well against the portcullis if the charges were set between the bars, less so against the gate door as the surface-mounted charges would have had little effect.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n\\[1\\] Paolo Santini's copy of di Iacopo's 'De machinis' showing various incendiary devices. Online exhibit, Museo Gallileo. \n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_) \n\n\n\\[2\\] Mariano di Iacopo's drawing of a device for transporting incendiary kegs, Online exhibit, Museo Gallileo. \n[_URL_1_](_URL_1_)\n\n & #x200B;\n\n\\[3\\] Another illustration from 'De Machinis' by Taccola, showing the application of the 'fire cart'.\n\n[_URL_2_](_URL_2_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/genscheda.asp?appl=LIR&xsl=paginamanoscritto&lingua=ENG&chiave=101235", "https://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/ifoto.asp?foto=https://vitruvio.imss.fi.it/foto/ingrin/ingrin-53MAC10rs.jpg", "https://imgur.com/a/6NbtST0" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cy96s98", "cy9fbcw" ], "score": [ 5, 2 ], "text": [ "Yes. The Germans came up with an assault plan called Operation Felix. \n\nIt never got past the basic planning stage though. Hitler never could convince Franco that siding with the Germans would put the Spanish on the right side of the war. Apparently a wise choice on the part of Franco. As Felix required Spain to allow German troops passage to Gibraltar, the whole thing remained dead in water.", "I can't answer the main question, but I was immediately reminded of a bit of interesting context that may be helpful. While Eisenhower, the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, was the US President, many isolationist critics, including former President Herbert Hoover, suggested that America cease its activities abroad, bring its troops home and focus on becoming a \"Gibraltar of Freedom.\" Eisenhower, ever the military strategist, was appalled by this metaphor, given that modern advancements in military technology Gibraltar was hardly the stronghold it has been 150 years earlier. As he said in response, \"Today, Gibraltar is one of the weakest military spots in the world. It could be reduced to nothing by a few modern guns posted in the hills and concentrating their fire on it.\"\n\nIf Eisenhower was to have been tasked with taking Gibraltar, this should give us some idea of what that would have looked like, at least strategically. \n\nThis exchange is taken from Jean Edward Smith's *Eisenhower: In War and Peace* pg 511." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fddsof9" ], "score": [ 18 ], "text": [ "I've written answers on this in the past, but on reflection they are rather flippant and don't quite explore the issue as well as I would if I were to rewrite them now. Now, if only I could go back and rewrite them... oh wait.\n\nBefore we start, I'd like to make clear that from 1 January 1851, the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom *was* the God-Worshipping Society. Being the theocratic state that it was, the Heavenly Kingdom absorbed all the religious functions of its predecessor entity. Hence I'll be using 'Taiping' to refer to any post-1864 adherents.\n\nLet's start off with that first question. What happened after 1864? The first thing to note is that there continued to be a resistance after Nanjing fell in July. French-backed troops in Zhejiang continued fighting Taiping remnants until October, and a Taiping remnant force under Li Shixian remained active out of Zhangzhou in southern Fujian through until May 1865. Li was, surprisingly, joined by a number of British defectors. After he was routed from Fujian, he retreated to Guangdong, where he was assassinated on 23 August by his lieutenant, Wang Haiyang, who surrendered six days later. On 6 June, Taiping remnants in Jiezhou, Gansu were wiped out by the Sichuan provincial militia. Taiping historian Jen Yu-Wen ends the Taiping Civil War with the defeat of Tan Tiyuan on his retreat from Jiaying in northeast Guangdong in early February 1866, though Franz Michael and Chung Li-Chang also include Lai Wenguang, a Taiping commander who joined the Nian in 1864 and held out until January 1868. However, all these examples were of resistance by conventional armed forces, not a guerrilla campaign. There's very little evidence if any for prolonged underground resistance.\n\nAs for secret unarmed worshippers, if they existed we do not know much about them, not least because, well, if there were any they evidently hid well enough to survive! While the possibility cannot be totally discounted, I'd say that at most very few actual Taiping devotees remained after the end of the Heavenly Kingdom, and not just due to Qing executions. First off, there is much to suggest that the number of steadfast devotees within the Taiping ranks had already dwindled significantly by 1864, so aside from those troops who fought to the death or were captured and executed, you might be hard-pressed to find any remnants. Secondly, the Taiping had grown very rapidly in specific social contexts, and the Taiping religion was very much linked in with Hong Xiuquan specifically. Unsurprisingly, a concerted proscription campaign combined with the death of that charismatic leader was not going to do much good for Taiping membership numbers in China. As such it's possible but highly improbable that any Taiping devotees remain to this day – compare, for example, Yihe Boxing. Are there any modern day Boxer Rebels? By eradicating the Taiping's public presence, such as by purging any Taiping documents that they could lay their hands on, the Qing destroyed the religion as an effective force.\n\nIf you're thinking of organisations like the Black and Yellow Flag Armies, then I'm afraid you've – directly or otherwise – bought into a French conspiracy theory. The bandit armies that coalesced in the northern Vietnamese borderlands were largely survivors of the Kingdom of Yanling, a separatist state in western Guangxi that claimed Taiping affiliation but otherwise had no direct connections. This may be the slight grain of truth behind French paranoia about 'Taiping' bandits disrupting the French colonial presence after their conquest of northern Vietnam in 1885, but in reality there was no significant Taiping presence among the Black Flags. Moreover, there was no significant – explicit – religious agenda to the Black or Yellow Flag forces, which were at worst opportunistic plunderers and at best anti-imperial resistors. Their targeting of Catholic missionaries can be understood as mainly a response to French encroachment, not the product of inherent religious zeal.\n\nI'm afraid I can't give anything remotely close to a comprehensive answer about overseas Chinese, but talking a little closer to home, Hong Quanfu, Hong Xiuquan's nephew, is buried in Happy Valley Cemetery in Hong Kong, having been involved in an abortive bomb plot in Canton in 1903. There is little to suggest that he was still an active God-Worshipper, though the loose coalition of rebels in 1903 did attempt to revive some Taiping imagery. On the whole, though, I'd say there's little evidence for continued private belief, and basically none for an attempt to restore organised worship.\n\n**Sources, Notes and References**\n\n* On Taiping holdouts, see Jen Yu-wen, *The Taiping Revolutionary Movement* (1973) and Franz Michael and Chung-li Chang, *The Taiping Rebellion, Volume I: History* (1966).\n* On Chinese bandits in Vietnam, see Bradley Camp Davis, *Imperial Bandits* (2017)\n* On Hong Quanfu, see L. Eve Armentrout, 'The Canton Rising of 1902-1903: Reformers, Revolutionaries, and the Second Taiping', in *Modern Asian Studies* Vol. 10, No. 1 (1976)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dhqz939" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Well when it comes to ancient sources [Polybius](_URL_1_) is always a classic, Plutarch's *Lives* also looks at some of the famous folks from Hellenistic history but it is much later and many of the accounts Plutarch does not take from earlier authors are hard to verify so he is worth a read but I would not take *everything* on face value unless reading it in conjunction with other texts (preferably some modern ones as well). \n\nFor modern sources on the Wars of the Diadochi and the Hellenistic Period you can not go wrong with Peter Green's [Alexander to Actium](_URL_0_) which looks at all of the Hellenistic kingdoms from Alexander's death to the death of Cleopatra. [From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire](_URL_2_) by Susan Sherwin-White and Amelie Kuhrt is really the only easily accessible comprehensive volume on the Seleucid Empire and you can read it in its entirety online.\n\nFor the Ptolemaic Kingdom I strongly recommend [Egypt in the Age of Cleopatra](_URL_3_) by Michel Chauveau which is one the most comprehensive and well researched compendiums on Ptolemaic Egypt to date, although it tends to focus on the last century of Ptolemaic rule. All of those are quite pleasant reads and reasonably comprehensive, if you want to read further Chauveau, Green and Sherwin-White/Kuhrt provide rather extensive bibliographies to skim." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Alexander_to_Actium.html?id=1QOvJ14Jxv8C&redir_esc=y", "http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D1", "https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IZ65PED6ykMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false", "https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=a5U-8b-fVNgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=egypt+in+the+age+of+cleopatra&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLnpWUsZLRAhVMe1AKHd2PAN4Q6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=egypt%20in%20the%20age%20of%20cleopatra&f=false" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8d85ph", "c8d8pai", "c8d9iv3", "c8db11h", "c8dbjw3", "c8dd80m" ], "score": [ 34, 10, 8, 2, 2, 6 ], "text": [ "If this person is no longer alive or is alright with you sharing the document, the first thing I would suggest is scanning the document in a high quality format (.tiff perhaps) and making it publicly available online. *After* you've made it publicly available online, donate it to your National Archives. It's very rare that they won't take primary sources of a period, and if they for some reason reject it, there are innumerable museums and academic institutions to turn to. Whoever you donate it to, get their catalog information and post it with the images you post online.\n\nObviously, this is an issue if it would reflect badly on a veteran who does not wish to be revealed. In that case I would still recommend scanning it, but keeping the document private until enough time has passed.\n\nOtherwise, making a blunt and honest primary source available to present and future historians is beneficial to the overall study of the period. \n\nPreserving this document in its original form is very important. Wear gloves when handling it: the oils on your fingers will damage the paper over time. DO NOT use tape if it is torn, the acidity of the tape *will* destroy the document. Place it in a safe and secure place away from directly sunlight and free from moisture, which will also damage the paper over time.", "Alongside LordKettering's advice, I would absolutely advise you to perhaps donate it to a UK-based institution. I'm very certain that the Imperial War Museum would be open to an item such as this. ", "I would also strongly encourage you to transcribe or at least take a quality scan of the document. This preserves a copy of the manuscript, and will make it easier for other researchers to access it.", "Scanning and uploading it is a great idea, but I encourage you to try and find him. [Here's some resources to get started.](_URL_0_)", "Is it an American veteran or a British veteran?", "You could donate it to the [Texas Tech Vietnam Center/Archive](_URL_0_), which is a pretty large collection of Vietnam-era documents and memorabilia. \n\nIf you'd like, I can put you in touch with my professor who is A) a Vietnam veteran, and B) one of the top dogs over there. You can also get in touch with Kelly E. Crager (PM me for an email address or phone number) and he can help you with archiving it and putting it on-line.\n\nJust get him to guarantee it will go on-line via email first, and get him to set a time table, because they're a little swamped at the moment. They have a bunch of us doing oral interviews with Vietnam veterans right now (I'm a History/Journalism dual major) and things are starting to get a little busy." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://www.archives.gov/veterans/locate-service-members.html" ], [], [ "http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cyliit1" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "That depends on how you define the genre of \"Fantasy\", and where you put its beginnings. The beginnings of Undead creatures in fantastic literature can be seen in Mary Shelley's 1818 opus *Frankenstein*, often considered to be the first science fiction work, and science fiction and fantasy are often combined in a single genre. Slightly later, we have vampires being introduced into popular consciousness with Bram Stoker's 1897 *Dracula*. If we go into the fantasy genre, we find that one of the earliest fantasy writers was George MacDonald, and in his 1895 story *Lilith*, we see several \"undead\" characters, such as the ghost Mr. Raven, as well as the titular \"Lilith\", who is the Biblical Adam's first wife, who is still around and serves as the antagonist in the story.\n\nBased on these examples, I would say that the use of undead characters in fantasy is almost as old as the genre itself." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e558i0k" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Hey there,\n\nJust to let you know, your question is fine, and we're letting it stand. However, you should be aware that questions framed as 'Why didn't X do Y' relatively often don't get an answer that meets our standards (in our experience as moderators). There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, it often can be difficult to prove the counterfactual: historians know much more about what happened than what might have happened. Secondly, 'why didn't X do Y' questions are sometimes phrased in an ahistorical way. It's worth remembering that people in the past couldn't see into the future, and they generally didn't have all the information we now have about their situations; things that look obvious now didn't necessarily look that way at the time.\n\nIf you end up not getting a response after a day or two, consider asking a new question focusing instead on why what happened did happen (rather than why what didn't happen didn't happen) - this kind of question is more likely to get a response in our experience. Hope this helps!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "di2n6co" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "No. And to discuss why involves discussion of burden of proof. \"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.\" Sailing across either the Atlantic and Pacific, and making contact is a pretty extraordinary claim. Books such as \"Peru Before the Incas\", and \" The Last of the Incas\" have nothing to say about any contact between Inka and non-Americas groups. While the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the burden of proof falls on the group arguing for your claim and they so far have presented nothing of value." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d6j4ohs", "d6kb17m" ], "score": [ 7, 3 ], "text": [ "I am in no position to answer some of this questions, but I will do my best to answer a few of them. \n\nThere is different views about how the conflict started: \n\n(a)the traditional Brazilian view, Solano Lopez was a megalomaniac dictator who started the whole thing by aggression against his neighbours. It was the main view in Brazil until the 1960's, it emphasized \"national values\" about patriotism and \"national military heroes\"; \n\n(b)the traditional Paraguayan view, their neighbours were the aggressors and they fought a defensive war for their survival. It was also used in Paraguay for propaganda purposes, specially in the Strossner dictatorship;\n\n(c)the Latin American leftist view: basically you described in your question. Paraguay refused integration with the capitalist system, United Kingdom feared South American countries would follow Paraguay and then manipulated them in going to war, which benefited the British Empire by destroying an economic adversary. In my own point of view this version is basically propaganda, about a mythic superpowerful Paraguay and British Emperialist boogeymen.\n\nAt the time, the British and Brazilian empires were not in good terms; in 1863 there was a major diplomatic incident (known in Brazil as \"Questão Cristie\" ) between the two counties, when a merchant ship's (HMS Prince of Walles) cargo was stolen in Brazilian waters; the British ambassador was recalled and the British Empire threatened to blockade Rio de Janeiro! Brazil would pay for the cargo and apologise to come back to friendly therms with the British in 1865, one year after the start of the war;\n\n(d)the recent academic view: its more complicated and more detailed then the rest, and its based on actual documentation. Basically, Paraguay was a regional power, but could not match the United Kingdom; It was landlocked and needed badly a maritime port; it had local alliances with the Blanco Party in Uruguay and with the Argentinian provinces of Corrientes and Entre Rios.\n\nBrazil had some history of military intervention in Uruguay, and did it again in 1864. The main reasons for this intervention was to show \"military power\" to the unfriendly Great Britain and to support some southern Brazilian farmers who had disputes with Uruguay. It supported the Colorado Party, then in civil war with the Blancos. Paraguay threatened war with Brazil for this, but Brazil ignored them. Paraguay then invaded Mato Grosso state, and forbid Brazilian navigation in their rivers.\n\nParaguay President Solano Lopez then asked free transit for his troops in Argentina (to support his allies in Uruguay), which was refused. Solano Lopez thought Corrientes and Entre Rios would at best join him on war against Brazil, or at worst remain neutral. He then proceeded to invade those Argentinian provinces to help his Uruguayan allies. When he did invade, public perception within Argentina changed completely and they signed an alliance with Brazil. In that alliance, between Brazil, Argentina and the Colorado Party in Uruguay, they agreed to only stop war when all the three counties agreed.\n\nParaguay lost in several major battles like Riachuelo and Tuiuty, despite having a larger army than all the other countries combined in the beginning of the war. Paraguay tried to negotiate a separate peace with Argentina, but Argentina was bound up with the alliance with Brazil. \n\nBrazil asked for Solano Lopez to step down as a condition to Paraguay surrender. Solano Lopez refused and Paraguay was utterly devastated. \n\nI can provide sources in portuguese, if you need.\n\nThere is some very good documentaries in portuguese about the causes and events in the Paraguayan War.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_", "Here is an [answer](_URL_0_) to a similar question that I answered a while ago which I think will be interesting for you. In short, yes and no...the British were involved in South America to some extent, though the dynamics of that involvement were not as forceful as Galeano asserts. I wish I could answer how the British public reacted to the war, but that lies outside my field of expertise. That might be an extremely interesting question to ask as a separate AskHistorians thread: \"How did the British public react to the Paraguayan War?\" \n\nIn terms of historiography, in reality, there is very little work being done on the Paraguayan War in the Anglophone academic world. Even the state-formation thesis that I rely on heavily in the answer that I linked above and [this one in which I discuss some historiography of the causes](_URL_1_) really needs an overhaul to include more social and subaltern perspectives. Right now, I can think of maybe 4 historians who have published works on the Paraguayan War in the last 20 years, and those that have been published focus on the political and military components of the war." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5Yxrh9MX8Q", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p63oMrdltas" ], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2d3q8j/is_it_true_that_great_britain_started_backing/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/340pjz/how_did_the_paraguayan_war_affect_paraguay_and/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ca6vd23" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Hi Venndicator, \n\nI think your best option, to start, is to look at the medium of film. Arguably the most effective propaganda film in Soviet history is [Battleship Potemkin](_URL_2_) (That's a youtube link to the full documentary) directed by Sergei Eisenstein. One thing to note while watching the film is how dramatic it is - for 1925, these scenes were frightening enough to send people into fainting spells. \n\nAlthough this is more of a Lenin-era piece of propaganda, Stalin manipulated it in his later years - at the beginning of the film is a written quote from Leon Trotsky, and when Trotsky later denounced Stalin, this quote was removed. \n\n[Here](_URL_0_) are some examples of Stalin's photo manipulation. \n\nMaybe I can help with the structure of your presentation too. You mention that you want to invoke emotion from your audience - maybe doing some research on what you believe is propaganda, and showing it to your audience with the intention of bringing up intense emotion, will help you out. This will give them the idea of how these people almost a century ago were feeling. [This Youtube link](_URL_1_) of the British Red Cross calling for aid to East Africa, for example, could be shown, invoking sympathy and compassion, possibly sadness and shock at the footage used. \n\nAnyways, I hope this provides some direction for you. Good luck in your assignment!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/false.html", "http://youtu.be/2roAHJ6SDLs", "http://youtu.be/CKgH-VzQbis" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e9kh632" ], "score": [ 36 ], "text": [ "They had fireplaces but there was no tradition of chimneys in that era, no. What you had was a \"windeye\" (Old Norse _vindauga_), a ventilation hole with a damper, under the ridge of the roof. This word was borrowed into English as 'window'. Smoke was allowed to rise and pool under the roof inside the house and find its own way out. \n\nChimneys only made their (broader) entrance in Scandinavia and Finland a century or two after the end of the Viking Age, but then only in towns. In the countryside it did not start to replace fireplaces until the 18th century. For instance, in that era the Norwegian priest Erik Pontoppidan [wrote (p443)](_URL_1_) about the various \"Clar-Stuer\" (clear cottages) versus \"Røg-stuer\" (smoke cottages), the latter being the older kind. (the same book that also writes of the beast _kraken_, who via Lord Tennyson became an American pop cultural thing) By Pontippidan's (and other's) account the smoke could irritate ones eyes, although the ventilation was regulated to keep the smoke layer above one's head. Pontippidan also claims that \"of old, even the kings themselves lived in such houses, for they knew of no different\" until the mid-11th century king Olaf Kyrre supposedly introduced it in Norway. But whether that story is true or not, chimneys certainly didn't become common until much later. Sweden's famous botanist of the 18th century Linneaus also wrote about smoke-cottages being particularly common in certain areas, in his travelogues from around the country. \n\nIn fact, some areas - in particular those inhabited by the Forest Finns in north Värmland and southeast Dalarna in Sweden, saw the use of smoke cottages of a kind called _pirtti_ (Swedish _pörte_) well into the 20th century, [here's a picture](_URL_0_) from the Skansen museum of the interior, with smoke, of an actual Forest-Finn house moved there. My own grandparents were contemporary with people in the same municipality living in such homes.\n\nThe kinds of chimneys and fireplaces traditional in England are not traditional to the Nordic Countries. Those are often very inefficient heat-wise, with a large hearth and not seldom located on the side of a building ([like this](_URL_2_)). Because those were used more for cooking than providing heat. Nordic chimneys and fireplaces/stoves were invariably located in the middle of the house." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.skansen.se/imager/www_skansen_se/uploads-aws/Hus-och-dess-kringmiljoeer/Finngardens-rokstuga_5928a8d0c3c691dd7f4c1a5954b03169.jpg", "https://www.nb.no/items/URN:NBN:no-nb_digibok_2009012112004", "https://www.british-history.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/pubid-1301/images/fig231.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ct56pyo" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Jacques Gernet says, citing in turn *Chi li pien, Shuo fu* XXVII f. 14a-b:\n\n\"One author writes - deploring the thing it is true - that people from North China, where habits of cannibalism had spread after the wars and famine of the twelfth century, had opened restaurants in Hangchow where human flesh was served... being euphemistically called 'two-legged mutton'.\"\n\nMy copy of the Cambridge History of Song China unsurprisingly mentions cannibalism as being reported in records from or near famine areas. But cannibalism *outside* famine areas is a new one on me, aside from this one mention by Gernet of some period writer complaining of these alleged cannibal restaurants in Hangchow/Hangzhou.\n\nBut I am not a Song Dynasty expert, so I can't swear the guy Gernet quoted wasn't making it up." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d14ffky" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "Augustus roused the aristocrats in Rome against Antony on the basis that Antony had been absorbed into Eastern despotism as opposed to Roman ways of government. Antony also named Cleopatra *Queen of Kings and Egypt* and declared her son, Caesarion, as the legitimate son of Caesar. He also gave out territory to her other children.\n\nThere was a propaganda war between the two which intensified due to Antony leaving Octavia, his wife and Augustus sister, for Cleopatra. This allowed Augustus to paint an image of Antony as a rejector of Roman morals which definitely would have been easy to convince people to turn against him.\n\n\nAntony was seen though as a great man who had been led astray by evil Cleopatra because of his love. This is summed up well in Plutarch's *Life of Mark Antony* passages 24-37.\n\nBased on what Plutarch wrote, Cleopatra was painted as a manipulator who brought Antony's downfall, with Antony still being held to the standards before he was 'corrupted' by her. We can only suggest that the people thought a similar thing." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpvuzb5", "cpw820n" ], "score": [ 28, 5 ], "text": [ "I'm currently researching new religious movements in Korea, circa 1860s, and I just finished reading [a book that contains records from Christian missionaries](_URL_0_) going to Korea and declaring the place \"without religion,\" despite the presence of several spiritual traditions. The exclusive characteristic of religion is really a Western concept - one can't be Christian *and* Buddhist, because that would negate the whole \"thou shalt have no others gods before me\" part of monotheistic religions. But this is a bit more fluid in Asian religions. A lot of the \"religions\" you mentioned are practiced more like \"traditions,\" and there's no emphasis on proselytizing. \n\nToday, in surveys on religious affiliation, many people in Asia would say that they are Catholic or secular or Muslim or whatever they are, but still participate in rituals on certain holidays or forms of ancestor worship or whatever has been happening in their family for generations. Anecdotal, but illustrative: my husband's family in Korea are Christian (his uncle is a pastor), but the whole family still celebrates Buddha's birthday, maintains ancestral graves, and donates to Buddhist shrines before big events (births, tests, job interviews). These \"religious practices\" are basically family and cultural traditions that don't negate their Christian faith at all. So although they mark \"Christian\" on a census, an outside observer would rightfully point out that most of them visit Buddhist shrines more than their Christian church.\n\nAs for some of the specific religions you mentioned... Confucianism is more of a code of ethics and social rules rather than a religion. It coexists easily with other traditions because it has no spiritual doctrine, really, except perhaps some aspects of ancestor worship. This is most simply demonstrated by the fact that the Chinese Communist Party has built \"Confucian Institutes\" to facilitate cultural learning abroad. Confucianism can coincide with secularism because it isn't really religion.\n\nI wish I could tell you more about Shinto, but my knowledge of Japan is pretty much confined to the colonial period, so I really only know how it was applied in Korea post-1910. Shinto was state religion in Japan, and really closely tied with Japanese nationalism. From reading that I've done, I get the impression that Shinto was chosen to be the state religion because it was an indigenous Japanese practice rather than the number of followers it had. I know some Korean shamanistic rituals were redressed as Shintoism in the early twentieth century with little fuss, which goes to show that the *rituals* were the important part, and it didn't matter much what the associated religion was called. \n\n*With all of that said*, there is still a long history of religious violence in Asia, although usually these conflicts were over political issues rather than doctrinal/religious ones. In Korea, there is a history of bloody repression of *Catholics* - although this was perpetrated by the state over perceived political subversion, and not religious conflict, per se. Buddhism, of course, comes to mind as well. The popular image of the \"warrior monk\" comes from the Buddhist tradition, and Buddhist temples historically have had a lot of power - some owned land, had armies, appointed officials, etc. More recently, Buddhist conflict with Muslim groups (in Burma, Sri Lanka, Thailand, etc.) are gaining attention, in particular due to suicide bombings and other terror attacks. \n\nTLDR: Non-monotheistic religions play well with others. Religious violence in Asia tends to happen in conflict with the state rather than other religions, with recent exceptions.", "Bloody religious wars are actually somewhat unusual except for the Abrahamic religions, and so it isn't so much that Asia is unusual as the West is. To be clear this is not to say that Western monotheism invented religious violence: wars as far back as Mesopotamia have been framed in terms of divine missions to repay religious insults and more recent events have tragically proven that brutal religious violence is by no means limited to them. However, the imperative to maintain religious orthodoxy through violence is rather unusual. While there are many cases in history of individual sects being targeted, the persecution of all forms of worship besides one is more difficult to find.\n\nI'm not entirely certain how to source this but can provide sources regarding individual regions if you would like." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.amazon.com/The-Making-Korean-Christianity-Protestant/dp/160258575X" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dkleie3" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I think you're going to have be more specific. Like, what do you mean by \"examples of feminism\"? \n\nDoes the woman combatant in the i.33 swordfighting manual count? Do 14th century woman business owners count? Are you looking for something more literary? " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dsn6dk2" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "Pirates usually didn't kill the entire crew of ships they captured (although they sometimes did) mostly because they wanted to encourage other merchant ships to surrender peacefully instead of fighting to the death to avoid capture, which they would undoubtably do if word got out that pirates would kill them even if they surrendered. This was the purpose of the black flag or skull and crossbones flag that pirates used in the early 18th century. It was a signal to ships that they had a choice to either surrender and be spared or be killed once the ship was taken by force. Some pirate flags even depicted a man holding a cutlass in one hand and an hourglass in the other, making the meaning very clear. This was so terrifying to most merchant sailors, that they usually surrendered without a fight, and in return they were *usually* not killed. In fact even when they did fight back and were eventually captured, the entire crew was *usually* not killed. I made another post [here](_URL_0_) that discusses this and some of the ways that sailors could be treated after they were captured by pirates. \n\nEDIT: Some pirates did successfully impersonate legitimate merchants and privateers. Probably the most successful one who did this was Howell Davis. He used this ruse to successfully infiltrate the British fort of Gambia in Africa, get himself invited by the governor to dine with him, and then take the governor and his associates hostage and successfully extort a large ransom. However, eventually when Davis tried his ruse on another island the authorities were alerted to his real identity by an escaped prisoner and he was ambushed and killed. Pretty exciting stuff. I made [another post](_URL_1_) about this. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/793gpf/i_am_a_sailor_on_a_british_trading_ship_in_the/dp02snf/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7qsim3/tuesday_trivia_people_were_so_convinced_that_joan/dsry48g/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fmg7jc2", "fmga5fu" ], "score": [ 592, 213 ], "text": [ " > How is it even possible to travel that far and such a long time by mere canoe?\n\nWhile they did use canoes, that \"mere\" is perhaps misplaced. The canoes used in Polynesia for long-distance voyaging were large. They were usually double-hulled (single-hulled outrigger canoes and triple-hulled canoes were also used), and could be about 20m long and 6m wide (across both hulls). This is longer than and as wide as Columbus's caravels *Pinta* and *Niña*. These \"mere\" canoes could carry over 5 tons of passengers and cargo, which while less that the capacity of caravels, is still substantial.\n\nThe main propulsion was by sail, and modern replicas of Polynesian voyaging canoes can reach speeds of 5-6 knots under sail with good winds (similar to the performance of modern replicas of caravels, but achieved with about a quarter of the sail area). The replica *Hōkūleʻa* has amply demonstrated the capability of these vessels, sailing from Hawai's to Easter Island and back, via the Marquesas, in 1999-2000, and circumnavigating the world in 2014-2017 (a similar time to Magellan's voyage, but without that voyage's death toll of over 90%).\n\nAs for suicide missions, the likely approach was to first explore, only going as far as supplies would allow a return voyage. Land could be located even when still out of sight by watching birds and by the disruption of waves by islands (a practical use for the diffraction of waves!). Techniques such as this could greatly increase the chance of finding an island. Once land was found, and found to be suitable for settlement, a larger expedition to colonise the new island(s) could sail.\n\nFurther reading and references:\n\nThe replica *Hōkūle‘a*: _URL_1_\n\nAn archaeological find of a canoe last used about AD1400: Dilys A. Johns, Geoffrey J. Irwin, and Yun K. Sung, \"An early sophisticated East Polynesian voyaging canoe discovered on New Zealand's coast\", *PNAS* 111(41), 14728-14733 (2014). _URL_2_\n\nFor comparison, a replica of Columbus's *Niña*: _URL_0_", "Partly the answer comes in rephrasing the problem.\n\nConsider Robert Ballard, who made his name in deep ocean exploration, discovering long lost wrecks at incredible depths. This is a very hard problem, the ocean bottom is vast, and wrecks are small, that's a huge search space. But Ballard figured out a smarter way to do it, you don't rely exclusively on just happening to be able to look directly at the wreck itself as the primary way of finding it, instead you track the wreck and make your way to it. And you do this by looking for a debris trail first, which is much larger in area than the wreck itself. Then you follow the debris trail to the wreck.\n\nThis is how you min/max traveling between Polynesian island chains in the Pacific. The goal is not to sail from point to point so that you come right into a target harbor on your target island perfectly, that's not necessary. All you need to do is be able to get close enough to any island within a target island chain that you can find your way to that island. Individual islands can be small, and low islands without huge mountains might be visible only from a handful of miles away (due to the curvature of the Earth), but islands cast big \"shadows\" on their environment. Islands harbor cloud systems at high altitudes which are visible much farther off. Islands act to refract sea swells and ocean currents in ways that are noticeable if you know what to look for. These effects make it possible to detect islands from up to about 30 miles away. That dramatically changes the navigational problem from one of traveling the whole open ocean to find, say, a single tiny, flat 5 mile long atoll (which you'd need to be nearly on top of to see) to instead pointing in a specific direction and expecting to run across a line of current disruptions and cloud formations which form a \"wall\" hundreds of miles across and 30 miles thick. When you detect that you are within an island block then you can look at the water, look at the clouds, look at birds, etc. to find directions toward land. And once you have made landfall at any island it's comparatively easier to navigate between islands. Even if you \"get lost\" you can just go back to where you were, the whole island \"block\" is a huge area and easy to stay within, so you can iteratively problem solve your way toward finding specific islands.\n\nThis also helps explain the exploration aspect as well. In some cases it was possible to guess at the existence of other island chains and go exploring. Many of the island chains of south Polynesia are close together, basically neighbors of one another, many of them would inevitably be discovered by accident (through, say, venturing out for fishing) even without concerted exploration endeavors. However, the navigation aspects I mentioned above also make it much easier to speculatively explore other areas for islands, not just because it made it easier to detect being near other islands, but also because it made it much easier to get *back*. If I leave my island chain to go adventuring but find nothing, I am still fairly sure of my ability to return safely because it's simply a matter of sailing in the right direction and being able to run into somewhere within the huge area of my home island block.\n\nAs for the details of long range ocean travel, it's important here to not be fooled into thinking that the only vessels available to the Polynesians were small \"canoes\". Some of the ocean going vessels of the Polynesians were enormous vessels with the ability to carry many dozens of crew and enclosed structures (houses) built on the deck. These were perfectly suitable for long ocean crossings. Today a reproduction vessel, the Hokule'a, sails all across the Pacific, and it is small compared to some of the largest known Polynesian vessels. Additionally, here again it's important to recontextualize the problem space. It is not necessary to have the capability to travel from anywhere in Polynesia to anywhere else at any time desired, instead the \"minimum viable solution\" is simply being able to make a voyage with a reasonable probability of success when the time and conditions (ocean currents, prevailing winds, etc.) are ripe for it. And that turns out to bring a lot of the ocean crossings between South Pacific islands into the realm of possibility.\n\nThis isn't to downplay the risks of such exploration or to diminish the courage and audacity of the Polynesian voyagers, it took tremendous effort, considerable skill, and enormous boldness to explore and settle the islands of the Pacific. However, it was not a matter of blind \"russian roulette\" nor of relying on luck carrying the day amidst an onslaught of attempts, as I mentioned, it was a matter of careful skill and preparation as well as boldness and determination.\n\nTo learn more on this I'd highly suggest reading the book [*\"Vaka Moana\"* edited by K.R. Howe](_URL_0_), it delves thoroughly into every aspect of Polynesian settlement and history." ] }

[]

[ "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Pacific_Culture_Areas.png" ]

[ [ "http://www.thenina.com/", "http://www.hokulea.com/vessels/hokulea/", "https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1408491111" ], [ "https://www.amazon.com/Vaka-Moana-Voyages-Ancestors-Settlement/dp/0824832132/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cgct3ga" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ " > about some references to people landing in Ireland from the East.\n\nI'm confused about this. Visitors to Ireland form Turtle Island (North America) would come from the West, not East. Is this a typo?" ] }

[]

[ "http://www.reddit.com/r/IrishHistory/comments/212g5t/american_indians_discover_galway_ireland_before/" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ddllaj5", "ddloemm" ], "score": [ 10, 2 ], "text": [ "Until an expert gets here, I'd like to point you to the works of Bart Ehrman, who has an extensive output covering the era of Jesus of Nazareth, and early Christianity. As a trained historian, I found his books \"How Jesus became God,\" \"Lost Christianities,\" \"Forged,\" and \"Did Jesus Exist?\" a great starting point. All are going to address the canonical and noncanonical accounts of Jesus' resurrection. If you're hoping to find a critical, secular textual analysis, you'll be in luck with these works. If you're looking for incontrovertible historical proof that the Resurrection happened, I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere. ", "Karl Barth has an interesting take on the resurrection of Christ, something he calls the \"supra-historical.\" He is a well renowned Christian scholar, but this particular topic has been controversial because of his more unorthodox beliefs. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbnm35o", "cbnm7bl", "cbnm7s7", "cbnmjz4", "cbnyxf2" ], "score": [ 21, 9, 4, 301, 2 ], "text": [ "The day the crisis was announced by Kennedy they evacuated all the women and children. Marines were sent in to reinforce the base, boosting the number of US soldiers stationed there to over 5000. There would have been a lot of construction going on, building bunkers, digging foxholes and making other sorts of fortifications. The soldiers would have had a wide range of duties like training for combat or surveying the surrounding mountainsides for Cuban fortifications. Basically preparing for war. Though it was all for naught because 15 miles away the Russians had cruise missiles with nuclear warheads pointed at the base and would have destroyed the base in its entirety if the war had began.", "Dino Brugioni, who worked at NPIC during the crisis, has written an excellent book ([Eyeball to Eyeball](_URL_0_)) on the Cuban Missile Crisis as a whole, and has covered in some detail the decisions related to the Guantanamo Bay base.\n\nHis recollections are that all the activity at Gitmo had to be very carefully handled because any change in activity there could alert the Cuban and Soviet leadership to what the US knew, and when it knew it. So, for instance, the decision whether to evacuate the 2,800 women & children (dependents of men stationed at the base) was weighed in this light: would the Soviets think us weak if we moved those families out of harm's way? Or would they see it as a prelude to a military action?\n\nFurther, after the evacuation and subsequent reinforcing of the Marine and Navy personnel still at Guantanamo Bay, the Cuban military reacted by increasing their level of readiness, and the amount of activity around Gitmo tipped off US reporters to the fact that the \"Berlin crisis\" cover story was just that, a cover, and that something serious was happening in Cuba.\n\nI highly recommend the book, it's a fascinating read from the point of view of someone who really was in the thick of the entire crisis, and details like the family evacuation from Guantanamo Bay really fill out the size of the story and how far-reaching it's implications were.", "Final proof of the missiles was achieved by VFP-62 photo recon flights from ~~Guantanamo~~ Florida. \nThe photo reconnaissance enabled Adlai Stevenson to pin the USSR ambassador with certain proof.\n\nThe scene from \"13 days\" shows some of the events, but there are details disputed by Cmdr Ecker.\n[Scene from film](_URL_3_) \nFor instance, Ecker claims he was *not* hit by enemy fire at all.\nCmdr Eckers comments: \n_URL_2_\n\n > Ecker said one moment in his adventure was depicted accurately in the film. That was his top-secret debriefing by a round table of the nation's joint military chiefs. Ecker was dispatched to that meeting immediately after the film taken by his plane was unloaded in Jacksonville. \"They didn't even let me get out of the plane,\" he said. Ecker was then whisked by limousine to a Pentagon conference room known as the \"tank.\" He recalled that Curtis LeMay, the cigar-chomping head of the Air Force, was jealous that Ecker, the leader of a paltry Navy squadron, had upstaged the Air Force by obtaining the crucial photos. Later, when President Kennedy awarded Ecker's squadron with a presidential citation, LeMay pouted in a limousine, refusing to participate. \"He sat in the car and smoked a cigar -- because we skunked him,\" Ecker recalled.\n\n\n_URL_1_\n > The unarmed photo Crusader was operated aboard carriers as a detachment (Det) from either VFP-62 or VFP-63 to provide photo reconnaissance capability as RF-8A proved ideal for the task of getting low altitude detailed photographs. During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, RF-8As flew extremely hazardous low-level photo reconnaissance missions over Cuba with overflights beginning on 23 October 1962. These were the first true operational flights of the F-8 Crusader. Flights of RF-8As, operating in several pairs of aircraft, with each pair assigned a different target, left Key West twice each day, to fly over Cuba at low level, then return to Jacksonville, where the film was offloaded and developed, to be rushed north to the Pentagon.\nThese flights confirmed that the Soviet Union was setting up IRBMs in Cuba. The RF-8As also monitored the withdrawal of the Soviet missiles. To keep score after an overflight, each aircraft was given a stencil of a dead chicken. The overflights went on for about six weeks and returned a total of 160,000 images. The pilots who flew the missions all received Distinguished Flying Crosses, while VFP-62 received the prestigious U.S. Navy Unit Commendation.\n\nMore info collected here: \n_URL_0_\n\n\nEdit: I was under the assumption the photo-recon flights were from Gitmo, but they originated from Key West.\n\nAs for Gitmo flights, they were the cuase of several Cuban diplomatic complaints, for airspace violation, bombing and landings in Cuban territory.\n_URL_4_ \n > January 3: In a diplomatic note to the U.S. Government, Cuba protests 119 violations of its territory, 76 by planes from Guantánamo Naval Base. \n\n > March 20: By diplomatic note, Cuba protests to the U.S. Government about repeated provocations by soldiers at the U.S. naval base in Guantánamo, Cuba.\n\n > April 9: Cuba sends another diplomatic note to protest provocations by U.S. soldiers at Guantánamo Naval Base. These incidents are in addition to continual aerial and naval bombardment, sabotage of crops and industry, occasional landings along the coast, and assassinations.\n\n\n", "On October 22, 1962, about a week after the Soviet missiles were discovered, Kennedy made a televised announcement about the crisis. About 2,800 civilians, including families and non-essential personnel, were evacuated from Guantanamo, and 5,000 Marines were sent to reinforce the garrison there. \n\nThis was a sizable force, but it was not the main focus of the evolving U.S. plans to attack Cuba. A larger \nMarine force was arrayed off Cuba's northern coast in amphibious ships; this force would have been tasked with securing northern Cuba. A much larger force of several divisions was hastily being assembled in Florida. The Marines at Guantanamo and offshore would have been used to secure beachheads and for surgical strikes, not a full-blown invasion. \n\nOn October 24, Soviet and Cuban forces moved from central Cuba to a staging position at Vilorio with a number of nuclear-tipped FKR cruise missiles. Two days later, this unit relocated to Filipinas, a better-placed location 15 miles from Guantanamo. Had a shooting war begun, this unit would have launched its missiles and annihilated every living thing at the U.S. naval base in a matter of minutes.\n\n[source](_URL_0_)", "I asked a related question a while ago here that shed some light on Guantanamo's history.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n*EDIT: Great question OP. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/Eyeball-Inside-Story-Missile-Crisis/dp/0679748784/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1376496871&sr=8-2&keywords=Eyeball+to+Eyeball" ], [ "http://www.vfp62.com/cuban.html", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-8_Crusader#Operational_history", "http://www.vfp62.com/Ecker_Comments.html", "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tho5ZYLiuoc&t=56m25s", "http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~hbf/missile.htm" ], [ "http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/dobbs/gitmo.htm" ], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ify4a/how_did_the_united_states_come_to_own_or_lease/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e9x53g1" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "There is no evidence nor do any historians believe that the trojan war happened anything like the story\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1i0goq/what_evidence_is_there_on_the_trojan_war/cazyc2m/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8y57q5/has_enough_evidence_been_uncovered_to_determine/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/70698n/why_do_some_historians_completely_dismiss_the/dn1cftl/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cabg9bh", "cabigo7", "cabm4gt", "cabm6dp", "cabwml2" ], "score": [ 36, 14, 56, 19, 7 ], "text": [ "Most Arab countries were secular or largely secular until relatively recently. For most of post-independence Arab history, the primary political cleaveage has been secular military dictatorships (i.e. Free Officer's Movement, the Ba'ath Party in Syria and Iraq, the FLN in Algeria, etc) and Islamists of varying ideological intensities (i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Syria, the FIS in Algeria). Until the Arab Spring, those secular dictatorships held power in almost every country, though many experienced violent Islamist uprisings (Algeria, Syria). So basically, those secularization drives did happen, if not as intense and focused as they were in Turkey. It's only relatively recently (since 1980 or so) that Arab countries have begun to experience consistent, influential and even dominant political Islam.", "Although more than 50% of its population today is Muslim, I am not sure you could call Albania part of the Islamic world. However, under Enver Hoxha, Socialist Albania underwent in 1967 massive and violent efforts to expunge religion from Albanian society, closing mosques and churches and using agitators to harass religious institutions and individuals. After this campaign, Albania was declared the world's first officially atheist state.", "Yes; [Ba'athism](_URL_0_) was an attempt at a secular, socialist, pan-Arab renaissance that had varying degrees of support in Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt--Saddam Hussein and Hafez al-Assad were both Ba'athists.\n\n[Nasserism](_URL_1_) was another secular, socialist, Arab nationalist movement that intended to unite Arabs in solidarity with other developing nations so as not to become puppets of the Cold War US/Soviet binary. Egypt was, of course, the big bankroller of this project (it's the philosophy of Egyptian president Gamal abd-en-Nasser).\n\nMost other Arab countries have had secular authoritarian regimes, influenced to varying degrees by the pan-Arab socialist movements of the 1950s and 60s, including Tunis, Libya, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq, Egypt, and Syria.\n\nIslamic fundamentalism actually owes its resurgence in part to the economic, diplomatic, and human-rights failures of those secular movements. Guys like Muammar Gaddhafi, Saddam Hussein, Hafez al-Assad, and Hosni Mubarak built universities, encouraged women's education, and abolished the more regressive elements of Islamic law--but they were also mind-bogglingly corrupt and repressive in their own right.\n\nSince, then, Islamists have preached that the poverty and brutality of life in the Arab world is largely the result of Arabs straying from Islamic principles in favor of secular social engineering.", "Iran got pretty secularized under the Pahlavis, the last two Shahs who ruled before the revolution in 1979. Reza Shah banned women from wearing the chador, ordered an end to gender segregation in public places and higher education, and replaced much of the sharia law in Iran's legal code with European style civil law. Desegregating public places opened the way for many more women to enter the workplace, and his son, Mohammad Reza, passed several laws during his reign to reduce the burden on working mothers: Employers were obligated to give 10 weeks of paid maternity leave, and workplaces that employed 10 or more pregnant women and new mothers were required to organize a nursery where women could visit once every three hours. Mohammad Reza also removed the influence of sharia law in family law when he passed the Family Protection Law of 1967, which stated that a man could only take additional wives with his first wife's approval; raised the minimum age of marriage to 15 for girls and 18 for boys; allowed women to file for divorce on grounds of imprisonment, addiction, abuse, abandonment, or marrying another woman without consent. Nearly all of these, of course, were reversed after Ayatollah Khomeini took over.", "You might be interested in [the Arab Cold War](_URL_1_)\n\nThe Arab Cold War pitted pan-arabist states (that were also quasi-socialist and secular), against the monarchies (who were mostly Islamic theocracies). The states involved were Egypt under Nasser, Syria under Baath, against Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the other Gulf states of Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, etc. \n\nThe US and Britain supported the monarchies and not the secular states because the pan-arabist states tended to be aggressively anti-colonialist. Nasser openly supported the Algerian independence movement against France and was generally anti-western.\n\nThis culminated in a regional proxy war in Yemen, that was known as [\"Egypt's Vietnam\".](_URL_0_) \n\nEgypt and Syria supported the republican revolutionaries in Yemen, and Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Britain supported the monarchy.\n\n\nAlso, I find it amusing that most people only associate Turkey with secularism. Ben Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt, and Assad in Syria were all secular leaders from secular political parties. That didn't stop them from being rabid dictators. Even Saddam was officially secular, being from the Baath party (pan-arabist socialist party). " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'ath_Party", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasserism" ], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemen_civil_war", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Cold_War" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clel3qo", "clelmos", "clelzvu", "clewb18", "clewnaf" ], "score": [ 2, 6, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Bonus Answer (further podcasts):\n\n[12 Byzantine Rulers](_URL_1_) by Lars Brownworth is simply amazing, although a lot shorter and more focused than Mike. \n\nThe transition is a lot harder but I think [The History of England](_URL_0_) might scratch that itch. It's in a very similar style to the History of Rome and I have been enjoying it immensely lately.", "[The History of Byzantium](_URL_0_) is a podcast whose explicit goal is going from where Mike Duncan's podcast left off and continuing till the fall of the Empire to the Ottomans. So far he's up to the end of the 7th century. As a layman, it seems pretty good, but I wonder if any of the flaired users have an opinion?\n\n**edited because I cannot into spelling or format", "Funny enough, I love his \"[Revolutions](_URL_0_)\" podcast and had no idea he had one focused on Rome. I love Roman history so this is a most definite must-have for me... I cannot really testify on the virtues of a podcast I just discovered (Rome) but he is rather good with his insights and accuracy regarding the French revolution so far.", " > I also have never really seen anything regarding the transition from the Roman Empire to medieval Europe. It doesn't necessarily have to a podcast (or one \"thing\"). Just something fairly accessible, but detailed, for someone casually interested in the \"story\" of history.\n\nThere is an Early Middle Ages iTunes University or Podcaste that seams to cover this period. Its on my \"Listening\" List.", "After finishing The History of Rome, I enjoyed Dr. Paul Freedman's Yale class online, \"The Early Middle Ages 284-1000.\" \n\nIt's \"only\" 22 classes but was very well done and is also on iTunes U. Where the periods overlapped with THOR, I found it complementary and engaging.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://historyofengland.typepad.com/", "http://12byzantinerulers.com/" ], [ "http://thehistoryofbyzantium.com" ], [ "http://www.revolutionspodcast.com/" ], [], [ "http://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-210", "https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL77A337915A76F660&feature=view_all" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ct1nvsf", "ct24wz4", "ct2gf34" ], "score": [ 50, 8, 2 ], "text": [ "Not having the roads turn into mud is really really really important. As an example, during the Crimean War of 1853-56 although on paper the Russians had an army of of 1.25 or so million men they could never use it, only ever deploying around 750k at a time. Part of the problem was that they din't have the equipment but the major bit was that they could not supply it since there were no proper roads, during spring and autumn they turned into bogs which were impossible to get wagons over. In summer they were dust bowls and winter they froze solid and were still incredibly difficult to transport stuff over. Indeed, it was quicker for the emperor in Petersburg to learn the events of the war with telegrams from Paris, it was simply faster then getting a message overland from Azov or wherever the battle. Now, this example is very far removed from the era that we are talking about, but still seems relevant considering the poor (nearly nonexistent) Russian transport infrastructure. For instance the Alamanni invaded Italy in 271, the emperor was far away in Pannonia, yet due to the extensive road network he was able to reach and defeat them relatively quickly, they crossed the mountains in early January and were routed very quickly later that year, unfortunately I can't find a date for the battle itself. This would have been impossible without the strategic mobility that an advanced road network provided. Another pro of roads that you seem to have overlooked somewhat is that the roads lubricate the flow of goods through the empire, especially bulk goods like grain, which was often imported to inland cities from Egypt, oil and wine -- their use was not purely military but was still essential. Further, the roads were much less expensive that one might think because the people that built them were legionaries when there was no campaign, they were professional soldiers and were still paid, it made sense to keep them busy when there was no fighting to do. Basically, Roman Roads really did justify their expense, mobility is one of the most valuable assets that an army can have the roads provided that in spades. \n\nAs for why concrete was not used I cannot answer the question, you'd have to ask an engineer. My assumption would be that they did not ave the technology to mass produce enough concrete and then move it the long distances that road making requires.\n\nIncidentally the reason for the layers was to ensure proper drainage, if you just spread gravel the water cannot percolate through clay soil and you end up with another mud bowl.", "Hey, I am gonna hop into this question first, \"Are there other advantages to Roman roads that I am not considering?\"\n\nOne of the reasons that I decided to go to college to study the Roman Empire was because I couldn't wrap my head around how they became so powerful. People love to attribute the rise and fall of the empire (and preceding period of royalty) to a variety of different things, but to me it appears that it was seemingly minor infrastructure innovations/changes that made a huge difference. One of these infrastructure things was their roadways.\n\nIt wasn't just the durability of the roads that changed things, but what took place along the roads. The roads gave them an accurate way to map the world. Something as simple as being able to measure a mile seems so easy to us currently, but back then it was an incredibly complex task. Roadways allowed them to -very- accurately map their own world which was a huge game changer when it came to moving armies as well as moving goods. \n\nSaying something like “They are three days of riding away” spread across an entire continent was a logistical nightmare and something that plagued quite a few larger empires. (Many empires came up with some solutions, but Rome is the topic so I'll stick with that). Rome's roads changed that. A consul could tell when a cohort would arrive in Brundisium after leaving Rome within an hour or two.\n\nSo what else did they do? They had mile markers which were actually invented by the average “pace” of a soldier. They had inns/forts/outposts that made it easy to move information very quickly with fresh horses (precursor to the pony express). They had patrols that kept the roads relatively safe for the time, and this meant that goods had less overhead and would be more profitable to bring into the empire where they could be taxed.\n\nAs for concrete: It was used, but sparingly on the roads. The concrete of the period was much different than what we use today. It was used quite extensively at different points in the empire, but its durability and expense would make it impossible to use over 60k miles of far-flung roads. Multiple layers used for compacting and drainage were very very effective and efficient.\n\nHope that helped answer your question. The short answer, their roadways helped further the art/tool of topography which made the empire manageable. I would postulate that it was the “accuracy” of their roads that really changed things. \n\nAnd remember, all roads lead to Rome.", " > Are there other advantages to Roman roads that I am not considering? \n\nHere's one: propaganda.\n\nRome's roads were one of the most visible symbols of its power, especially out in the provinces. Troops come and go. But the road is always there, a reminder that the might of the Empire can come marching to your doorstep whenever it pleases.\n\nThe Romans' obsession with building straight, paved roads even when they had to construct multiple bridges to do so, had marginal practical gains (relative to the cost of construction) compared to more winding tracks, but it certainly helped the propaganda.\n\n(Though we should bear in mind that not all Roman roads were -that- straight and big and high-quality. There were rules for minimum width and the like, so that carts could pass one another, but in practice these were sometimes flouted in difficult and mountainous terrain. There were limits to even Roman engineering.)\n\nOn a smaller scale, many of the early roads were constructed by individual rich Romans and bore their names. (Via Appia, Via Flaminia, etc.) Obviously, this was an immense source of prestige for both these individuals and their descendants. It was another motivation to make sure the roads looked impressive.\n\nThe practical reasons the others have mentioned in this thread trumped the propaganda and prestige function, but it's an interesting angle to look from." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cezwrui" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "A few of my previous posts have answered questions about the air war on the Eastern Front:\n\n[Why the German's didn't firebomb Stalingrad](_URL_1_)\n\n[The evolution of Soviet fighter design during the interwar years and the beginning of WW2] (_URL_0_)\n\nA few basic points to take away are: \n\n* The German Luftwaffe was a serious force to be reckoned with at the onset of Operation Barbarossa. In comparison, the Soviet Air Force consisted of antiquated planes that suffered from lack of proper maintenance and poorly trained pilots that were quick to run away from their Luftwaffe counterparts.\n\n* Lack of a central command system or tactical battle plan for the Soviet Air Force. While the Luftwaffe was used as ground support, tactical bombing, and fighter combat patrols, the Soviets lacked a consistent battle plan during the first years of Barbarossa. This allowed the Luftwaffe to gain a significant air superiority from the outset. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1sxlgt/what_were_the_main_national_differences_in/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1v91t6/why_didnt_the_germans_firebomb_stalingrad/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbhakhy", "cbhceo2" ], "score": [ 5, 6 ], "text": [ "Brutus and Cassius had the basic motive of restoring the Republic. Julius Caesar had just had himself declared Dictator For Life, making himself a king in all but name. And this is probably was the straw that broke the camel's back. Romans were proud of having overthrown their king and establish a Republic, Brutus was in fact descended from, and named after, the man who supposedly slew Rome's last king. \n\nThe Senate didn't really so much as give in to Augustus as they did submit to him. During the Second Triumvirate period Augustus had already gained near total power over Rome. The Augustus won himself great acclaim among the people by ending the last round of civil wars by defeating Mark Antony and Cleopatra. This had the added bonus of making him the sole military power in Rome. He promised an end to what had been roughly 58 years of on and off again civil wars. Peace was very popular. And Augustus staged political theater like no other too. He made a big show of retiring his armies and going home to become what we might call \"a gentleman farmer\" only to have the Senate beholden to his authority. Though we historically note him as Rome's first emperor, its doubtful he ever used that term. He rather liked the more republican term *princeps* which could be translated as \"first citizen\" making it sound like he was a first among equals as opposed to the sole ruler. This was genius as it reserved to him the powers he had won during ", "We know why certain of the assassins did what they did, but we neither know how many people were in on the plot, nor what the exact motives of many of the conspirators were (since there were many more involved who did not actually strike a blow). The ringleaders, Brutus and Cassius were more or less tyrannicides-to-be. In particular, Brutus according to Plutarch seems to have had a serious complex about not yielding to the tyranny of a king. Cassius is somewhat less interesting, since among his motives seems to have been jealousy that political prominence had been given to Caesar's favorites rather than to himself. Cassius played on Brutus' pretensions to his ancestor's legacy, and also made Brutus feel guilty. What did Brutus have to be guilty about? He had been one of Caesar's best friends before the Gallic War (back when his name was still Caepio) and had betrayed Caesar to join the Pompeians at Pharsalus. After the battle Caesar welcomed Brutus and others back with open arms and a forgiving heart (to the extent that we can say Caesar ever forgave anyone) and Brutus once again became a favorite of Caesar's. In Brutus' mind, as Caesar became more and more regal, he was becoming a traitor to his own family and his own name, something that Cassius played off. The other conspirators had varying motives from jealousy to hatred. Very few of them actually gave a shit about the Republic, since most of the high-minded Republicans had been killed off in the Civil War, and the only one who seems to have placed moral principles above personal gain was Cato (who was dead). However, there were an awful lot more conspirators than just the tyrannicides. Not only do we not know who they were, but they probably had no moral principles behind them. For example, Cicero has been suggested as having been a member of the conspiracy. Certainly he knew about it, that much is known, and he also did nothing to stop it, but whether he was an active participant is uncertain. He had everything to gain by killing Caesar, and just about nothing to lose, so long as he remained in the shadows. Another possible conspirator that both Syme and Badian point to is Mark Antony. Antony liked to boast in later life that he had been Caesar's right-hand lieutenant, but this was pretty far from the truth. Antony, to Caesar, was a tool, and one that at several points wore out its usefulness. Antony was used by Caesar mainly to cover his rear in Italy when he was out on campaigns, and several times Antony incurred Caesar's displeasure by acting stupidly or against orders, resulting in a loss of favor. Just before Caesar's death Antony had been in a pretty low point in Caesar's favor and Antony had everything to gain by assassinating Caesar--after all, he was still technically the second most important Caesarian, even if Caesar no longer trusted him and was planning to place important positions away from his hands in the coming years. And, in fact, when Caesar was murdered it was Antony who gained the most, not the Republicans. Antony gained control of the Caesarian party, which controlled the army, most of the state, and all the money. While many senators suddenly flocked to the Republican banner, they quickly withdrew their support when Octavian showed that he was not an ally of the Republic, as Cicero had hoped, but defected over to Antony. \n\nNow, as for the Senate and Octavian. Originally when the tyrannicides killed Caesar and fled, much of the Senate was in solid support of them. It must be understood, however, how several generations of civil strife had decimated the ranks of the nobility pretty severely. By the time Caesar had assumed power after Pharsalus and the African War the nobility that remained were all shiftless thugs and losers who had supported Caesar, except for a couple who were cowering in fear like the little cowards they were. The harshness in the judgement is completely justified, because most of these people were in fact either spineless cowards or completely immoral losers (like Dolabella). Most of these people were completely willing either to give in to force, or side with whoever would benefit them the most. Immediately following Caesar's death there was a sudden upsurge in Republican sentiment, which died pretty quickly when it became clear that the Caesarians weren't going to stand for that--and that they had Octavian, who carried the magical name of Caesar with him. Republicanism had been dead for a very long time, and any real chance for the Republic to re-emerge had died, as Syme notes, with Cato in Africa. Octavian and Antony together were ruthless in their destruction of the tyrranicide faction (because they really shouldn't be called Republicans. The people who had supported them had not done so for Republican reasons). In addition to seizing the city of Rome, then defeating the tyrannicides at Philippi, Antony and Octavian sent out a wave of prosctiptions rivalling those of Sulla. One of the important victims was Cicero, Antony's *bete noire*. Following that there really wasn't anyone left in the Republican party to challenge Octavian and Antony. Octavian's only threat now was the Antonians, and he overcame them eventually. But the point is that nobody was about to say no to Octavian when he was ready to surround the Senate with the Praetorian Guard (which he did, just before the War of Actium, to force the Senate to accept him as commander and declare Antony an enemy) and when at the slightest problem he could have you thrown in prison and executed (which he also did, although he was pretty subtle about it)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ce6f6xz", "ce6fiqd", "ce6fxfs", "ce6gpgz", "ce6h5xc", "ce6hojz", "ce6m8x5" ], "score": [ 4, 15, 29, 3, 3, 2, 15 ], "text": [ "I'll just try to answer the first two. \n\n > The text of the OP states that WWI was a \"useless war.\" Is that really true? Were there no substantive changes in the geo-political situation in Europe as a result of WWI? What about socially, economically, etc.?\n\nThere seems to be sort of two camps when it comes to WW1. There's the \"the war was a useless tragedy\" camp and the \"the war was worth it\" camp. I haven't read any of the latter historians, but I'm not sure if the former camp's position refers to the utterly tragic way the war was fought, or the war as a whole, or both. As for how the war was fought, that is undisputably tragic. The variously offensives and defensives at Verdun, the Somme, Ypres, along the ~~Champs-Élysées~~ Champagne; the vast majority of which involves such little gain in territory at such a great loss of life, in the tens of thousands over a mere few days; there is no other word for it.\n\n > The top comment[3] counters the OP's assertion of a useless war by stating that it lead to the independence of some Eastern European countries. How accurate is this? Would those countries have become independent soon anyway (i.e., was WWI a proximate cause or a long-term cause of their independence)?\n\nI'm currently reading a book called *Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World* by Margaret MacMillen. Woodrow Wilson was big on 'self-determination' but he was always vague about just what he meant by it. Many nations, particularly in Eastern Europe, were not created by the Peace Conference as many of those nations had already more or less come into being. The book has a chapter on the creation of Yugoslavia. While Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (Serbs inside the empire) did gain independence insofar as they were able to break away from Austria-Hungary as it disintegrated, the new Yugoslav state came to resemble in actuality a Greater Serbia where other ethnicities would have to submit to a state dominated by Serbians.\n\nAs was the case in all of Eastern Europe, the proponents of the new Yugoslav state tried to take as much territory as possible. It was a veritable free for all, with the exception of those Central Power countries like Hungary who could only watch as pieces of their territory were stripped from them as a punitive measure that the Allies were all to happy to consent to. The Serbian representatives to the Peace Conference would show grossly fraudulent and distorted maps to mislead Wilson, Clemenceau and Lloyd George and the others as to who lived where, where the traditional claims were, and what the new state was entitled to for its role in the war.\n\nSo it was less about self-determination in some countries (hell, Germany's colonies were simply taken over by Britain and her dominions - Australia got Paupa New Guinea and Nauru - so much for self-determination there) and more about the creation of new states that involved the consolidation of power and territory. And as far as Yugoslavia is concerned, it was a disaster.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n", "The last one is definitely false. \n\nYes German industry was growing very fast and in fact had overtaken Britain in certain areas. But they were also each others biggest trade partners. They created so much wealth for one another that many people thought war was now inconceivable between the two countries as it would be so devastating to their own interests.\n\nThat said there were tensions between the two countries. Mainly based around the fact that Germany was building a huge navy. This was pretty much a direct military challenge to Britain who relied on naval supremacy to ensure her security. Yet even then there was by no means much warmongering (see previous paragraph), if there had been such sentiment Britain could have been far more aggressive over incidents like the Moroccan Crisis.", "Edit: added two more answers I feel somewhat qualified to respond to:\n\n > > The text of the OP states that WWI was a \"useless war.\" Is that really true? Were there no substantive changes in the geo-political situation in Europe as a result of WWI? What about socially, economically, etc.?\n\nNo, this depends entirely on your PoV. It was certainly not \"useless\" for the Bolsheviks under Lenin who came to power in Russia because of WWI and founded the Soviet Union. Nor was it \"useless\" for Serbian nationalists who achieved the dream of Yugoslavia. Nor was it \"useless\" even for France to have regained Alsace-Lorraine. Outside of Europe, it was certainly not \"useless\" for taking the United States one step closer to being the world hegemony. Nor was it useless for Turkey's or the Arab world's path towards nationhood.\n\n > > The top comment counters the OP's assertion of a useless war by stating that it lead to the independence of some Eastern European countries. How accurate is this? Would those countries have become independent soon anyway (i.e., was WWI a proximate cause or a long-term cause of their independence)?\n\nThis is entirely speculative and depends on whether you think Austria Hungary can hold itself together, or whether Russia would ever be willing to give up Poland. But independent Poland or Czechoslovakia by 1919 certainly wasn't going to happen without the war.\n\n > > The OP also claims that \"every country that fought WWI was wrong and it was a waste of human lives and resources.\" I know it's very simplistic to say that one side of a war was right and the other side was wrong, so I'm hoping that someone can expose the complexity of who was \"right\" and who was \"wrong,\" insofar as those are useful terms.\n\nRight and wrong is entirely subjective, to give an example, Whether Austria or Russia was wrong in the events leading up to the war depends entirely on whether you think point 6 of Austria's ultimatum to Serbia was justified (the one demanding Austrian police be allowed free access to Serbia). Which in turn depends on your view of how justified the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was, which in turn depends on your view of nationalism and terrorism and a million other things.\n\n\n\n > > /u/insanehosi also claimed that the Ottoman Empire had been growing just prior to WWI. Is that true? The point he countered -- that WWI was just the end of a long, slow decline for the Ottoman Empire -- is how I understood the situation, so I'd be curious to see how accurate it is.\n\nHe's not\n\n(Edited, someone pointed this out to me) The Ottoman Empire's population and GDP would have suffered a decline due to territory lost from the first Balkan War as well as the loss of Libya to Italy. It's GDP per capita was however, increasing.\n\nWhat he's missing is that, first of all, the Ottoman Empire was both poorer than Europe AND growing slower than the European average (see page 3: _URL_1_). In general, countries with lower GDP/per capita should be growing faster (_URL_0_). Which means that the Ottomans will be lagging behind more and more with every year. And second of all, this doesn't help resolve the key issue of Arab nationalism specifically or how to hold together a multiethnic empire in general. \n\n\n > > Another user also claimed that the war was \"entirely preventable\". How true is this is both the immediate sense and the long-term sense? Basically, at what point did a large-scale war in Europe become inevitable?\n\nIn the immediate sense this is true, I highly recommend Tuchman's Guns of August. The entire opening phases of the war, both diplomatically and militaristic, was characterized by indecisiveness on everyone's part. It was probably avoidable in the sense that, had someone with more foresight being Kaiser or Chancellor in Germany put his foot down on Austria and told the German military to suck it, it probably wouldn't have happened.\n\n\n > > How involved was the industrial complex in causing the war. One user claimed that England's desire to eliminate German industrial competition was the \"main reason\" for the war. I've never heard this before - is it accurate? The first reply to that post argues that the more traditionally cited causes, basically tensions between Austria-Hungary and Russia via Serbia, were more important. Who's in the right?\n\nThere's pretty much a book written about every major participant in the war being the primary cause of the war. See Nail Ferguson's Pity of War for blaming Britian for example.\n\nNow I've never heard the claim that England wanted to eliminate German industrial competition as the \"main reason\" of the war, nor does it make sense (even winning the war would not eliminate industrial competition from Germany). The primary antagonizing factor between the UK and Germany was due to Germany's High Seas Fleet rather than industrial competition.", "1. Not true at all. The most useful argument could be Germany and the implementation of a democracy. Economically a lot changed because Germany was basically destroyed. The world finance crisis hit Germany especially hard because it lost a war. The \"Goldenen 20er\" wouldn't have happened without a war either and the inflation led to the rise of fascism in Italy and the Beer Hall Putsch in Germany wouldn't have happened without WW1 either (or not to that extend). Sources for this would be \"Mein Kampf\" and the different speeches of Mussolini where he spoke against the \"supercapitalism\". Even though the crisis wasn't a direct result of WW1 it hit Europe hard enough that it led to riots all over Europe. Whether it was Gyula Gömbös in Hungary or in France in '34 all those fascist movements were a result of Franco/Hitler/Mussolini's manifests and political anti-capitalistic ideologies. \nIt was as useless as a war can be but to assume that it had no impact on Europe would be an incredibly understatement. \n\n2. It's hard to imagine what would have happened without WW1. Maybe WW2 wouldn't have happened and maybe Europe would still have monarchies. But this is just an assumption. The fact is that even before WW1 there were movements on Eastern Europe to defect from the Ottoman Empire. In fact the dissolution of the Empire started already in the late 18th century with Mustaa IV and some historians even believe that Selim III already started this \"process\" with his military reforms. During those 2 centuries the Ottoman Empire (I'll call it OE from now on) fought 4 wars against Russia which (especially in the Russo-Turkish war) led to many Balkan nations gain sovereignty - Montenegro and Serbia e.g. \nI'm not going to assume anything if and when those countries would have become independant because that'd be just speculation but it's fair to assume that the OR would have had problems even without the allies' intervention. A good argument against the idea of those countries becoming independent would be the fact that the Russian war led to the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk which was also incredibly relevant to the OE's future even though this treaty is mostly know for the German-Russian relations. With this treaty it could be argued that the OE could have focussed on internal problems rather than focussing on its rival Russia. However this was rendered redundant with the treaty of Sèvres which regulated the partitioning of the OE.\nI'll leave 3,4,5 and 6 unanswered because there were many interesting comments who already explained those points. All in All I don't think that the /r/europe thread was really wrong. It was just incredibly inaccurate and as you already stated simplistic. \n", "I'll try to take a stab at number 5. \n\nOne gets into murky territory describing things in history has inevitable or preventable, but I would argue that a large-scale European war was more likely than not to happen eventually. The specific events leading up to the Great War are well documented, and I think most historians would agree that there were some serious diplomatic blunders made throughout the summer of 1914 that made the outbreak of war more likely than it had to be. \n\nHowever, if you look at the situation around the turn of the century in Europe, it's easy to see a number of things that do make some sort of war seem likely, even if Gavrilo Princip hadn't pulled the trigger. Those include:\n\n1) The situation in the Balkans, which saw three lumbering empires trying to contain the burgeoning nationalism of a complicated network of national identities yearning for statehood. This is not to suggest that Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire were necessarily headed for irreversible decline, but in the understanding of the time, nationalism was becoming the primary factor by which states possessed legitimacy. The hereditary kingdoms struggled with this fact, often clumsily incorporating nationalism into their own political mythos, sometimes to their own peril. In other words, as shown by the two Balkan wars immediately prior to WWI, the Eastern question was not resolved, and any change in circumstances seemed inevitably to lead to war. \n\n2) Imperial competition: It has often been argued that Germany should have been content with her economic and industrial power on the continent of Europe, and leave the colonial adventuring to the other great powers. However, I have always thought that this discounts the importance with which European powers held their colonial possessions as a marker of power, wealth, and status. The informal diplomatic practices of the concert of Europe had helped maintain the peace throughout the 19th century by ensuring that all (or most) of the great powers were compensated when there were changes in territory, treaties ending wars, etc. However, by the turn of the century, many politicians seem to have begun viewing geo-politics as more of a zero-sum game. Some Germans in particular felt slighted, seeing their status as a great power threatened, particularly after experiencing a backlash from Britain over the question of the high seas fleet. \n\n3) Social unrest and the understanding of war: In 1914, the last major conflagration on European soil had been the Napoleonic wars 100 years earlier. While the Crimean War gave some sense of the horrors of stalemated trench warfare, many viewed this as an aberration. Since the wars of German and Italian unification had been very short (though certainly not bloodless), most assumed that a 20th century war would be as well. In other words, the level of risk of going to war seemed much lower than it does after the world wars. I mention this in conjunction with social unrest because of the understanding among many of Europe's ruling classes that the continent was sliding into decadence. War seemed redemptive, purifying, and the embodiment of healthy masculinity. Peace seemed lazy and slothful, and with the growing strength of socialist parties in Europe, peace seemed to some to breed a loud and entitled class of people concerned with baser issues. The word materialism was on the lips of many who marched off in 1914--war seemed to a lot of people to be a path towards pure experience. Indeed, a major question for the more parliamentary nations was whether their respective socialist parties would support a war in the face of their ideology which called for an international brotherhood of labor. One by one, they all chose war in 1914, temporarily confirming to many of the middle and upper classes the righteousness of their military crusade. \n\nIn other words, WWI as it happened was avoidable, since the events of July 1914 included some serious diplomatic errors and in some ways, a blase attitude toward war in general. But had the war not begun then, there were many forces that appear to have been pushing Europe in the direction of some kind of war in the early 20th century. ", "1) WWI was a very expensive conflict in terms of lives, but there were advances made in many fields, and the resulting mass of veterans were often advocates of social change. The changes WWI caused were vast. Advances in medicine, the invention of tanks, the changes in the attitude of the lower classes to the upper both on and off the battlefield, changes in housing and unemployment, changes of government, the list is enormous.\n\n3) I suppose so, if you take the moral stance that war is wrong? :-/\n\n5) Is true. There were several crises in the build up to WWI that were just as serious, and yet were resolved with diplomacy (e.g. The Moroccan Crisis of 1905-6). This encouraged brinksmanship, until it got to the point that diplomacy failed. Large-scale war became inevitable arguably as soon as Germany provided A-H with their \"blank cheque\". This ensured A-H's response, which ensured Russia's response, etc. It was all interlocking timetables from then onwards. But WWI was definitely not \"inevitable\" as some would have you believe. For instance, Franz Ferdinand was strongly anti-war, and had another Serbian/A-H flashpoint been ignited, it is likely he would have been a calming influence.\n\n6) Britain ran a deficit with Germany on trade in goods, but it had a surplus on things like shipping and insurance, and overall it was complementary rather than competitive. British home markets were encroached on by Germany, but British exports revived in a trade boom preceding 1914 and this was not a real bone of contention. British policy preferred to contain Germany rather than fight.\n\nNorman Angell's The Great Illusion, a pre-war book, stated that financial interdependence made war unthinkable. Sadly, this was not so, and the growth of the international bond market actually helped fund the war.", "What boggles the mind most of all for me is that the OP of that post is a (fellow) Belgian and he writes: \"**We were wrong in that war**, Germany was wrong, England was wrong, France was wrong\" (bolding mine). How on earth was Belgium wrong? We were a neutral country that was invaded and occupied. He also says: \"if I talk with mostly English tourists, it's always as if that war was necessary for our freedom and so on.\" Well, excuse me, but what were our soldiers fighting for *but* the liberation of their country from the Germans? \n\nBelgium wasn't doing any saber-rattling before the Germans decided to trample us underfoot to get to France. How was it \"useless\" to resist a foreign invasion and to fight for the freedom of your town and family?" ] }

[]

[ "http://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1t93fg/we_need_to_be_honest_with_wwi_and_stop_the/?limit=500", "http://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1t93fg/we_need_to_be_honest_with_wwi_and_stop_the/ce5rbos", "http://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1t93fg/we_need_to_be_honest_with_wwi_and_stop_the/ce5qae6", "http://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1t93fg/we_need_to_be_honest_with_wwi_and_stop_the/ce5srwd", "http://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1t93fg/we_need_to_be_honest_with_wwi_and_stop_the/ce5lfq6" ]

[ [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergence_%28economics%29", "http://departments.agri.huji.ac.il/economics/teachers/plessner_yakir/yakir-ottoman.pdf" ], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbynilf" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "This isn't a full answer to your question, but since you've asked twice now and gotten no response, I will give you what I do know. For the tl;dr skip to the very last paragraph.\n\n\n*Some Background*\n\nWilliam Marbury's case is associated with the midnight judges, both because of the timing of his commission, and because of the political concerns that the Justices of the Supreme Court certainly had on their minds when they decided the case; but strictly speaking, he was not himself a midnight judge.\n\nThe original Judiciary Act of 1789 had created only a very limited federal judiciary -- Six Supreme Court Justices and Thirteen District Court Judges. The Supreme Court had a limited term during which it heard cases as the Supreme Court, and the Justices spent the rest of the time travelling around sitting with the local District Judge to form a Circuit Court. The District and Circuit Courts had jurisdiction over cases involving large dollar amounts if the parties weren't citizens of the same state and jurisdiction over maritime/admiralty cases. The Supreme Court could hear some cases in original jurisdiction, but mostly it was a court of appeals for the District and Circuit Courts; and it could also hear appeals from a state court when that state court ruled against someone claiming a federal right. This made the federal judiciary quite limited. Being a Justice pretty unpleasant because of the travel. And the judiciary's statutory jurisdiction (i.e. what it did have) was quite limited compared to its constitutional jurisdiction (i.e. what it could have).\n\nThe Midnight Judges Act changed all that, or at least it tried. Had it remained in effect, it would have created permanent Circuit Courts, relieving the Justices of the need to travel around. And it would have given the federal judiciary essentially the full measure of authority to hear cases that is possible under the Constitution. In large measure, it would have created the sort of judiciary we have now.\n\nThe judges appointed to these newly created positions were \"Article III\" judges, meaning that they should have been guaranteed lifetime appointments unless impeached. William Marbury, on the other hand, was appointed a Justice of the Peace for Washington, DC. This was a position that already existed, and it was a position created under Congress's authority to govern the capital, not its authority to establish a judiciary. He would thus have been an \"Article I\" judge, meaning that he had a limited appointment (for five years in this case).\n\nThe fact that Marbury had been appointed a Justice of the Peace, and not a Midnight Judge, meant that by the time his case could be filed, there was still theoretically a commission for him. You see, when the Jeffersonians/Republicans got into power, they repealed the Midnight Judges Act, abolishing those positions. And they also cancelled the upcoming term of the Supreme Court, so that it could not hear cases for an irregularly long period.\n\n\n*Enter Marbury*\n\nWhen the Supreme Court opened its doors again, Marbury filed suit for a \"writ of mandamus\" to force the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the judicial commission that John Marshall himself (well, his idiot brother, actually) had failed to deliver. Why exactly he filed a suit in the Supreme Court is necessarily a subject of speculation for the following reason: it is fairly obvious from reading the operative Judiciary Act that the Supreme Court was not the place you could go to file a suit to compel a federal officer to do something. Notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme Court said that the statute did (albeit unconstitutionally) give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus, it is fairly clear from the statute itself that the power to issue such a writ is only to be exercised as a form of appellate jurisdiction.\n\nIf I had to speculate, however, I would offer the same speculation as Earnest A. Young, which is that there really wasn't any better court around. Firstly, with the repeal of the Midnight Judges Act, the local federal courts did not have jurisdiction over dispute concerning federal law. And secondly, whether correctly or incorrectly, the state courts of more general jurisdiction (to which the local DC courts were analogous in purpose and powers) might not have felt they could command federal officials. (There is a much, much later case in which a state court asserted that it could issue common-law writs against federal officials, and the Supreme Court denied this assertion, though this decision is almost certainly reflective of the period of American history when it was issued, rather than inescapable legal principles.)\n\n\n*What the Court Said*\n\nThe Court issued the decision in *Marbury* at roughly the same time as it decided whether the Midnight Judges whose seats had been eliminated still had a write to lifetime appointments. With its strange reading of the Judiciary Act in *Marbury* the Court did what it had failed to do with the Midnight Judges -- exercise Judicial review. All subsequent practice on the part of Congress and the Executive has strongly suggested that the Court *should* have struck down the repeal of the Midnight Judges Act and given the Midnight Judges their appointments back; but it did not.\n\nFor Marbury, on the other hand, there was some splinter of hope. The Court's decision didn't say that he couldn't go to a lower court and file the same suit. Its bottom line was the same as a reasonable reading of the statute would have suggested -- that Marbury just couldn't file such a suit in the Supreme Court.\n\n\n*What Next?*\n\nYou asked what happened to Marbury for the rest of his life, and I don't know what he did do with the rest of his life. I do know what he *didn't* do, which is pursue the matter of his judicial commission any further. This could be for several reasons: first is the difficulty I mentioned above with finding a good place to litigate; the second is that, because of the delays mentioned above, even if Marbury had found a friendly forum for his lawsuit, it might have dragged on long enough that his appointment would be nearly over by the time he won." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cc8pkyn" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I'm struggling with statistics outside of fighter or bomber crews, but two categories immediately spring to mind for the RAF:\n\n1. The Air Transport Auxiliary (ATA) were responsible for flying new, damaged or repaired aircraft between airfields, factories or repair facilities. By definition they rarely, if ever, found themselves under threat of enemy action. Notably the ATA recruited a large number of women and many of their pilots clocked up more hours on a wider variety of aircraft than the majority of combat pilots.\n\n2. Reconnaissance pilots flew in small, unarmed, fast aircraft, often in small numbers and at very low level. This made them difficult to detect let alone hunt down and kill, but required them to be very highly skilled and to have nerves of steel. I'd be very interested if anyone can find casualty figures for reconnaissance aircrew." ] }

[]

[ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortresses" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "djzzrd1" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The energy increases from crops gained through the Colombian exchange and lessening of early death from improved healthcare combined by the 1800's to lead to over population in Europe. 1848 became the year of revolutions. Political instability limited food supplies and limited food supplies caused instability. According to modern scholars the height of the average Italian was reduced by several inches between the 1500's and mid 1800's. The over population moved to wherever they had prospect of a better life. Europe didn't have a food surplus again until the 1950's. The Italian immigration coincided with industrialization so they ended up more in urban concentrations. Germans were earlier and came during agrarian expansion." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cajhfxd", "cajhwp8", "cajjb4r", "cajjwgo", "cajpcxj", "cajpu5a", "cajzf98" ], "score": [ 366, 57, 59, 30, 11, 9, 2 ], "text": [ "I can't tell for Japan and the other east asian civilizations but for China, confucianism is traditionally seen as a very land-based philosophy, and it's seen as the reason why China has never turned towards the ocean as a way of expanding and exploring (except, of course, the notable exception of Zheng He and the treasure fleet, which happened in a rare period of modernization and rejection of confucianism by the emperor, and even then, the travels where made towards the West for different reasons (some think it might have been motivated by the Haj, Zheng He being a muslim)).\n\nWhen you look at maps from ancient China, the ocean is usually depicted as a hostile environment, the cartographers cover it with wave drawings nowadays interpreted as a way to show it being a border, and not a possible road to new lands (by the way, insularism is also, for the same reasons, traditionally seen as \"decadent\" by China, which may explain some of the historical hostilities towards Japan).\n\nSo, to answer your question, Chinese leaders never really sent any expedition towards the East because it was never really seen as a place worthy of exploring (and anyway, if you live in the Middle Empire, the further you go, the least interesting/civilized/rich things should be).\n\nEdit: There's also a famous debate over whether or not China discovered America before the Europeans, but the guy who wrote the most famous book about it [Gavin Menzies](_URL_1_) is not a historian, so this is pretty controversial among historians. If you want to know more about it you can check out his book: \"The year China discovered the world\" and make your own opinion.\n\nEdit2: Sorry, I forgot to say I never read Menzies's book, I only heard about it as an interesting example of how the interpretation of star maps made by astronomers on the Treasure Fleet led to theories about how far Zheng He went. Apparently it is nowadays seen as a complete hack.\n\nEdit3: Nice counterpoint by u/lukeweiss [here.](_URL_0_). I may have overstated the importance of the metaphysical conceptions of the universe and I have forgotten to add that China never actually *needed* to explore the Pacific.", "I don't have any sources about East Asians, but West Asians had a belief that past China, past the ocean, there was a giant island full of half human/half jinn devil people (Shaytan), though this may or may not have just been a dig at the Japanese that got mistranslated a couple of times. I want to go into more detail but I'm not very confident in the rest of my memories of the story and google is failing me.\n\nThe only source I can find right now is an old print of [1001 nights](_URL_0_), but I've heard this a few other places. ", "More South East Asia and Australia, but it is believed that Polynesian reached South America some time between 500 and 700 CE (although the dates are still up for debate). This is backed up by DNA studies and is believed to be the origin of the sweet potato in the East. _URL_0_\n\nEdit: To be clear, the fact that the Polynesians may have known about the Americas does not mean that other Asian countries did. I just felt an Asian populations discovering the American continents was worth mention in the discussion, whether or not they shared the information with the Chinese or Japanese .", "I'm currently reading an old book about the discovery & exploration of northern lands, *In Northern Mists - Arctic Exploration in Early Times* (1911) by [Fridtjof Nansen](_URL_6_). It includes a couple of references to Chinese and Japanese myths of lands across the sea to the east:\n\n > Even the Chinese have legends of the [Isles of the Blest](_URL_1_), which lie 700 miles from the Celestial Kingdom out in the Yellow Sea, and gleam in everlasting beauty, everlasting spring and everlasting gladness. The wizard Sun-Tshe is said once to have extorted from a good spirit the secret of their situation, and revealed the great mystery to the emperor Tshe-Huan-Ti (219 B.C.). Then the noblest youths and the most beautiful maidens of the Celestial Kingdom set out to search for Paradise, and lo! it suddenly rose above the distant horizon, wrapped in roseate glow. But a terrible storm drove the longing voyagers away with cruel violence, and since then no human eye has seen the Isles of the Blest.\n\nNansen discussed similarities between European, Middle Eastern and Chinese/Japanese legends of mysterious islands, which he speculates may have spread via Arab traders.\n\n > Remarkable points of resemblance both to the voyages of the Irish ([Bran](_URL_2_)’s voyage) to the Fortunate Isles in the west, and to those of Gudleif [i.e. Gudleif Gudlaugsson, a Norseman who supposedly discovered an island when blown off course during a voyage from Ireland to Iceland] and of the eight Portuguese (in [Edrisi](_URL_5_)), are found in a Japanese tale of the fortunate isles of “[Horaisan](_URL_0_),” to which Moltke Moe has called my attention:\n\n > This happy land lies far away in the sea towards the east; there on the mountain Fusan grows a splendid tree which is sometimes seen in the distance over the horizon; all vegetation is verdant and flowering in eternal spring, which keeps the air mild and the sky blue; the passing of time is unnoticed, and death never finds the way thither, there is no pain, no suffering, only peace and happiness. Once on a time Jofuku, body physician to a cruel emperor of China, put to sea on the pretext of looking for this country and seeking for his master the plant of immortality which grows on Fusan, the highest mountain there. He came first to Japan; but went farther and farther out into the ocean until he really reached Horaisan; there he enjoyed complete happiness, and never thought of returning to prolong his tyrant’s life.\n\n > The old Japanese wise man, Vasobiove, who had withdrawn from the world and passed his days in contemplative peace, was one day out fishing by himself (to avoid many trivial visits), when he was driven out to sea by a violent storm; he then rowed about the sea, keeping himself alive by fishing. After three months he came to the “muddy sea,” which nearly cost him his life, as there were no fish there. But after a desperate struggle, and finally twelve hours’ hard rowing, he reached the shore of Horaisan. There he was met by an old man whom he understood, for he spoke Chinese. This was Jofuku, who received Vasobiove in friendly fashion and told him his story. Vasobiove was overjoyed on hearing where he was. He stayed there for a couple of hundred years, but did not know how long it was; for where all is alike, where there is neither birth nor death, no one heeds the passing of time. With dancing and music, in conversation with wise and brilliant men, in the society of beautiful and amiable ladies, he passed his days.\n\n > But at last Vasobiove grew tired of this sweet existence and longed for death. It was hopeless, for here he could not die, nor could he take his own life, there were no poisons, no lethal weapons; if he threw himself over a precipice or ran his head against a sharp rock, it was like a fall on to soft cushions, and if he threw himself into the sea, it supported him like a cork. Finally he tamed a gigantic stork, and on its back he at last returned to Japan, after the stork had carried him through many strange countries, of which the most remarkable was that of the Giants, who are immensely superior to human beings in everything. Whereas Vasobiove was accustomed to admiration wherever he propounded his philosophical views and systems, he left that country in humiliation; for the Giants said they had no need of all that, and declared Vasobiove’s whole philosophy to be the immature cries of distress of the children of men.\n\nAnother section:\n\n > There is preserved an “abstract of wonders” (oldest MS. of 1484), by an unknown Arab author, which gives a picture of the Arabs’ mythical ideas in the tenth century. It also tells of islands in the west, which are of interest to us on account of their resemblance to many of the mediæval mythical conceptions of Western Europe.\n\n > “In the great ocean is an island which is visible at sea at some distance, but if one tries to approach it, it withdraws and disappears. If one returns to the place one started from, it is seen again as before. It is said that upon this island is a tree that sprouts at sunrise, and grows as long as the sun is ascending; after midday it decreases, and disappears at sunset. Sailors assert that in this sea there is a little fish called ‘shâkil,’ and that those who carry it upon them can discover and reach the island without its concealing itself. This is truly a strange and wonderful thing.”\n\n > This is evidently the same myth as that of the Lost Isle... It also bears resemblance to legends from China and Japan. ... Possibly it is this same tree that grows on the mountain Fusan in the Japanese happy land Horaisan, and which is sometimes seen over the sea horizon.\n\nSources: [vol 1](_URL_3_) and [vol 2](_URL_4_)", "Follow up question: What about indians? they are uniquely surrounded by seas that (AFAIK) were known to lead to other lands - did they have a mythos about the what lay beyond the oceans?", "It's important in thinking historically to try our best to get inside the minds of people we are interested in. The Chinese historically were not interested in the oceans. They did have some coastal shipping but only once in their long history did they try overseas exploration in a major way, and that was in the early 15th century when the Yong Le Emperor sent out seven expeditions to explore the South China Sea and Indian Ocean. \n\nBut, that enthusiasm quickly waned when nothing all that amazing was discovered. Since the expeditions were very expensive (think moon landings), and the scholars who guided the Emperor were not impressed with efforts that had little relevance to good government, and there were renewed military problems on the borders (and so on), the expeditions were ended by about the 1430s.\n\nIn any case, the Chinese focused almost exclusively on good governance and social stability. For them to become interested in the oceans or what was beyond them was out of their national character. Imagine if someone a thousand years in the future asks, \"Why didn't Americans care very much about exploring other galaxies or even other planets?\" Or perhaps \"Why didn't the people of the 21st Century care at all about exploring the inner earth?\" \nWe just don't think about it much because there is so much to deal with here at home. \n\nSo, part of the answer to the question is that the Chinese were simply not interested in the oceans which offered no apparent solutions to their problems. Why, after all, equip ships to sail out into the middle of nowhere? Would you load your car up and drive off into the middle of nowhere? Why? You've got too much to do at home. ", "Can someone elaborate a bit more on the Japanese?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://fr.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gej56/before_they_found_out_that_the_americas_existed/cajm46m", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Menzies" ], [ "http://books.google.com/books?id=y7wBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=Sealah+jinn+es-seen&source=bl&ots=Vga07E0zXN&sig=WdLWPhFMBr33ifCK3LO3bPvFA2w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3Ke8UYTSG5Dg8ASclIGYBw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Sealah%20jinn%20es-seen&f=false" ], [ "http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/01/22/169980441/how-the-sweet-potato-crossed-the-pacific-before-columbus" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horaisan", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortunate_Isles", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan", "http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40633/40633-h/40633-h.htm", "http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40634/40634-h/40634-h.htm", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edrisi", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridtjof_Nansen" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cuc94m6" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "OK, this is easier said than done probably, but I'll try. These are the figures for Total Mobilized, all branches, as given in World War II: Encyclopedia of Facts and Figures by John Ellis, for the the major components of Britain's reach.\n\nCounty | Total Mobilized\n---|---\nAustralia | 993,000\nCanada | 1,100,000\nIndia | 2,581,800\nNew Zealand | 192,800 (This is active strength, c. 1945. Total mobilized is not given)\nSouth Africa | 250,000\nUnited Kingdom | 5,896,000\nTotal | 11,013,600\n\nSo that is at least a rough number, but I can't vouch for its completeness. I'm not sure whether the UK's numbers, for instance, include all of the minor possessions and what not. For instance, a quick check on Wiki shows that nearly [100,000 Kenyans](_URL_0_) served, and I can't say whether that is part of the 5,896,000, or needs to be added to the total." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cahvyfk", "cahxfpw", "cahy2sn", "cahy86e", "cahyngq", "cahypgr", "cahzegk", "cai1rkg", "cai2xfp", "caib5mh" ], "score": [ 54, 142, 313, 33, 36, 35, 16, 46, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "According to the book *1491* by Charles Mann, the Native Americans lost their land because as many as 90% of them died from European diseases. Although they often practiced communal land ownership, many recognized individual land ownership as well, particularly in the terraces of the Peruvian Andes. \n\nHowever, they also practiced land management on a grand scale. The thinking now is that Native Americans used many means to make the land more hospitable to people and to the plants and animals beneficial to people, both in North and South America.", "1491 is a great book, but I also recommend to you a fantastic book called \"How the Indians Lost Their Land\" by Stuart Banner. \n\nIt explains how the shift in the balance of power in North America (in which the massive population decline played a huge role, of course) changed the nature of land transfers over time.\n\nOne of the reasons I love Banner's book is because it doesn't lump all Indians into one homogenous group. Each group in different places at different times were compelled or chose to give up their land for widely varying reasons.\n\nFor example, he points out that many treaties were signed in places where Indians and Europeans had been living side by side for decades. Total misunderstanding on the part of Indians about European concepts of land ownership in such cases seems totally implausible. Indians sometimes had a lot to gain in terms of material goods or alliance promises in exchange for giving up some land.\n\nAnother example he gives is that many factions within Native American groups supported the idea of selling their lands and moving west. They believed that distancing themselves from the European populations would be the best for their people. It seemed like the less evil of the available options. I think the Cherokee probably provide one of the most notable examples of this internal debate over land sales (but probably because it the most well-documented in the written record). \n\nOthers, of course, vehemently opposed giving up any land, mostly because they understood exactly what it meant!", "It's completely wrong. For instance in the early 19th century before Indian Removal, the Cherokee Nation passed a law with a death sentence for any tribal member who signed a treaty giving away any more land. The signers of the 1835 New Echota Treaty were later assassinated/executed in Indian Territory.\n\nTraditionally, among many tribes housing and other improvements might be owned by families or groups of families as opposed to individuals and hunting/fishing spots might be owned by an entire tribes as opposed to an individual; however, yes, there was absolutely a sense of control of the land. Tribes had to negotiate with other tribes to safely pass through their lands, and battles were fought over contested hunting grounds.", "First, it's important to recognize that \"Native Americans\" covers two continents and thousands of years of people. So the answer to this question is going to vary according to who exactly you're talking about. \n\nWhen I similar question came up a couple weeks ago, [I provided some information about Algonquian peoples in New England and Virginia during the early colonial period](_URL_0_). To summarize that post, generally land belonged to the nation as a whole when it was not being cultivated. Through various means, a family could claim a plot of land by cultivating it. When they allowed the land to fallow, it reverted back to common use. Though some specific locations were designated for universal use by all people, most uncultivated land belonged to specific nations and were defended against intrusion by others. \n\nThe confusion between European and Native perceptions of land ownership comes in with the idea of *permanent* ownership. In these early days, when selling land to Europeans it was thought that it would be a temporary arrangement. The European settlers were perceived as buying permanent land rights from the nation, but as buying the right to use the nation's land. When Europeans allowed their land to fallow, the land would then return to common use as well.\n\nThe European settlers, of course, did not think of it this way and were quite defensive of unused lands which they perceived as permanently theirs.\n\nThese are just a few early examples of how English colonists came to dispossess the Native nations of their lands. Once the confusion was sorted out, sale of land dropped considerably. The colonists claimed much of the rest of the land in these regions during the Anglo-Powhatan Wars and King Philip's War, as well as other conflicts. Later removals had many diverse causes and culprits, but any confusion over ownership rights was not one of them.\n\nEDIT: Just to be clear, I'm talking about *land* ownership only here. Other property was owned individually or by families.", "In short, this is pretty false. Many people living within the Triple Alliance and Mesoamerica around the Contact Period followed the *altepetl* system of land ownership. In a general sense the land belongs to the community - from there, tracts of land were leased in a way to individual families and kin groups within the community. Many of these existing systems were recognized - and utilized - during Colonial legal land disputes.\n\nIn a more general sense, I think a big misconception is that Native Americans are thought of as \"communicating with Nature\" without understanding how nature works - when in reality many civilizations understood \"Nature\" through highly experienced means. It's a bit late for me so I'm happy to expand on this if you're interested. ", "Among Alaska Natives, there's always been the concept of item ownership. For many groups, the parka was the most treasured possession. It kept you alive, and it was the product of weeks of intensive work to prepare furs and sew them together. When you put that much work into something, you value it. With value comes ownership.\n\nWith land, however, there was a sense of collective ownership or informal ownership. Europe, with its small landmass, needed strict lines to define ownership. Alaska had more than enough to go around, so even during the Russian era, there were very few land deeds or formal divisions.\n\nImmediately before the Alaska Purchase, there was a scramble (Hektor Chevigny's *Russian America* has a good description) to create these deeds to certify that yes, people did own their homes and the land they stood on. In many cases, these land ownership documents weren't complete before American land speculators arrived to lay claims.\n\nThis led to all kinds of trouble, including cases where speculators took over homes or -- in one infamous instance -- a thousand-year-old cemetery. \n\nThe idea that \"Native Americans didn't understand ownership\" reeks of racism, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's an idea left over from the days that gave us the Indian trusts because the \"poor dumb Natives\" couldn't be counted upon to take care of the resources on their land.", "There's elements of both truth and urban legend to this. Yes, they had very different ideas on land ownership, but they [learned](_URL_2_). Quoting [Foner](_URL_1_), \"By the 1760s, according to one colonial land dealer, the Indians had ‘grown so cunning and tenacious of their property that in short it is very difficult to get land from them without paying too much for it.’\" (The rest of Foner's review on Native American property rights is quite interesting as well, though of course shaded by his Marxist worldview.)\n\nOne amusing/tragic example. At the Treaty of [Fort Stanwix](_URL_0_), the Iroquois sat down to negotiate land sales to the encroaching whites, in exchange for a (promised) end to the encroachment. Rather than give land they were using, they sold to the whites land *de jure* under their control, but *de facto* belonging to other tribes!\n\nWhen the whites showed up, treaty in hand, to take possession of their newly purchased land, it was a bit of a shock to the Native Americans living there (Shawnee, Delawares and Cherokee), and this ultimately resulted in [Lord Dunmore's War](_URL_3_), all because the Iroquois were quite clever when it came to land sales.", "The truth is almost exactly the opposite. \n\nNot only did Native Americans have their own varied notions of private (and public) property, usufruct, transfer of ownership, etc., but they also had their own history of treaties, exchanges, resettlements & conquests of American lands long before the Europeans arrived. \n\nIn actuality it was the *Europeans* who refused to recognize Native American sovereignty, title and property rights. It came to be called the \"discovery doctrine,\" and it was infamously spelled out by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in [Johnson v. M'Intosh](_URL_0_) in 1823, by which point it was already a long-established principle & practice in law, going back to the first colonies. It's worth reading through at least the main points: \n\n > On the discovery of this immense continent, the great nations of Europe were eager to appropriate to themselves so much of it as they could respectively acquire. Its vast extent offered an ample field to the ambition and enterprise of all, and the character and religion of its inhabitants afforded an apology for considering them as a people over whom the superior genius of Europe might claim an ascendency. The potentates of the old world found no difficulty in convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new by bestowing on them civilization and Christianity in exchange for unlimited independence. But as they were all in pursuit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements and consequent war with each other, to establish a principle which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was that **discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects or by whose authority it was made** against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession. [...] \n\n > In the establishment of these relations, the rights of the original inhabitants were in no instance entirely disregarded, but were necessarily to a considerable extent impaired. They were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion; but their rights to complete sovereignty as independent nations were necessarily diminished, and their power to dispose of the soil at their own will to whomsoever they pleased was denied by the original fundamental principle that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it. [...]\n\n > Neither the declaration of independence nor the treaty confirming it could give us more than that which we before possessed or to which Great Britain was before entitled. It has never been doubted that either the United States or the several states had a clear title to all the lands within the boundary lines described in the treaty, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy, and that **the exclusive power to extinguish that right was vested in that government which might constitutionally exercise it**. \n\nThis is one of the first cases studied in US law school courses on Property, for the simple reason that to this day \"discovery doctrine\" is fundamental to US property law. What it says in effect is that European nations have a higher level of sovereignty than the nations of indigenous peoples, and therefore a more powerful level of property rights. European nations, and the United States, have \"sovereign\" right to the properties in their territories, but Native Americans have only a \"right of occupancy\" which can be \"extinguished\" at will by the government. \"Right of occupancy\" is thus a second-class property right, also called [aboriginal title](_URL_2_), and it is automatically subordinate to sovereign title. It sounds like the worst form of colonialist legal rationalization for seizure of native lands, but the actual fact is: this is *current* US law. \n\nDiscovery Doctrine has several implications for US property law, both in regards to Native American tribes and in regard to ordinary citizens attempting to establish title on a piece of land. First, the seizure of Native lands which \"extinguish\" the \"right of occupancy\" is not protected under the Fifth Amendment takings clause, and therefore such a taking is not compensable. The federal government (by Act of Congress, or through a treaty ratified by Congress) does not have to compensate native peoples for the value of their lands unless it wants to...this principle was fully declared in [Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States](_URL_1_). \n\nThis applies only to aboriginal title. Lands held in fee simple under treaty (Indian Reservations and other established tribal entities & holdings) cannot be alienated/expropriated this way, and government seizure of these lands requires 5th Amendment compensation.\n\nAnother implication is that aboriginal title is inalienable, except to the government. This means that *only* the US federal government can seize, purchase or otherwise acquire title from native occupants. In a way this part of the doctrine offers some protection to native occupants: they can't have their land bought or seized through court order by a real estate developer or logging company (unless the federal or state gov't say they can). There's no such thing as adverse possession (i.e. squatter's rights or usufruct rights) either, so many of the nasty, shady little ways of obtaining property won't work. \n\nThat said, native peoples who want to reclaim a piece of land once belonging to their ancestors...in order to establish a legal treaty-bound reservation, for example...are pretty much up a creek if Congress has decided it would rather do other things with the land.\n\nThe *Johnson v. M'Intosh* decision is despised almost as much as the infamous *Dred Scott* decision, since it establishes a deeply Eurocentric view of the inherent superiority of European people, law and nations. And yet, it remains on the books and in force through Supreme Court decisions. The decision is regarded as embarrassing & antediluvian, and in fact the courts have begun to dismantle & chip away at the edges, offering & ordering payments for \"unconscionable compensation\" and other remedies for the centuries of expropriation. But the core principle, unlike in *Dred Scott*, is still intact.\n\n**TL;DR - under current US law, lands originally belonging to / occupied by native inhabitants are automatically controlled by the US federal gov't (and states acting under its sovereignty), with native \"title\" to the land automatically superseded by federal sovereignty. All your lands are belong to us.**", "I have a follow up question. Since it seems pretty apparent that the Native Americans did have a sense of ownership over the land (varying degrees depending on location), how were the Europeans able to take such a large amount of land? In addition, how were Europeans even able to begin the process of taking lands?", "This is more of a legal view than a historical one.\n\nIf you don't mind a bit of legal vocabulary the case of [Johnson v McIntosh (1823)](_URL_1_) is quite revealing. The case surrounded the fact that an American had been granted vast tracts of land around modern day Illinois by Native Americans during the colonial period. The land was occupied by Native Americans and the person who had bought the land from the Indians tried to evict them.\n\nTo summarise the judgement of Mr Chief Justice Marshall:\n\nThe British had ownership of the land because they 'conquered' or explored North America first. The result was that only the British government could take land from the Native Americans. That right transferred the US after the war of independence and so the government was now the only one who was able to buy land from the Native Americans. Thus the private sale of land by the Natives was not valid. The judge however goes into why Natives were not considered owners of their land. I wrote an essay on this topic (in the UK) but focused very broadly on the concept of ownership of land by native peoples primarily in Australia but also in the US and Canada. I'll quote myself - this is a very genera statement on why native peoples often did not conform to European standards of overship:\n\n > With larger tracts of land available to aboriginal peoples than to Locke's proverbial Devon farmer, land was not valued to the same level and as such, concepts of efficiency and intensive use (which are highly valued in English law) were not important. Thus the tell-tale signs of possession normally found in the use and separation of the land were not present.\n\nVery basically Europeans used land to farm it and work it, Native Americans used the land to hunt and often moved across land without specifying which parts where whose. European law said that to demonstrate control over land was to exercised occupation and consequently, ownership derived from that occupation. Now people have argued that it is possible to blend such sparse use of land with intensive private farming. In Australia they have [Pastoral Leases](_URL_0_) through which the government grants large areas of land to graze animals etc. From memory 70% of land in Australia is held in this way. Courts there have declared that a pastoral lease over Aboriginal land does not extinguish rights of the natives and there has been some recognition of the right to use land for religious purposes despite the land being subject to a lease to a 3rd party. Those are modern cases though and result from modern recognition of native people's as equal citizens. Back in the day there was no such consilliation and they used the law ruthlessly to disposes native peoples who used land in a different way to the usage that European conceptions of ownership were based on. \n\nSome quotes from the case:\n > But the tribes of Indians inhabiting this country were fierce savages, whose occupation was war, and whose subsistence was drawn chiefly from the forest. To leave them in possession of their country, was to leave the country a wilderness; to govern them as a distinct people, was impossible, because they were as brave and as high spirited as they were fierce, and were ready to repel by arms every attempt on their independence.\n\n...\n\n > It has never been contended, that the Indian title amounted to nothing. Their right of\npossession has never been questioned. The claim of government extends to the complete\nultimate title, charged with this right of possession, and to the exclusive power of acquiring\nthat right.\n\nThis is of course a view focused on legal definitions and not a purely historical POV. If there's something I'm missing do correct me but that's my understanding on the situation. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1eya7m/how_did_native_americans_view_land_ownership/ca535n9" ], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Fort_Stanwix", "http://www.ericfoner.com/reviews/020906lrb.html", "http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Tecumseh%27s_Confederation", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunmore%27s_War" ], [ "http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/21/543/case.html", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tee-Hit-Ton_Indians_v._United_States", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_title_in_the_United_States" ], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral_lease", "http://thorpe.ou.edu/treatises/cases/Johnson.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cld4nik" ], "score": [ 19 ], "text": [ "Imagine there was maize - a plant with definitive American origins - in Europe before 1492, and Europeans, despite their own linguistic differences, were all calling it \"hominy\" (which is the English approximation of word for maize among the Powhatans). That'd be pretty compelling evidence that somehow, at some point in time, Europeans and Powhatans met and exchanged maize before 1492.\n\nThis is essentially the situation for Polynesian-American contact. Sweet potatoes are a common and widespread crop in Polynesia from New Zealand to Easter Island. However, the plant originates in South America. Maybe the plant somehow got swept out to sea, but this seems unlikely as its not tolerant of saltwater. Additionally the techniques used to propagate the plant are the same as those employed in South America. Perhaps that's just a coincidence though. Two unconnected cultures might both develop the same techniques for farming the same plant just because the plant is well suited for those methods. \n\nWhat's harder to explain without direct contact is the name. Throughout Polynesia, the plant is known generically as *kumara* (the various cultivars have their own unique names, too). In Quechua, it's known as *kumar*. \n\nThe Rapanui of Easter Island likely reached South America sometime before they lost their forests and their ability to construct long-distance voyaging craft. They were aware of the small island between themselves and South America, known today as Isla Sala y Gomez, but to Rapanui it's Hotu Motiro Hiva - the Islet on the Way to Hiva. To the Rapanui, \"Hiva\" is the term for the distant lands, which suggests they were also aware that beyond Hotu Motiro Hiva there was yet more land, which could only be South America.\n\nThe sweet potato line of evidence is currently the most compelling for the Polynesian contact in South America. Suggestive chicken bones have also been discovered in South America (chickens are one of the major domesticated animals among the Polynesians and the only one the Rapanui maintained at the time of European contact). Initial tests indicated that these bones were from Polynesian rather than European chickens and were from Pre-Columbian times. Later tests have muddled the issue a bit, calling the dating into question and revealing that the genetic affinities is not so clear cut. Another line of evidence are a set of Polynesians skeletons found on Mocha Island, immediatetly off the coast of Chile. However, the skeletons have not yet been dated, and may be from the 1800s when many Rapanui and other Polynesians came to South America, voluntarily or by force." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "catrhnl" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "On 29 August 1898 Russian Tsar Nicholas II and his foreign miniter propesed to hold a peace conference to discuss various international topics, What later became known as the Hague Convention of 1899. The second Hague Convention was hold from 15 June to 18 October 1907. A this convention was scheduled for 1914, rescheduled for 1915 but was eventually cancelled due to the start of World War I.\n\nWhy was the Hague chosen? First of all, the Netherlands had the right profile with great Dutch humanists like Erasmus and Grotius which had stood at the cradle of international law. Furthermore, the Netherlands at that time was one of the lesser greater powers (like England, France, Germany, Russia, The United States) and was known for it's neutral stance and good relations between the Allied powers (France, England and Russia) and Central powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary). The family ties between the Dutch Royal family (Queen Wilhelmina) and the Russian Tsar also played a part.\n\nAfter the two conventions, Andrew Carnegie was convinced by the American head of the delegation to finance the Peace Palace in The Hague. Since that time, The Hague was and still is the place for international juridical matters.\n\n[Link to Vredespaleis website](_URL_0_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.vredespaleis.nl/index.php?tl=1" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dky99hj" ], "score": [ 15 ], "text": [ "The brigade was an intermediate structure between the division and regiment, usually directly controlling two regiment-sized units. It was largely eliminated after 1940.\n\n**Infantry Divisions:**\n\nPrior to World War II, U.S. infantry divisions had a [\"square\" structure](_URL_1_), with four infantry regiments. These regiments were assigned to two brigades that reported to the division headquarters. There were also three artillery regiments (two light and one heavy, controlling a total of six battalions) that reported to the divisional artillery. \n\nIn 1940, a [\"triangular\" structure](_URL_0_) was adopted that removed the infantry brigade as an organizational structure, as well as one of the infantry regiments; the three infantry regiments now reported directly to the division headquarters. The divisional artillery also saw major changes, with the artillery regiments being eliminated as an organizational structure; the 105 mm howitzer battalions were reduced from four to three, the 155 mm howitzer battalions from two to one, and they now reported directly to the divisional artillery instead of going through the artillery regiment. Other divisional units also saw similar changes. The strength of the initial triangular infantry division was around 15,200 men, in contrast to the 21,000 men of the post-World War I square division. The square division of World War I vintage was even larger, often having over 28,000 men! By the middle of WWII, a U.S. infsntry division could expect to field around 14,200 men.\n\nThe grouping of the major units of the infantry division into \"threes\" allowed the formation of regimental combat teams; an infantry regiment, a field artillery battalion, a company each of the division's engineer and medical units, and a company from a tank or tank destroyer battalion attached to the division.\n\n\"Orphaned\" infantry regiments created through triangularization were often used to run training camps in the United States, were assigned to other units when necessary, or were deactivated (see below).\n\nUnlike in the British Army, U.S. infantry regiments had a fixed number of organic battalions as dictated by their table of organization, and as a result, regiments as a whole could only be assigned to one division at a time. During World War I, infantry regiments numbered from 1 to 100 were marked for assignment to divisions of the Regular Army, regiments numbered from 101 to 300 were to be assigned to divisions of the National Guard, and those numbered 301 and above were to be assigned to divisions of the National Army (made up of draftees). After World War I, most of the divisions of the National Army were reconstituted as a partially-formed Organized Reserve. The draftee force was renamed the Army of the United States.\n\nRegiments could be moved between divisions when necessary, and independent regiments existed. The 53rd Infantry Regiment was removed from the 7th Infantry Division to act as defenses on the West Coast in 1941, and was replaced with the 159th Infantry Regiment, a California National Guard unit from the 40th Infantry Division. The \"gap\" in the 40th Infantry Division was filled with the 108th Infantry Regiment, an excess regiment made homeless when the 27th Infantry Division (New York National Guard) was triangularized.\n\nThe 159th was ordered to stay in the Aleutian Islands after the 7th Infantry Division was victorious over the Japanese there in 1943, and it was replaced by the 184th Infantry Regiment, another excess regiment originally from the 40th Infantry Division. The 159th Infantry Regiment, along with the 103rd Infantry Regiment, were deployed to Europe in 1945 to reconstitute the 106th Infantry Division, which had been severely battered during the Battle of the Bulge.\n\nThe 147th and 158th Infantry Regiments and the 112th Cavalry Regiment fought as separate regiments in the Pacific. The 442nd Infantry Regiment, the most decorated regiment in United States military history, was a separate regiment made up of Japanese-American troops. During WWII, the United States Army experimented with using first-generation immigrants in units. As many, if not all, could speak their native language along with English, they could be useful as spies or when serving in occupied areas. Five separate battalions were created, but only two (the 99th, of Norwegians, and the 100th, of Japanese) saw combat.\n\nInfantry Division|Component|Regiments\n:--|:--|:--\n1st|Regular Army|16th, 18th, 26th\n2nd|Regular Army|9th, 23rd, 38th\n3rd|Regular Army|7th, 15th, 30th\n4th|Regular Army|8th, 12th, 22nd\n5th|Regular Army|2nd, 10th, 11th\n6th|Regular Army|1st, 20th, 63rd\n7th|Regular Army|17th, 32nd, 53rd, 159th\n8th|Regular Army|13th, 28th, 121st\n9th|Regular Army|39th, 47th, 60th\n10th Mountain|Army of the United States|85th, 86th, 87th\n23rd|Army of the United States|132nd, 164th, 182nd\n24th|Regular Army|19th, 21st, 299th\n25th|Army of the United States|27th, 35th, 298th\n26th|National Guard (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT)|101st, 104th, 328th\n27th|National Guard (NY)|105th, 106th, 165th\n28th|National Guard (PA)|109th, 110th, 112th\n29th|National Guard (MD, VA, D.C.)|115th, 116th, 175th\n30th|National Guard (GA, NC, SC, TN)|117th, 119th, 120th\n31st|National Guard (AL, FL, LA, MS)|124th, 155th, 167th\n32nd|National Guard (MI, WI)|126th, 127th, 128th\n33rd|National Guard (IL)|123rd, 130th, 136th\n34th|National Guard (IA, MN, ND, SD)|133rd, 135th, 168th\n35th|National Guard (KS, MO, NE)|134th, 137th, 320th\n36th|National Guard (TX)|141st, 142nd, 143rd\n37th|National Guard (OH)|129th, 145th, 148th\n38th|National Guard (IN, KY, WV)|149th, 151st, 152nd\n40th|National Guard (CA, UT)|108th, 159th, 160th, 185th\n41st|National Guard (ID, MT, OR, WA, WY)|162nd, 163rd, 186th\n42nd|Army of the United States|222nd, 232nd, 242nd\n43rd|National Guard (CT, ME, RI, VT)|103rd, 169th, 172nd\n44th|National Guard (NJ, NY)|71st, 114th, 324th\n45th|National Guard (AZ, CO, NM, OK)|157th, 179th, 180th\n63rd|Army of the United States|253rd, 254th, 255th\n65th|Army of the United States|259th, 260th, 261st\n66th|Army of the United States|262nd, 263rd, 264th\n69th|Army of the United States|271st, 272nd, 273rd\n70th|Army of the United States|274th, 275th, 276th\n71st|Army of the United States|5th, 14th, 66th\n75th|Army of the United States|289th, 290th, 291st\n76th|Organized Reserve (CT, RI)|304th, 385th, 417th\n77th|Organized Reserve (NY)|305th, 306th, 307th\n78th|Organized Reserve (NJ)|309th, 310th, 311th\n79th|Organized Reserve (PA)|313th, 314th, 315th\n80th|Organized Reserve (MD, VA, D.C.)|317th, 318th, 319th\n81st|Organized Reserve (NC, TN)|321st, 322nd, 323rd\n83rd|Organized Reserve (OH)|329th, 330th, 331st\n84th|Organized Reserve (IN)|333rd, 334th, 335th\n85th|Organized Reserve (MI)|337th, 338th, 339th\n86th|Organized Reserve (IL)|341st, 342nd, 343rd\n87th|Organized Reserve (AL, LA, MS)|344th, 345th, 346th\n88th|Organized Reserve (IA, MN, ND)|349th, 350th, 351st\n89th|Organized Reserve (KS, NE, SD)|353rd, 354th, 355th\n90th|Organized Reserve (TX)|357th, 358th, 359th\n91st|Organized Reserve (CA)|361st, 362nd, 363rd\n92nd|Army of the United States|366th, 370th, 371st\n93rd|Army of the United States|25th, 368th, 369th\n94th|Organized Reserve (MA)|301st, 302nd, 376th\n95th|Organized Reserve (OK)|377th, 378th, 379th\n96th|Organized Reserve (OR, WA)|381st, 382nd, 383rd\n97th|Organized Reserve (ME, NH, VT)|303rd, 386th, 387th\n98th|Organized Reserve (NY)|389th, 390th, 391st\n99th|Organized Reserve (PA)|393rd, 394th, 395th\n100th|Organized Reserve (KY, WV)|397th, 398th, 399th\n102nd|Organized Reserve (AR, MO)|405th, 406th, 407th\n103rd|Organized Reserve (AZ, CO, NM)|409th, 410th, 411th\n104th|Organized Reserve (ID, MT, UT, WY)|413th, 414th, 415th\n106th|Army of the United States|103rd, 159th, 422nd, 423rd, 424th\n\n**Oddities:**\n\n* The 23rd Infantry Division was made up \"on the fly\" of three National Guard regiments sent to defend New Caledonia in 1942, but was designated an Army of the United States division\n\n* The 24th and 25th Infantry Divisions were made from the disbanding Hawaiian Division; as a result, they were constituted with both Regular Army and Hawaii National Guard troops\n\n* The 42nd Infantry Division was a National Guard unit during World War I, formed from handpicked units from 26 states and the District of Columbia. None of its units re-formed during the interwar period, so it was reactivated as an Army of the United States division with troops from every state.\n\n* The 71st Infantry Division was an Army of the United States division, but had Regular Army infantry regiments assigned to it\n\n* The 92nd and 93rd Infantry Divisions were segregated units made up of African-American troops; the 25th Infantry Regiment was one of the original regiments of \"Buffalo Soldiers\" activated just after the American Civil War\n\n* The 71st Infantry Regiment was a National Guard regiment from New York, but it violated the 1-100 numbering rule for Regular Army infantry regiments\n\n* The 121st Infantry Regiment, National Guard troops from North Carolina, were assigned to the 8th Infantry Division, a Regular Army unit\n\n* The 320th Infantry Regiment was relieved from the 80th Infantry Division as excess, and later assigned to the 35th Infantry Division; the same occurred with the 81st Infantry and 82nd Airborne Divisions, which lost their 324th and 328th Infantry Regiments to the 44th and 26th Infantry Divisions, respectively.\n\n \n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/United_States_World_War_II_Infantry_Division_1942_Structure.png", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/United_States_World_War_II_%28Square%29_Infantry_Division_1940_Structure.png" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d4qo1b6", "d4qu877" ], "score": [ 4, 7 ], "text": [ "I wrote a post a while back on Muhammad that might be of interest: _URL_0_\n\nThe basic answer is that it was not very common (certainly not as commonplace as today!) but would not have been unique.", "Jesus, or as he would have been known at the time Yeshua (ישוע), had what was apparently a fairly common name in first century Palestine. It was a variation on Joshua / Yehoshua (יהושע). Men named after the national hero might not have been as ubiquitous as say, John is in modern English. But it was likely pretty close. Contemporary graves are filled with markers to Yeshuas. There's even an ossuary that was marked as James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. But all three names were common enough, they really aren't enough to positively identify the ossuary as belonging to James the Just.\n\nWe even know of several other semi-famous first century Jesuses including Jesus ben Ananias who was a near contemporary who evidently ran around as a prophet in the years leading up to the First Jewish Revolt. So he wasn't even the only first century Jewish religious figure named Jesus." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4mnjmm/was_mohammed_a_common_name_in_the_arabian/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dy5ff1f" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "As others have said, Chinese Characters passed through Korea to Japan by the 3rd century CE. IIRC the Japanese actually have a named mythological/legendary Korean dude who brought it over. \n\n\n\nHangul wasn't until the mid 15th century, and even then it was quickly repressed by the aristocracy/noble classes who continued to write in Hanmun, Chinese Classical writing style. Hangul didn't really become widespread in use until the very end of the 19th century in patriot literature. In any case, the Japanese had their our writing, a syllabulary(?), by the 9th or 10th century, in hiragana and katakana. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eczku9t" ], "score": [ 21 ], "text": [ "Columbus wasn't at sea for \"months.\" He left the Canaries on Sept. 6 and sighted land in the Americas on Oct. 12, at which point he would have been able to find fresh water on land. \n\nThat said, he kept water for his crew the same way other sailors of the day did: in wooden barrels, filled before he left from springs, streams or rivers that were known to be good sources of fresh water. They could supplement that water with fresh water gathered in storms, and a normal function of any navigator was to take note of places where the ship could be re-watered and re-wooded (to be able to light galley fires). \n\nMost water -- probably 90 percent or so -- on men-of-war of this era would in any case be used for soaking salt meat to make it palatable. \n\nBy the end of the era I'm familiar with, RN ships were experimenting with storing water in iron tanks, rather than wooden casks, but the wooden barrel was the basic medium of water storage throughout the period. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6qainw", "c6qbt20", "c6qbxvv", "c6qc8r5", "c6qckmz", "c6qfcb3", "c6qfn9y", "c6qgdc9", "c6qger6", "c6qh5sx", "c6qhdke", "c6qhij6", "c6qhva8", "c6qhviz", "c6qhw6f", "c6qj18d", "c6qkev5", "c6qm1rw" ], "score": [ 42, 63, 5, 26, 50, 10, 34, 26, 48, 11, 5, 9, 9, 4, 5, 6, 9, 4 ], "text": [ "There is a wonderful curse in the ancient Babylonian 'Epic of Gilgamesh.' I believe it's tongue in cheek because Gilgamesh still has love for the person he's cursing and so doesn't want to cause them harm, but he does want to curse them somewhat because he's pissed off....\n\nSo it's...\n\n'May you never own anything made of Alabaster!' \n\nAlabaster being a decorative stone, like marble. I guess the modern equivalent might be 'May you never own an ipad!' ", "I think you are looking for something like this:\n\n[Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks to Sultan Mehmed IV of the Ottoman Empire](_URL_0_)", "I remember something about an early Congressman calling another Congressman a \"puppy.\" I believe they ended up fighting a duel over it, too.\n", "One of my personal favorites from the Renaissance was *Do you hunt truffles yourself, or do you use a pig?*", "Let's see. Japanese has plenty of great insults and rude phrases because they have no words that are inherently offensive. For example, there is no real equivalent for \"fuck\". \n\nFor \"shit\" the literal Japanese equivalent would be 糞 or \"kuso\". It is used the same way as shit but the level of offense the word generates is very little, to the point where children can use it freely and it would offend an adult about as much as hearing \"stupid\" or \"idiot\" and is freely used on kids' shows.\n\nSo to insult one another, they usually have very colorful expressions as well as surprisingly deep insults. \n\n豆腐の角に頭をぶつけて死ね。\n\nTranslating literally into \"Go hit your head on the corner of tofu and die\"\n\nThis insult doesn't actually wish for the miracle of skull obliterating tofu to murder you in the night. It's an insult meant for someone so dumb that their stupidity overcomes what seems to be logically impossible. \n\nEssentially, if someone says this to you, they believe that the scope of your stupidity [can overcome the known laws of physics and nature](_URL_0_). \n\nAnother interesting thing about Japanese is that it is a language that is built from the ground up centering around being the exactly appropriate level of politeness. Too much or too little and people will see your language use as incompetent, ranking lower than school children. \n\nYou read that right. If you're **too polite** it's insulting. It is perceived as you being *too much of a kiss ass* and translates into them thinking, rightly or not, that you're not respecting them but blindly flattering them. \n\nAs such in Japanese, sometimes the most offensive thing you can call a stranger is \"お前”.\n\nIt literally means \"**you**\". That's right. Referring to someone directly could be the most insulting thing they've ever had to suffer. It's considered one of the ultimate faux pas in Japanese culture to not refer to someone by name and title, especially when they're strangers or superiors. \n\nIn casual settings with friends or younger people, it's generally okay to drop formalities. But even using the polite form of you \"あなた” won't save you from being eaten alive by angry middle aged Japanese women. \n\nAs an aside, because of the general penetration of Western culture and media in Japan, they recognize plenty of English insults and how to use them. \n", "Apparently, calling someone a \"sack of wine\" was a major burn in Homer's time.", "Allegedly in Bosnia in the early 1990s, a common insult was 'may your house be on CNN'- because only bombed out houses got on CNN. ", "Churchill was the master of insults. \n\n* \"The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative.\"\n \n* \n*Lady Nancy Astor*: Winston, if I were your wife, I’d poison your tea. \n*Churchill*: Nancy, if I were your husband, I’d drink it. \n\n \n* *Bessie Braddock:* Sir, you are drunk. \n*Churchill*: And you, madam, are ugly. But in the morning, I shall be sober.\n \n\n* *Young man (after seeing Churchill leave the bathroom without washing his hands)*: At Eton they taught us to wash our hands after using the toilet. \n*Churchill*: At Harrow they taught us not to piss on our hands. \n\n\n* *Churchill*: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds? \n*Woman*: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… \n*Churchill*: Would you sleep with me for five pounds? \n*Woman*: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?! \n*Churchill*: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price. \n\n", "* **Mark Twain**: \"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved of it.\"\n\n* **Mae West**: \"His mother should've thrown him away and kept the stork.\"\n\n* **George Bernard Shaw to Churchill**: \"I have enclosed two tickets to my new play. Bring a friend, if you have one.\" \n**Churchill's response**: \"I cannot possibly attend. Will attend second night, if you have one.\" \n\n* **Andrew Lang**: \"He uses statistics as a drunk man uses a lamppost; for support rather than illumination.\"\n\n* **Billy Wilder**: \"He has Van Gogh's ear for music.\" \n\n* **Charles, Count Talleyrand**: \"In order to avoid being called a flirt, she always yielded easily.\"\n\n* **Irvin S. Cobb**: \"I've just learned of his illness. Let's hope it's nothing trivial.\"\n\n* **Forrest Tucker**: \"He loves nature in spite of what it did to him.\"\n\n* **James Reston on Nixon**: \"He inherited some good insticts from his Quaker forebearers, but by diligent hard work, he overcame them.\" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n", "There's an anecdote of a debate that devolved to snarky rhetorical questions somewhere in medieval Arabia and it was rather famously ended with the following (note that it retains a certain meter that makes it sound very poetic in Arabic):\n\n*\"This world to you is an Ocean and the tip of my penis is the only firmament in sight. And you - the bird tired of flapping - must you not land?\"*\n\nOr, in other words, \"shut the fuck up\".", "And when you want to do it in verse: _URL_0_", "There are some interesting insults in Chinese, since it's a language with many subtle meanings and analogies. A few comes to mind:\n\n**银样蜡枪头**: when translated, it is roughly 'a silver plated pole-arm made of wax'. It is something that looks good but is actually quite useless, just as a pike made of wax is quite useless. Nowadays, it is used to describe male impotency. \n\n**吃软饭**: meaning 'eating a soft meal'. This is a male specific insult, and again it refers to a male's complete dependency on his female partner. The exact origin of this phrase is unknown. It is quite similar to another insult, **小白脸**, which means 'little white face' and is also directed at men who are reliant on women. ", "One of the best I've come across was related by a panel on cursing in the Victorian period. \n\nWhile the Victorians often obscured curses in their writings (\"G-d D---\"), court and court martial records and early baseball regulations do occasionally carry some really colorful stuff.\n\nAccording to the experts, baseball was really a man's game, not initially intended for a viewing audience. As the game became more mainstream, the curses shared among men had to be quashed to allow for a family friendly atmosphere. \n\nOne of these regulations forbid the players from using the phrase \"nob-gobbler.\"", "[Shakespearean Insulter] (_URL_0_?)", "If you want to take the time to learn a language with good insults, pick Russian. I can't really give too many translatable specifics, because vulgarity in Russian is more like a voice, a way of speaking, more than a list of phrases. It's almost like passive voice in its breadth. ", "During WW2 the Japanese used to call the Chinese \"the sick man of East Asia\". It's such a bad insult that it is still the worst thing you can say to a Chinese person, and when learning Chinese nobody would teach me how to say it. (I didn't ask any of my Chinese friends for fear of offending them, and my non-Chinese friends refused to teach me how to say it.)", "The worst insult in the Icelandic *Njal's Saga* is the insinuation that \"the troll at Svinafell uses you as a woman every ninth night.\"", "Cricket is a goldmine for insults and banter, which are known as [sledging] (_URL_0_). Whilst it's usually pretty low level, there are some classics:\n\nShane Warne, a highly talented Australian player, had a powerful psychological hold over the South African Daryll Cullinan, defeating him almost at will. Unfortunately, Warne was both a little chubby and a little sensitive about it. After a two year break, they met in a match:\n\nWarne: I’ve been waiting two years for the opportunity to humiliate you in front of your own crowd\nCullinan: Looks like you spent it eating\n\nOf course, the king of them all comes from an exchange between rotund Zimbabwean Eddo Brandes and noted Australian bowler Glenn McGrath.\n\nMcGrath: Hey Eddo, why are you so f*cking fat?\nBrandes: Because every time I f*ck your wife, she gives me a biscuit." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reply_of_the_Zaporozhian_Cossacks" ], [], [], [ "http://www.nuklearpower.com/2004/12/11/episode-490-going-up/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyting" ], [], [], [ "http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/Shaker/index.html" ], [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sledging_%28cricket%29" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cu6lrxy", "cu6qkvm" ], "score": [ 13, 6 ], "text": [ "There are a few things I'll touch on. Firstly, free speech is a point of much contention among far left theorists. There are advocates for free speech in helping bring about the revolution, and there are other theorists who believe that it can be detrimental to socialist states as they transition to communism. Rosa Luxemburg, leader of the German Communist Party until her murder in 1919, was a proponent of the former. Luxemburg was largely critical of the Soviet Union's stance on free speech, saying that, \"Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.\"^1 This idea differs from that of Vladimir Lenin, who described free speech as, \" a bourgeois prejudice.\" To him, free speech was a tool of the counterrevolutionary to subvert the socialist cause. \n\nSubversion of leftist movements through free speech does have a strong historical basis to it. In 1951, social democrat Jacobo Arbenz was elected President of Guatemala. At the time, much of Guatemala's economy was dominated by the banana trade, of which United Fruit controlled most of. In order to jump start the Guatemalan economy and put people to work, Arbenz implemented a plan to nationalize the unused land owned by United Fruit. While not a completely revolutionary idea, United Fruit did not take kindly to the government taking their lands. United Fruit's board of directors at the time included CIA director Allen Dulles. Dulles and his brother, another board member, hired renowned propagandist Edward Bernays to launch a misinformation campaign to paint Arbenz as a communist. This included newspapers, radio broadcasts, and airplanes flying with messages, all of which was legal to do under Guatemalan law. As this campaign picked up popular support in the United States and within the Guatemalan military, the CIA aided a coup d'état to install a military dictatorship run by Carlos Castillo Armas.\n\nDuring all of this, a young revolutionary by the name of Ernesto Guevara was living in Guatemala city at the time. Guevara believed that the freedom of the press within Guatemala was a contributing factor to why the United States were able to undermine the president. Guevara took his experiences with him first to mexico and then to Cuba. Determined not make the same mistake as Arbenz did, Guevara and Castro implemented controls over free speech to suppress counterrevolutionary, reactionary, and hate speech. \n\nT;DR- Free speech is a point of contention within leftist theory, history has shown counterrevolutionary forces to use free speech in order to topple leftist governments, thus the explanation for the limits on speech. \n\nsources:\n\n- ^1 *Rosa Luxemburg, \"The Russian Revolution\". _URL_0_\n\n- *Colby, Jason M. The Business of Empire: United Fruit, Race, and U.S. Expansion in Central America. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2011*\n\n- *Klein, Naomi. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York: Metropolitan /Henry Holt, 2007.*\n\n\nEdit: spelling, its late", "In postwar Czechoslovakia, the Czech Communists won over a free press and created a national discourse in which even their political opponents had to concede that the Soviet Union represented Czechoslovakia's key ally. Propelled by their victory in this open discourse, the Communist Party became the largest of five parties in Prague's parliament after the elections of 1946, bringing Clement Gottwald to power as prime minister (Bradley Adams outlines the Communist victory over the national discourse in his *The Struggle for the Soul of the Nation: Czech Culture and the Rise of Communism* (2004)). After Gottwald seized power during the political crisis of February 1948, he totally bowed to Soviet pressure and seized control of the press. But for a time, a free press served his Party's interests; without the open debate that took place in the free press, Gottwald may never have been in a position to seize control on Czechoslovakia.\n\nLater, the Slovak leader Alexander Dubcek freed the press in Bratislava (the Slovak capital, which had little power in Czechoslovakia as Prague dominated the union) as part of his generation of Communists struggle against the old guard that took power in 1948. Dubcek's generation of Communists had come of age during the Second World War, and though they also believed that the Czechoslovak alliance with Moscow represented a key component of Czechoslovak foreign policy, they also believed that certain liberal reforms (under the careful guidance of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia) would bring \"true socialism\" to Czechoslovakia. Czech writers blacklisted in Prague flooded the Slovak press, Dubcek became a favorite among the younger generation of party officials, and he rose to power in 1968 over all of Czechoslovakia. He and his coalition then freed the press across Czechoslovakia, creating goodwill for Dubcek and his policies. True, the free press often criticized certain aspects of Dubcek's reform (or lack thereof) movement, but by freeing the press--along with other reforms--he became on of Czechoslovakia's most popular leaders in all of history. The Soviet Union did not like the anti-Soviet articles that appeared in the Czechoslovak press or Dubcek's apparent willingness to pursue a \"Czechoslovak road to socialism\" in clear contrast to the Soviet model, and the Soviet Union led a Warsaw-Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia to quell Dubcek's experiment (and, of course, used their post-invasion influence to end the free press). For Dubcek's take on the free press and its role in generating goodwill for the Communist Party and thus empowering the party to implement \"true\" Communist reform, see his memoirs, *Hope Dies Last: The Autobiography of Alexander Dubcek* (1993).\n\nIn short, opposition to a free press, while the norm among Communist (I capitalize the word here to indicate those states run by the Communist Party) states, it was hardly a universal truth. \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch06.htm*" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cx44a2x" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Italian-Americans were a much smaller minority in their adopted country than Italian-Argentines. (between 1861 and 1920 they were 59% of all immigrants to Argentina). One of the major factors behind the early success of \"Black Hand\" type extortion rackets (which evolved into the American Mafia) in the U.S. was an insular culture with little trust in police protection.\n\nThe other major factor would have been national Prohibition. This, more than anything, was what changed the American Mafia from the type of vultures that pick at any immigrant culture to the criminal institution it became (and still is, to a lesser extent). " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7iva8y" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "To understand this you have to look at the economics of Scotland at the time. Many areas, especially the Highlands, were incredibly poor and Scottish thinkers naturally turned to examining why certain nations were wealthy and certain nations weren't. David Hume in particular began to look at the existing system of mercantilism as bad for the flow of trade and economics in general. His go to metaphor was that money was like water and would flow into its natural location unless damned by tariffs and what not. He was also very much influenced by the French Physiocrats, who believed at all obstruction to the free flow of trade was bad and artificially raised the prices of necessities like grain. (Although they also believed that all wealth came originally from agriculture which Hume did not agree with.) \n\nAdam Smith took Hume's ideas and ran with them basically, eventually leading to his famous text. A lot more happened but this is the condensed version (and I'm sure someone who know more about Adam Smith can add a bit more detail on what exactly effected him.)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "de1ealn" ], "score": [ 26 ], "text": [ "Honestly its a bit hammed up to make the show more interesting, but it is at least in the right area as a depiction. \n\nCombat in the Pacific was not pleasant, and often in conditions that simply had little direct comparison in Europe. The Tropics will also do horrible things to the physical condition of even well prepared fighting men.\n\nIrregular supply, continuous close contact to the enemy, sustained forward operating before relief units arrived, and a truly dedicated foe could strain any unit. All in weather that makes proper nutrition, medical care, and hydration even more essential. And we should note conflate appearance necessarily with ill-discipline at all. Situations like those faced in much of the Pacific had a way of stripping away all that was not of immediate concern or need to the fighting man. So if it was too heavy and unused there is a good chance it is getting discarded and the climate of the region does a lot to dictate what you can do without when or \"lost\" and if you are on water rations, drinking is far more important than shaving to look at another example.\n\n\nLets just look at a few instances, the first being Guadalcanal. The success of the IJN in dominating the immediate seas around the island after the landings, and the shoestring nature of the campaign meant that for more than a month supply was tenuous at best, and the Japanese determined to drive the Marines out. The First Marine Division then would be in near constant combat for 4 months from early August until being fully withdrawn in early December, on an island with next to no internal infrastructure beyond the coast. \n\n[This meant that there often was little ability to provide clean uniforms, or even wash those they had beyond a dip in the surf or a river, and the men could indeed look little better than ruffians](_URL_0_). [While the heat was no friend and stripping of uniform parts during work was no rare sight](_URL_3_).\n\nWhile later at Tarawa for instance circumstances again meant that the experience was one of a continual meatgrinder until one side or the other was dead. The result was 4500 dead Japanese, with 1k dead Marines and another 2k as other casualties. [The small speck of an island was surrounded by a coral reef that prevented landing craft from getting close or approach from larger ships](_URL_2_), while purpose built LVT's were few in number and only able to deposit their loads on the beach under Japanese guns. That meant for the next 3 days tasks as basic as getting more fresh water, or ammo to shore, let alone more men, or taking wounded off were risky at best. [By the end the blasted burned out island resembled what it had done to the men on it](_URL_1_). [And it would be another 6 months before the 2nd Marine Division saw combat](_URL_4_).\n\nWe should also note that Band of Brothers shows a lot more of the men in garrison, training, and in general postings away from the front. The whole not saluting officers thing is actually very basic fiedlcraft that virtually every modern force uses, along with the removal of rank insignia or making them less obvious. Its generally considered a poor choice to point out your leaders for enemy snipers or others looking to ruin your day. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.daveswarbirds.com/guadalcanal/pics/ground/relieved_Marines_return_from_the_front.jpg", "https://1stbattalion24thmarines.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/tarawa.jpg", "http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-M-Tarawa/maps/USMC-M-Tarawa-5.jpg", "http://guadalcanal3.homestead.com/files/Marines_on_Guadalcanal.jpg", "https://www.vetfriends.com/militarypics/images/13107tarawa4thday.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cn3dzg7" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Cultural choices that seem to draw on roots before historical documents are difficult to explain or to trace to a point of origin. People who spoke Indo-European languages were typically preoccupied with the number three - to have seen things has naturally occurring in groups of threes (many descendant cultures maintain this to this day) or to see their gods as manifesting in three. The old story of Saint Patrick teaching the Irish about the idea of a single god manifested as the Son, the Father, and as the Holy Spirit, using a shamrock as a way to visualize this \"difficult\" concept, is hard to imagine: the Celts were certainly seeing these relationships long before conversion, and they would likely not have needed this explanation.\n\nOther cultures see things as occurring in fours or in fives, so this is merely a cultural choice that is not easily explained. An excerpt from my [Introduction to Folklore](_URL_0_) may help, especially with your question about \"folk stories\":\n\nAt the turn of the century, Axel Olrik (1864-1917) at the University of Copenhagen took a different approach. This Danish scholar was influential in the early development of Scandinavian folklore. In 1909, he published his “Epische Gesetze der Volksdictung” (“Epic Laws of Folk Narrative”). It was originally presented at a congress of scholars in Berlin in 1908. Other folklorists expanded Olrik’s work based on his notes, publishing new editions of the essay in 1919 and in 1921.\n\nThe important contributions of Olrik’s brief article are twofold. First, he broke from a concern about origins and started looking at other questions concerning the nature of oral tradition. His approach anticipates the structuralists after the war, but unlike those later scholars, he does not deny the validity of the Type as a concept.\n\nOlrik’s classic work was made available to the English-speaking world in a translation published in Alan Dundes’s reader, The Study of Folklore (1965: 129-141). Olrik arrived at a series of laws, which he suggested govern oral tradition. These laws would play a critical role in keeping a type hemmed in so that if a storyteller introduced a deviant variation, the next storyteller would correct it. \n\nRule #2: The law of Repetition: Folk narrative repeats action for emphasis. Olrik pointed out that the hero may go into a field three days in a row to kill giants, or that he tries three times to ride up a glass mountain. In literature, these events would be as different as possible; in folk narrative, they are as similar as possible. Olrik wrote: “every time a striking scene occurs in a narrative, and continuity permits, the scene is repeated.”\n\nRule #3: The Law of Three: In Indo-European and Semitic folktales, repetition occurs in threes. This almost has the appearance of being universal, but there are important exceptions. Where there are three repetitions or three brothers in a European folktale, the story in India will feature four, in keeping with the importance of that number in the subcontinent. Similarly, various American Indian cultures feature four or five as the preferred number, and this manifests in its oral tradition. Olrik made the point that literature, with the need for great realism, has fallen away from this rule, leaving oral tradition as the original form of storytelling exhibiting this rigid approach to narrative." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Folklore-Traditional-Studies-Elsewhere-ebook/dp/B00N65B0BY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419353796&sr=1-1&keywords=Ronald+M.+James" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cf08wl1", "cf09ilo" ], "score": [ 5, 2 ], "text": [ "This is an extremely controversial topic. Ian Morris's Why the West Rules - For Now ascribes it to the \"advantages of backwardness\". Basically Western Europe profited from the technological advances of other civilizations, and then was able to capitalize on them in ways the originators didn't.\n\nA specific example would be the sail. It was developed in China, but the rough Atlantic seas, and the loss of the overland trade route from Europe to China after the Crusades lead to the age of sail. The trade expedition where Columbus \"discovered\" America was the product of those developments. The Chinese didn't have the same risk/reward from losing the overland trade route, and they therefore had less of an incentive to send massive trade fleets east.\n\nI highly recommend the book, for such a dry topic it's really accessible.", "To kind of boil this down from a Chinese perspective, China was always truly a Middle Kingdom to the rulers and people. Starting from Silk Road days, goods from Asia, especially China and India, were constantly being traded West. With China, this was not only confined to resources, but also meant technology (water clocks, wheelbarrows, the Zhuge Nu a 4th century BCE repeating crossbow, many others). So once a real established route between China and Europe was established, there was a clamor for these items and ideas.\n\n\nTo China, Europe wasn't a well known entity. And what they did know of them didn't make them care to enquire that much more: after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, these Europeans that the Chinese encountered were deemed to be fairly uncivilized. The Chinese felt their own position to be superior to the Europeans (as they had every right to be, with cities far larger and more complicated than European cities during the Middle Ages). It's not a what that changes this, but a who: Chinghis Khan coming around in the 1200s with the Mongols.\n\n\nLong story short, the Mongols wrecked first Tibet and then both the Chinese states at the time: the \"Great Jin\" (大金) in the North, themselves a steppe people and controlling what is modern day Beijing, and the \"Southern Song\" part of the Song Dynasty, controlling what is more inner-mainland and South China. The damage was catastrophic both in terms of life and infrastructure. The garrisons, farmers, and average citizens were slaughtered and the countryside and cities were burned and looted. Much the same was done later in the Islamic world, perhaps the only close seconds to China at the time in terms of knowledge and power. Europe was relatively unharmed (Russia and Eastern Europe had most of the confrontations with the Mongols). \n\n\nThe Mongolian control over China starting with Kublai marked the Yuan dynasty, a relatively short lived dynasty that was marked by famine, natural disasters, and overall unhappiness. Eventually, the Ming dynasty arose out of rebellion and drove the Yuan north, but they continued to be an issue until the early 1600s. \n\n\nSo, to answer the question, most of this time was spent rebuilding, reconquering, and fortifying, lest another major Steppe invasion occur. The setback to China was pretty enormous. \n\n\nEDIT: I also forgot to include that China itself is not really known as a major sea-faring nation at this time. Going back to Kublai Khan, there was a major push to try and invade the Japanese by the Yuan. A large fleet was assembled multiple times after the conquering of Korea. In the first instance, much of the fleet was destroyed after sailing out to sea from Japan in an attempt to not be stuck on the beaches. The second attempt was marked by the famous Kamikaze. Again, catastrophic on military development and power projection \n\n\n\n\n\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cnu6sik" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "China and Mesoamerica also independently developed systems of writing, so the premise of your last question is false. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cctx3tx" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The Late Bronze Age Collapse has a few where due to the ensuing dark age its hard to tell exactly how they fell and where people dispersed to. Mycenae is a nice one because we have myths and ruins but even thats kind of mysterious. The Hittite collapse is a little more measurable because we can find \"destruction layers\" where their cities used to be and know they were having conflicts with a multitude of enemies.\n\n_URL_0_\n" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cz5wpf8", "cz5yv8b" ], "score": [ 46, 2 ], "text": [ "The wall of removed comments is a little intimidating, but I'll take a stab at this none the less.\n\nSo, coffee. \n\nI love coffee, and being a student of the Middle East have long been interested in the beverage's history. An internet search for the answer to your question will likely return a story about a 9th century Ethiopian farmer named Kaldi who discovered the plant. To the best of my knowledge, this story is absolutely false. Although I can confirm that the story is quite popular among Ethiopian co-workers of mine in the past. Another thing you will likely see is that the coffee plant is native to Ethiopia's Harrar region. While Harrar coffee is certainly very exquisite, I believe this information to be inaccurate as well, though I will not speak as firmly against it since I'm neither a botanist nor biologist. At any rate, it does run against my knowledge of the plant. The pairing of origin story and location strikes me as nationalist legend rather than fact.\n\nSo, if it's not from 9th century Ethiopia, where is it from?\n\nWell, the earliest mention is likely in Arab chronicles circa the turn of the previous millennia. The main varietal of coffee, *arabica* should give us a clue to its origin as well. The coffee plant is a native species to the geographically isolated Yemeni region on the south side of the peninsula. The plant, and its invigorating properties were popular among the Sufi communities in and around Mocha. Their cultivation and preparation was highly regarded, and eventually Mocha became the center of the coffee trade which beans known for having a distinct flavor. When coffee was introduced to Europe during the Renaissance period, Mocha beans would have been highly prized and fairly expensive. After chocolate was introduced from the new world, mocha came to be a chocolate-coffee blend, allowing the unique flavor of Mocha beans to be replicated with beans of a much more diverse origin.\n\nYemen is closely connected to the Horn of Africa both in flora and in human movement and trade, and that region of Africa (Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, and Djibouti) has had coffee since before we have written record of the area. The plant grows across the region, and is consumed heavily and sometimes ritualistically in all of those countries. The oldest coffee (berry at first, later bean) preparation technique is to add coffee to a kettle of cool water, and heat it over a flame until it froths up. This is still the traditional method of serving coffee in Ethiopia, and I have been told in Sudan as well. Other methods, such as the repeat boiling of Turkish coffee, or the hot water bath of French coffee came later.\n\nSo... yeah. \n\nNon-academic sources:\n\nEspresso Coffee: The Science of Quality - Illy and Viani\n\nThe History of the World in Six Glasses - Standage\n\nI apologize for the secondary source, it's not my area of study, but the information (primarily drawn from the first text) fits with academic and first-hand sources which I am familiar with (including my personal experiences and knowledge). May the mods have mercy. =)", "I refer to a few sources [here](_URL_0_) to add to what has already been said." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://m.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ulj7t/what_is_the_first_known_instance_of_coffee_being/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cxkiyka" ], "score": [ 29 ], "text": [ "I'm sure several Old World cities like Damascus will be mentioned, but in the Americas, the actual structure of [Taos Pueblo](_URL_0_) in northern New Mexico dates back (probably) to the 13th-14th centuries AD. Obviously, people have had to maintain it to continue living in it and there have been additions, but the location and much of the structure are based minimally on the existing structures in 1590s and probably extends back to the 13th-14th centuries. \n\n[Acoma Pueblo](_URL_2_) in western New Mexico has a similarly long occupation, but I don't believe [any of the structures](_URL_1_) themselves date back that far - just the occupation of that location. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Taos_Pueblo2.jpg", "http://luckdragon.falcorweb.net/serve/18/image/pueblo06.jpg", "http://luckdragon.falcorweb.net/serve/18/image/valley05.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cqkyi8o", "cqkz602" ], "score": [ 17, 28 ], "text": [ "A reminder to everyone to keep things in topic, and that answers are expected to be indepth and comprehensive. I've had to remove a single link to a Times piece and a discussion on Canadaian politicans.", "The organization [Friends Of New Germany](_URL_0_) was formed around this time with help of the German consul in New York. However its membership was limited between 5,000-10,000 and it was limited to Americans of German descent or naturalized German immigrants. The organization was investigated by Congress because of its fascist political stances and the German American Bund was subsequently the successor. I think this shows at least some limited popularity for Hitler, though he was particularly unpopular with many Americans." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cbjptly" ], "score": [ 37 ], "text": [ "Okay, so this is an incredibly complicated topic. Since you've linked [400-Rabbit's post](_URL_0_) in the AMA, I'll assume you've already read that and won't repeat what he's said there.\n\nRight off of the bat you need to understand that what we call the Aztec empire was actually a collection of autonomous, multi-ethnic city-states which had essentially been forced into submission by a really powerful city-state (similar in many ways to the [Delian League](_URL_1_) of ancient Greece.) The core of the empire was composed of Nahuatl-speaking peoples that we colloquially call Aztecs. However, *they did not recognize themselves as being of the same culture*. What united these groups was a common language. From their point of view, however, they were composed of different ethnicities. The Mexica were the dominant ethnicity of the major city-state. Other major ethnicities also existed including the Acolhua and Tlaxcaltec. Today we recognize these as \"Aztec\" cultures because in addition to a common language, they also shared several cultural traits in common. It is in this context 400 Rabbits made his post explaining Aztec attitudes towards sex. If you're looking at groups in the central portion of the Central Mexican Plateau 1300-1521 AD, then they were *on average* (not counting individual variation) very conservative when it came to sex. \n\nHowever, this only applies to those ethnic groups living in the geopolitical core of the Aztec empire. The \"Aztec\" culture was not ethnically homogeneous, as I explained above, but there were also entire cities with radically different cultural attitudes. The Aztecs subdued cities of Otomanguean speakers like the Mixtecs and Zapotecs. There were Totonacs and Otomí, and other cultures too numerous to name. And along the edges of the \"Aztec\" cultural region, the divisions between these groups is blurred. At cities like Coixtlahuaca (along the Puebla-Oaxaca border) there were Nahuatl-speakers (\"Aztecs\") and Mixtecs living side-by-side. \n\nSo, when you ask a question about sexuality in the Aztec empire, as a whole, it's a completely different question than focusing only on the cultures which made up its geo-political core. Looking at the attitudes towards sex among this larger spectrum of cultures yields a much more diverse picture. The Huastecs, for example, felt it was completely acceptable to walk around naked. There were several Mesoamerican cultures where it was acceptable for women to go topless, and some of these were part of the Aztec tributary system. 400 Rabbits mentioned in that earlier post how Diaz discussed \"sodomy\" and male prostitution in the Gulf Coast. That region was inhabited by Totonac people who, while they paid tribute to the empire, were culturally distinct. (Similar Homosexual prostitution was also practiced in the Tarascan Empire. While it may not have been officially legal there, it was tolerated.)\n\n**TL & DR:** Ultimately, the laws enforcing the rules of sexuality, were imposed on the city-state level, so there were certainly regions of the Aztec empire where the situation was more loose, but for the cultures living within the imperial core attitudes on sexuality were very strict. \n\nEDIT: If you want me to get more specific on cultural attitudes in one of these other cultures, I can try, but you'll need to specify what you want to know. It's too broad to cover all of them." ] }

[]

[ "http://mason.gmu.edu/~ebailey6/130aztec.html", "http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/aztec-gary-jennings/1102178428?ean=9780765317506", "http://nmai.si.edu/explore/exhibitions/item/681/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ee1h9/wednesday_ama_mesoamerica/c9zfpd4" ]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ee1h9/wednesday_ama_mesoamerica/c9zfpd4", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delian_League" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dqr4rgy", "dqrma04" ], "score": [ 20, 105 ], "text": [ "Hi there -- while there's always more to be said on these topics, [we had a previous thread here](_URL_0_) about guitar tuning that may be of interest. ", "Standard tuning is an invention of necessity. It allows the best compromise between comfortable fingering for chords and comfortable fingering for scales. If guitars were tuned to 5ths like most stringed instruments, scales would be really hard to play because of the angle you have on the guitar compared to like a violin or cello. If guitars were tuned entirely to 4ths then chords would be a bit of a mess and you wouldn't have a nice octave thing going on with both the highest and lowest string tuned to E. Hence the major 3rd interval between the G and B strings.\n\nStandard tuning first appeared in Italy in the 1500's, when five course chitarra battentes were tuned ADGBE. These replaced four course guitar-like instruments which were tuned closer to how ukuleles are today. When a sixth course was added in the mid-late 1700's E was the obvious choice. A 'course' is two strings next to each other by the way, so a modern 12 string guitar is a six course instrument. A chitarra battente would have been tuned the same as a modern 12 string guitar, minus the low E strings. \n\nSpanish tuning as a nickname for open G is thought to have originated in America with British expatriate Henry Worrall, and his tune \"Worrall’s Original Spanish Fandango\", played in open G tuning. Worrall copyrighted the composition in 1860 and it quickly became a standard parlor tune. It was so popular that it was likely included in small tutorial books that would be packaged with guitars at the time. In this way it influenced the folk, country, and blues of the early 1900's. [Here](_URL_0_) is a country rendition of Spanish Fandango from the 1930's, with the melody played on a steel guitar." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5dtg39/how_did_the_standard_guitar_tuning_of_eadgbe_come/" ], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHZifbYM2qo" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cxzovvs" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I am curious what you mean by peaceful. If you mean \"after the culmination of one of the bloodiest civil wars ever, with an intermittent period of one of the bloodiest wars ever,\" then your definition of peaceful might be slightly skewed." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d9fjsb1" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "AFAIK there was nothing beyond \"Seres\" that they knew of. China was essentially well known to the Romans as a source of silk, but it was geographically very vaguely represented on maps such as Ptolmey's map. I think it's highly unlikely any Roman had any specific knowledge of Korea or Japan given these circumstances, and if there was any information it would have been lumped together with the rest of their knowledge of \"Seres\". So, it would have been, to them, just another part of the \"mysterious east.\" I don't think there's any specific evidence Romans knew about those countries." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d4forbp" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "In Jules Verne's \"Around the Moon\" (1870) they already need to carry an oxygen supply. However, there is only a brief moment of weightlessness as the vessel crosses the point where lunar and terran gravity cancel each other. This denote a latest date when weightlessness was not yet common knowledge.\n\nTsiolkovsky certainly knew weightlessness in the 1880s, and didn't deem it necessary to explain it very much. It seems safe to assume that it was accepted among experts.\n\nIt's hard to say when it became *common* knowledge. It's entirely possible that every physics teacher from 1870 onward found it worthwhile to point out the obvious mistake in Verne's story, but I wouldn't know where to look for a source. It's also hard to say whether a bit of trivia that doesn't affect anyone can constitutes \"common\" knowledge.\n\nIt certainly became more widely known when rocketry and the prospect of space flight became positively popular in the 1920s. When Fritz Lang made \"The Woman in the Moon\" in 1929, the depiction of weightlessness was no longer optional.\n\nHowever, all of that is nothing compared to actual spaceflight becoming the topic of evening news. Between Sputnik and Mercury, truly everybody had learned about vacuum and weightlessness, whether they had even the slightest interest in the topic or not." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e94uufz" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Sorry for not putting a specific time and location for this, but it's pretty universal, going back to tribal cultures. For some reason, people that share genetic makeup are seen as \"sharing blood.\" I suppose that our blood cells are one of many types of cells carrying our genetic information, and perhaps we more associate blood with genetics because of our cultural associations (I'm definitely not a geneticist so I can't claim if this is a 'chicken or egg' scenario), but I was just wondering if anyone knew why this was so prevalent. What is it about blood that we find so symbolic of (for lack of a better term) 'blood' relations." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f3wza9g" ], "score": [ 24 ], "text": [ "The difficulty with your question is that there isn't really an over arching Native American culture. North America was home to a couple hundred distinct tribes with their own beliefs and religions. There was some overlap, but generally they are all different. I think the best option for you is to choose a particular culture group and go from there. But to give something of an answer, I'm studying to be an anthropologist and Native American culture is a field that I am very interested, and the 2 creation myths I know off hand are that of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) and the Sioux.\n\nHaudenosaunee:\nIn the beginning there was no earth. Just a vast ocean. In the sky was an island upon which the Sky People lived. On this island nobody was born or died and there was no such thing as sadness. One day one of the Sky Women discovered she was pregnant. This angered her husband and, in his rage, he uprooted the great tree which was in the center of the island and which produced lights (as the sun had yet to be created). The Sky Woman went and looked through the hole that this created and could see the vast ocean and was curious, but her husband pushed her and she fell through the hole. (Another version claims that the Sky Woman was sent down wrapped in light by the Ruler of the Sky People in order to create land below, not pushed by her angry husband) Now in that ocean, multitudes of water animals lived and they immediately came to the Sky Woman's aid. The animals knew that she would require earth to stand on and all of the animals tried diving to the ocean floor to get some but they all failed. Then the lowly muskrat dove and gathered some and the animals spread it on a turtle's back. The turtle grew and grew until he was the size of North America and Sky Woman rested there. Eventually she gave birth to her twins, the good Sapling and the evil Flint. Sapling was born the normal way, but Flint was cruel and impatient and forced his way out through his mother's underarm, killing her. After her death the new island was covered in darkness, so Sapling made the sun from her face. Flint then created a great darkness that would chase her from the west (night). Sapling then made stars and the moon from his mother's breasts and placed them in the night sky. He then buried her body in the earth (hence mother earth, from whom all life comes). The crow arrived and, in his ear, Sapling found a corn kernel and planted it, sowing the first crop. Crow stilll flies around corn fields, protecting the corn, but taking a share for himself as well. Sapling created all humans and the good things in the world and, had it been just him, life would be simple. But Flint created hardships, he put cruelty into men's hearts, he put the small, sharp bones in fish, he made inedible berries and plants, and he made the harsh winters that the Haudenosaunee homeland (Western New York) are known for.\n\nThe Sioux: \nIn the beginning were 2 beings Inian (rock) and Wakhan Tanka (the creator). Inian wanted to show his compassion and spread himself to become the earth or Makka, but in doing so lost a lot of blood, which became water. This caused Inian to shrivel up and became hard, and he begins losing his powers. The water cannot retain his powers, and Skan (the motion of the universe/ flow of water) was created. Makka complains to Inian that everything is cold and dark, and so he creates Anpao, the Dawn. As Anpao's red light was not enough for Maka, Inyan creates Wi, the Sun to bring light. Wi is married to the moon and they have a daughter, the shooting star. Meanwhile there are two beings called Old Man and Old Woman and they have a daughter Ite who is married to the Wind. With Wind she has 4 sons, the four winds (North wind, South wind, East wind, West wind). ktomi, the spider, convinces Ike to have an affair with the sun and she does. The affair is found out and Moon leaves the Sun (creating day and night) and Ike has a fifth son, the Tornado. Wind and the four sons leave and Ite now feels lonely so she gets Iktome to go find more people. He travels underground in the shape of a wolf and finds Tokahe, the first man. Tokahe emerges from underground (at Wind Cave in South Dakota) and marvels at all the beauty and Ike teaches him how to cook, hunt, fish, make clothing and build the teepee. \n\nThere are many versions of both of these tales (especially the Sioux one since the Sioux aren't an individual tribe, but are just categorized as such by white people. Siouxan describes the language which is spoken by many tribes from Ohio to the Rockies and north into Canada (and some other places scattered offside of there) the Lakota, Dakota, Miniconjou, Brule, Yankton, etc. \nHope this helps. If you want to private message me I'm happy to talk about Native American stuff" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfiftn8", "cfig55i", "cfiitwi" ], "score": [ 5, 39, 10 ], "text": [ "[Here's a related question](_URL_0_) that might help spark some conversation. I love for someone to elaborate on a couple of the visits to the Americas mentioned in that thread.", "The first visit by a reigning monarch to Canada didn't take place until 1939, when King George VI and Queen Elizabeth travelled across Canada, the Dominion of Newfoundland, and the United States. \n\nHowever, royalty had visited what is now Canada from the late 18th century onwards. Halifax, Nova Scotia was the Royal Navy's North American Station from 1758 to 1818. Two sons of King George III passed through Halifax with the Navy - Prince William (later Duke of Clarence, then King William IV) served on HMS Pegasus out of Halifax. \n\nHis brother, Prince Edward (later Duke of Kent, father of Queen Victoria) served with the British Army in Quebec as well as Halifax. His presence remains in Halifax through various works in the city. The [Halifax Town Clock](_URL_0_) was built under his orders. He built a lavish estate outside the city in Rockingham, of which a [heart shaped pond](_URL_1_) and a [small rotunda](_URL_2_) remain. \n\nAnother future European monarch spent time with Edward in Halifax. The exiled Duc d'Orléans, the future King Louis Phillipe, was the guest of Prince Edward during his travels around the New World following the Revolution. \n\nSource: Raddall, Thomas (1993). *Halifax, Warden of the North.* ", "I guess another relevant question is \"How often did reigning Monarchs in the olden times travel abroad?\" " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1s6204/who_was_the_first_reigning_european_monarch_to/" ], [ "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Halifax_Town_Clock.jpg", "http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.6097114.0433/flat,550x550,075,f.jpg", "http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2473/3977528719_31fc053991_o.jpg" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dn9kyp8" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "Hi there, always more to be said here but you may be interested in these older answers from u/restricteddata and u/yodatsracist: \n\n_URL_1_\n\nand \n\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1c0nox/does_the_size_of_israels_nuclear_stockpile/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5idd3e/when_and_how_did_israel_obtain_nuclear_weapons/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eumk7a5" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "Supply difficulties, material and manpower shortages, and Soviet suspicion.\n\nWhen Barbarossa began, Britain had little hope that the Soviet Union was going to last. They assigned a military mission to Moscow, but their main goals were to gather intelligence for the British and to assist the Soviets in blowing up everything when (not if) the front collapsed and the Germans came charging through.\n\nIt took some time for this attitude to change; you can see signs around early August 1941, but even then it wasn't certain (it wouldn't be until considered safe until after Stalingrad). In any case, what British troops were available were tied up on home defense (because the German invasion was going to come any minute now, an opinion held onto well after Barbarossa began), and because after defeats in Norway, France and Greece and the ongoing Desert Campaign, there really wasn't much to go around. But no later than November 1941 the British are looking at sending troops into the Caucasus area (I have records to this effect; conversations on the topic may have started earlier, but certainly not before September, since Iran was not under Anglo-Soviet control at that time). There's no possibility of sending a great field army to the Soviet front, because the British don't have one lying around and the lines of communication from the Middle East through the Caucasus (which is where the British effort would have to come from) were exceedingly poor. British planners said \"you can either send Lend-Lease supplies through the area, or support a small force through the area, but not both.\" The Soviets weren't really interested at that time.\n\nCut to mid-1942. The Soviets have held on long enough to make Lend-Lease and the development of the Persian Corridor something worth investing resources in (and the British and Soviets have jointly occupied Iran in search of a practically non-existent Nazi fifth column, itself a fascinating story). While the Desert Campaign continued, and the new war in the Far East still further stretched British resources, the fact that the German campaign in the East for 1942 focused on the Soviet south made the British nervous: the Germans were advancing at great speed towards the major source of high-quality British fuel, Abadan in Iran (there were other sources in the area as well, but Iran was the big producer in this period). This drive also increasingly threatened India. So the British considered dispatching forces into Soviet territory to meet the Germans as far forward as possible and again asked about this.\n\nHowever, logistics in the area were still garbage despite attempts to improve things as rapidly as possible, and British studies soon realized that between available forces (few) and the ability to support them that it wasn't going to be much of an effort. With those considerations, the best contribution the British could make would be to pick a relatively narrow and defensible area, like the Caucasus mountains. So, the British continued to offer to station forces in the Caucasus to hold a line, rather than marching right to the front, with the real goal of being a forward guard of British positions rather than a rear guard of Soviet ones, but Stalin was contemptuous of this idea and turned it down. I would assume, but can't be sure, that Stalin was uncomfortable with the idea of British soldiers in the rear, especially guarding the area of the Baku oilfields; you may recall that the Germans had leaked Anglo-French plans to bomb Baku they found after they captured France, going to great lengths to publicize them to sow dissent. Lastly, for the Soviets, supplies going to the front would obvious be of more use that British troops hanging out in the rear." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d4sjjqd", "d4u909i" ], "score": [ 4, 3 ], "text": [ "I don't have a definitive answer, but the following section from Lewis Mumford's 1966 *The Myth of the Machine* gets at some early charts. Mumford is discussing pre-dynastic Egypt in this section (italics mine): \n\n\"If one single invention was necessary to make this larger mechanism [the Megamachine] operative for constructive tasks as well as for coercion, it was probably the invention of writing. This method of translating speech into graphic record not merely made it possible to transmit impulses and messages throughout the system, but to fix accountability when written orders were not carried out. Accountability and the written word both went along historically with the control of large numbers; *and it is no accident that the earliest uses of writing were not to convey ideas, religious or otherwise, but to keep temple records of grain, cattle, pottery, fabricated goods, stored and disbursed.* This happened early, for a pre-dynastic Narmer mace in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford records the taking of 120,000 prisoners, 400,000 oxen, and 1,422000 goats. The arithmetical reckoning was an even greater feat than the capture\" (192). \n\nThe italicized section approaches the original question, though it does not single out the \"oldest known chart or graph.\" I imagine that astrological charts are also some of the oldest, thought I don't have a good source on that. Walter Ong's *Orality and Literacy* also discusses the earliest uses of writing. ", "It depends on how you define charts/graphs.\n\n[This article](_URL_1_)* has a pretty good summary of the history of it.\n\nThe use of some kinds of visual aid for understanding information is, of course, as old as writing (and probably older). Using standardized graphs to compare numerical quantities in a concise way seems to date to about the 1600s CE, although there are a few scattered examples from a few centuries earlier.\n\nWilliam Playfair (mid/late 1700s) is a name that comes up a lot--from my understanding, he invented the [bar graph](_URL_3_), [line chart] (_URL_0_), [pie chart](_URL_2_), and others.\n\n\n*Friendly, Michael, and Daniel J. Denis. \"Milestones in the history of thematic cartography, statistical graphics, and data visualization.\"" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Playfair_TimeSeries-2.png/800px-Playfair_TimeSeries-2.png", "http://www.math.yorku.ca/SCS/Gallery/milestone/milestone.pdf", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Playfair-piechart.jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/1786_Playfair_-_Exports_and_Imports_of_Scotland_to_and_from_different_parts_for_one_Year_from_Christmas_1780_to_Christmas_1781.jpg/800px-1786_Playfair_-_Exports_and_Imports_of_Scotland_to_and_from_different_parts_for_one_Year_from_Christmas_1780_to_Christmas_1781.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "covbj96", "covd8ef", "cowbucj", "cowfp20" ], "score": [ 2, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "That sounds ludicrous. I'd like to see their reasoning and citations.", "Note it doesn't say \"20 million Jews\", so do not compare it to previous numbers like 6 millions. It includes political opposition, disabled people, homosexuals, Poles, Soviets etc. Especially with Soviets it depends on how you count. Are civilians murdered by Nazis outside of camps still a part of holocaust?", "I work as a guide in Berlin, as well as at the Sachsenhausen Memorial outside of Berlin.\n\nI know exactly the issue here, because I have come up against it before.\n\nThe problem is that many sources, including the article that you have linked to, mis-represent the 2009 USHMM study \"Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933 - 1945\".\n\nWhat the study has actually said is ..\n\n > The lead editors on the project, Geoffrey Megargee and Martin Dean, estimate that 15 million to 20 million people died **or were imprisoned** in the sites that they have identified as part of a multivolume encyclopedia.\n\n\"Or were imprisoned\". So .. this has frequently \"morphed\" into people saying \"Did you hear that new research proved 20 million people died in the concentration camps!!!???\".\n\nAs for the 42,000 number, this is correct. But the study includes *every type of facility* including death/labor/transit camps .. but also including labor placements, workshops, ghettos, detention centers, brothels, Germanization camps, euthanization facilities, POW camps, abortion stations, etc etc. The total includes *every one* of them, even if it only was open for a short time. Say, for example, a \"satellite camp\" containing a few dozen prisoners which opened for a only few months in 1941 for some specific task.\n\nSo .. yes .. the numbers are correct (according to this study), but they have to be qualified.", "FYI, the very same US Holocaust Memorial Museum held an AMA a couple of weeks ago, which was linked in this sub. Here was their comment on numbers _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[ "http://www.businessinsider.com/shocking-new-holocaust-study-claims-nazis-killed-up-to-20-million-people-2013-3" ]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/HaShoah/comments/2tvbhi/it_is_international_holocaust_remembrance_day_and/co2pghm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cnptx0d" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "Short answer: We have no idea.\n\nLonger answer: We really have no idea.\n\nThere's no actual evidence that the single warrior at Stamford existed, as the ASC and Henry of Huntingdon are the only mentions of it - *Heimskringla* doesn't, so far as I recall, mention the single warrior at all.\n\nAs far as it possibly being a small group of soldiers that got embellished into a single warrior goes, possibly, but again, we have no real way of knowing for sure." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmcsywj", "cmd130u" ], "score": [ 9, 3 ], "text": [ "[Yes](_URL_0_) there was a belief among some Christians that the year 1000 would signal the coming of the Anti-Christ, but it was not a part of the church doctrine. Especially in Anglo-Saxon England it gained some traction.\n\nFrom The Anglo-Saxon World by Higham & Ryan\n\n\"...the growing sense of eschatological expectation in the run-up to the year 1000. Though such expectations were far from universal in western Europe, they formed a significant intellectual current, influential on som Anglo-Saxon thinkers.\"\n\n[Millennialism](_URL_1_)\n ", "Yes. Maybe. \n\nRegarding the year 1000AD:\n\n > \"In this year a terrible comet appeared, which by its look terrified many, who feared that the last day was at hand; inasmuch as several years before it had been predicted by some, deluded by a false calculation, that the visible world would end in the year of Christ 1000.” -- _Annales Hirsaugienses_ via _The Year 1000 And The Antecedents of the Crusades_. \n\nBut, according to George Burr, that account in _Annales_ wasn't written until the fifteenth or sixteenth century, so who knows. It's likely that many people _living_ in the year 1000AD didn't know what year it actually was and apocalypse literature was so popular back then that in any given year, _someone_ was generally anticipating the end of the world. \n\n\"So what if it's the year 1174? Are you saying that our Lord and Savior can't bring about the Kingdom of Heaven just because it's 1174?\"\n\nThough it isn't what you asked, exactly, I'll add that Millennial panics in general are really common, though the starting point for those thousand-year periods will vary. The first one that I'm aware of happened in 200AD:\n\n > For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place...in the year 5500...and 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day “on which God rested from all His works...for “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.” Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says: “five are fallen; one is,” that is, the sixth; “the other is not yet come.” -- [Hippolytus of Rome](_URL_0_)\n\nHippolytus TL;DR: 200AD was supposed to be the Earth's six-thousandth birthday. As God created everything in six days and a thousand years was but a day to the lord, then the world will end in 200AD.\n\nI don't know if anyone took this seriously, but Hippolytus wrote it down, so it must have meant something to someone.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://imgur.com/SF7p8hT", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism" ], [ "http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.i.x.ii.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "csdgfxk" ], "score": [ 17 ], "text": [ "It would depend on a great many factors. For one, would you be wearing the dress of a modern day individual, such as what you are wearing now? Would you be transported as you are, essentially, or to blend in?\n\nFurthermore, would you suddenly develop the ability to speak the local tongue, or any tongue of the ancient world?\n\nRoman Slavery was not at all based on race, as slaves were drawn from all over the rest of the Mediterranean World, including Gaul (France), Germania (Germany), Hispania (Spain), Britannia (Britain), Greece.^1,2\n\nAs far as based on your appearance besides race? That's a difficult matter. Seneca states that, \"a proposal was once made to distinguish free men by their dress...it then became apparent how great would be the impending danger if our slaves should begin to count our number\".^3 Bradley seems to draw from that that slaves were not easily distinguished by physical appearance, a conclusion that I agree with.^4 Here is an excerpt from Bradley's article:\n\n\n\"The incident Seneca describes (which there is no cause to doubt as a matter of fact) suggest that in normal circumstances Roman slaves were not easily distinguished by physical appearance alone, and other items of evidence could be invoked to substantiate that inference: Appian, for example, in a moralistic digression on contemporary Roman decadence lamented that \"slaves are dressed in the same fashion as their masters\" and that \"except in the case of senatorial rank the same costume is common to slaves and to free citizens.\" Moreover, if Roman slaves are compared with their counterparts in the slave societies of the New World, it is certainly true that the most important means of differentiating between slave and free in the Americas, skin colour, was almost completely lacking at Rome: the huge contrast between black save and white master simply did not exist and so a contrast between inferior black and superior white could not be drawn.\"^4\n\nSo, to conclude, it would depend. Race would not be the primary factor, but if you were dressed in strange clothes, could not communicate with anyone, and generally ran amok, you might draw suspicion from the locals. \n\nIf, however, you could speak the language or you were in the dress, you might already be assumed to be a slave or a citizen. It is important to note that most slaves were free to walk about, especially Greek slaves, who were often tutors. They were not constantly chained up or anything of the sort.\n\nSo, in the end, I would say no. You would not have been enslaved right away.\n\nFootnotes:\n\n1. Appian, *Civil Wars* 2.120; Seneca, *On Mercy*, 1.24.1. \n\n2. Bruce W. Frier and Thomas A.J McGinn (2004), *A Casebook on Roman Family Law*, p.15.\n\n3. Stefan Goodwin (2009), *Africa in Europe: Antiquity into the Age of Global Expansion*, p.41.\n\n4. Keith R. Bradley (1988), \"Roman Slavery and Roman Law\" *Historical Reflections* vol 15, no 3. p 477. (The whole article is worth a read).\n\n\nEdit: I also wanted to source a post I made about a year ago on the [topic of slavery here](_URL_0_). You might find a great deal more information there regarding the nature of slaves, as well as some pointers for reading up on it! \n\nHope that helps!\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1j37eo/were_slaves_loyal_to_their_master_in_ancient_rome/cbas8vy" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c68mu9r", "c68pxoi", "c68ykbi", "c68zzj9" ], "score": [ 17, 7, 7, 2 ], "text": [ "The Treaty of Tripoli, which was written in 1796, features this quote: \"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.\"", "I definitely do not have a full answer to this question, but here's a teeny tiny little anecdote from my research.\n\nAt an iron mine in western Virginia between 1880-1915 there were many different worker groups. Initially, it was African-Americans, Italian immigrants, whites, and a handful of British immigrants. African-Americans and Italians were forced into company housing to maintain \"harmony amongst the employees.\" After the company had been operating in this fashion for about a decade, a new group of immigrants were brought into the area. The group of importance here was a group of about 10-20 \"Muslim Turks.\" As far as I can tell, some of the Turks lived with the Italians by choice, but just as many were allowed to live wherever they wanted. In other words, African-Americans and Italians were discriminated against MUCH more than the even more foreign Muslim Turks. ", "They were thought of as exotic curiosities, particularly if they were observant Muslims who dressed differently and stopped during the day to pray. In big cities there might have been a district where they would have been left alone (similar to Hasidim or Chinese) but they would never have been thought of as ordinary mainstream members of society. Persecuted? I don't know that they were run out of town, but they certainly wouldn't have been invited to join the right lodges or civic organizations. Interfaith marriages would have been forbidden; job opportunities quite limited.\n\nI'm baffled by the claim that \"it was probably more tolerated than nowadays.\" We're talking about a society where, in many areas, *Catholicism* was a strange and exotic practice.", "Another perspective that you might find interesting, although quite outside the scope of your original question, is that from Professor D.S. Margoliouth's 1906 book \"Mohammedanism\" written for the Home University Library of Modern Knowledge series published by Thornton Butterworth. \n\nMargoliouth was Professor of Arabic in the University of Oxford and a member of the council of the Royal Asiatic Society, and so we might expect to find in this work - although written for the layman - a solid academic perspective on subject. My copy of this book bears a sticker from \"The Anglo-French Library, Cairo\" with the label \"Zogopoulo Bros Sharia Kamel\" although I am unsure as to whether this was a lending library or a bookshop. \n\nThe majority of the book is a sober commentary of the Koran as a religious and literary work, and an examination of the practice of Islam and its shaping of the government of an Islamic state. The most interesting part of the book in relation to your question is found in Chapter I: The Islamic World.\n\nThere is an interesting discussion of the contemporary popular speculation on the means of Islamic population increase. An interesting method of acquiring adherents is mentioned as \"the purchase of children, said to be frequently done in China, when districts have been impoverished by plague or famine ; our authorities speak of as many as 10,000 children being bought for the sake of replenishing the Moslem ranks on a single occasion.\" \n\nThe author continues to list alternate means of increasing Muslim numbers - “In the Wan district of the Bahr al-Ghazal Province” writes ARTIN PASHA, “a kind of propaganda by marriage, if not by slavery is actively employed. One great factor in Moslem propaganda in the Sudan is the army, inasmuch as every heathen negro enrolled in one of the black battalions is first circumcised then taught the Moslem creed, and lo ! he is a Moslem.” Yet the chief cause, natural increase, must not be forgotten, Although Mohammed cannot be charged with having instituted any worship of human fertility, such as was common in Asia, his system encouraged it to the very utmost. He held unhesitatingly that a human being was an asset to the community and he made illegitimacy all but impossible. Hence families of 50, 70, or even 100 were not uncommon in islamic countries, and probably are still to be found. The laws which govern human increase are indeed exceedingly obscure but that the Islamic principles have at any rate at times had a tendency to multiply the population abnormally seems uncertain.”\n\nAlso important to remember is the importance of ideas about race to commentators at this time - “It has been the tendency if Islam, partly owing to the principle to which allusion has been made, to mix races ; there being no difference in caste or rank between the son of the freewoman and the son of the bondwoman, the blood of the various races whence slaves have been bought or captured has mixed with that of the purchasers or conquerors. Hence the members of the same family will often present very distinct types ; and racial purity, whether an advantage or a disadvantage, is rarely to be found in Islamic communities. In Arabia itself the breed is probably somewhat purer than elsewhere - that is, in the desert ; in the towns there is the usual mixture due to the cause that has been specified, and to others. Beauty among the Islamic peoples is chiefly due to admixture with Circassian blood, but also with Greek and Armenian ; literary and scientific ability has usually been the result of entry into Islam of Indo-germanic elements ; the great Islamic authors are mostly Persians. The champions of Islam were at the first Arabs ; in the third century of its existence its greatest fighters were found amoung its Turkish adherents, and this has continued ever since. Its mystical side has been developed in the main by Persians and Indians, but Africans and Spaniards have contributed something thereto. So far as it admits of its artistic side, that is to be found chiefly, if not entirely, in Persia.”\n\n“In the main, then, Islam is a religion of the Heat Belt , the part of the earth's surface which lies between 30 degrees N. latitude and 30 degrees S. latitude with a mean temperature of 68 F. “During the past five hundred years,” says Mr. Alleyne Ireland, “The people of this belt have added nothing whatever to human advancement. Those natives of the tropics and subtropics who have not been under direct European influence have not during that time made a single contribution of the first importance to art, literature, science, manufacture, or invention ; they have not produced an engineer or a chemist or a biologist or a historian or a painter or a musician of the first rank.” Islam, however, has extended somewhat to the north of this Belt, which includes the whole of Africa, Arabia, and the Malay Archipelago ; probably 41 degrees or 42 degrees marks its limit of extension northwards. And so far as Islam has produced literary monuments of the sort which Mr. IRELAND describes, their authors belong almost exclusively to those eleven or twelve degrees.” \n\nAnother interesting consideration offered is the information presented by the text on points of contact between the Islamic and Christian world at the time - At the end of a brief discussion of areas under Islamic government, Professor Margoliouth gives a view of the Ottoman system of dealing with foreigners visiting, and resident within their empire. “‘In Turkey,’ says Sir CHARLES ELIOT, ‘ all foreigners enjoy almost the same immunities as diplomatists in other countries. Their domiciles cannot be entered by the Ottoman police without the consent of their respective COnsular authorities, and notice must be immediately given to those authorities if any foreigner is arrested. Whenever a foreigner is tried, the Consul of his country (or a representative) must be present, and can protest against the sentence and prevent its execution if he considers it illegal. All suits between foreigners are tried in their own consular courts, and civil suits between foreigners and Ottoman subjects in mixed courts, at which a representative of the foreigner’s Consul must be present. The taxes and dues which can be taken from foreigners are regulated by treaty, and cannot be increased or modified except with the consent of their Ambassadors or Ministers.’ Further, various treaties give the European concert the right to interfere in favour of the Christian nationalities subject to the Porte. ‘Turkey’ says another diplomatist ‘has been admitted into the European concert, but remains there in a state of tutelage.” \n\nWhen thinking about Islamic-European Christian contact, a consideration of the Colonial impact is also valuable - “The total number of Moslems under Christian rule or protection was reckoned in 1906 at about 161 millions ; of whom 81½ millions are subject to Great Britain, about 29¼ to Holland, about 29¼ to France and some 16 to Russia. Next to these comes Germany, with some 2½ million Moslem subjects in Africa, while Italy Portugal and Spain rule over some ¾ million in the same continent. Some small European states account for the remainder. Although Great Britain is by far the greatest Moslem power in the world, it does not appear that our nation has ever colonised on Moslem territory, i.e. established permanent communities of its sons thereon. The British who are to be found in Moslem lands are usually engaged on some temporary mission or employment, from the governor general downwards. The French, on the other hand, have established actual colonies in Algeria, though not in Tunisia, which they only protect. The former country, which sends deputies to the French Chamber, etc., may therefore be considered and extension of France. Similarly the Islamic countries occupied by Russia are part of Russia, and send representatives to the Duma ; they are indeed contiguous to other portions of the empire. The Dutch conquests and administrative systems bear a close resemblance to the British. Forcible conversion has scarcely been attempted by any of these nations, and little encouragement has ordinarily been given to proselytising organisations. Thus in the Sudan Christian missions are forbidden to work among the Moslem population, and must confine their efforts to those districts where fetish-worship or paganism survives”. \n\n“The notion that proselytism from Islam to Christianity is unknown, or even that it is rare, is erroneous ; in spite of difficulties, the missionaries can show restable figures for India, and some not wholly negligible for Africa.”\n\nI hope that these brief extracts are somewhat illuminating. I have refrained from commenting on them in respect of my general ignorance of the subject, and am very aware that such short and amateurly selected sections from a single source can tell us but little about Western perceptions of Islam at the time, and being the most unusual seeming parts of Professor Margoliouth's books in no way do justice to the fullness of his argument." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "e8gnha6" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Hi there! We've removed your question because it's asking about something like a name, a number, a date or time, a location, or the origin of a word - [basic facts](_URL_1_). We'd encourage you to instead post this question in the weekly, stickied [\"Short Answers to Simple Questions\"](_URL_2_) thread, where questions of basic fact can be answered succinctly, based on reliable sources. For more information on this rule, [please see this thread](_URL_3_).\n\nAlternatively, if you didn't mean to ask a simple question about basic facts, but have a more complex question in mind, feel free to repost a reworded question. If you need some pointers, the mod team is always happy to assist if you [contact us in modmail](_URL_0_), but also be sure to check out this [guide on asking better questions](_URL_4_).\n\nFinally, don’t forget that there's many subreddits on Reddit aimed at answering your questions. Consider /r/AskHistory (which has lighter moderation but similar topic matter to /r/AskHistorians), /r/explainlikeimfive (which is specifically aimed at simple and easily digested answers), or /r/etymology (which focuses on the origins of words and phrases)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_basic_facts", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3ASASQ", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/815jyq/announcing_the_testing_of_the_basic_facts_rule/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/505nw2/rules_roundtable_18_how_to_ask_better_questions/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5n6tm0", "c5n7hoz", "c5n7sal", "c5n81vw", "c5n9tbx", "c5nebqj", "c5njq0d" ], "score": [ 3, 9, 3, 4, 13, 9, 6 ], "text": [ "Not a strictly historical question, but does anyone have favorite songs that deal with history?\n\nHere's a list of songs I can quickly think of:\n\n[Blind Guardian - The Age of False Innocense](_URL_1_): Deals with Galileo\n\n[Blind Guardian - And Then There Was Silence](_URL_4_): More based on literature than history, a song based on The Odyssey, The Iliad and Aeneid\n\n[Blind Guardian - Curse My Name](_URL_3_): A song about The Tenure of Kings and Their Magistrates written by John Milton, written shortly after Charles I's execution.\n\n[Sabaton - Screaming Eagles](_URL_0_): This song's about the Siege of Bastogne. Most of Sabaton's music is about historical wars, with an emphasis on WW2. \n\n[Sabaton - A Lifetime of War](_URL_5_) is about the Thirty Years' War.\n\n[Sabaton - Angels Calling](_URL_2_) deals with WWI.\n\n^No ^one ^shall ^discuss ^a ^particular ^song ^by ^Abba...", "Have any cultures developed that didn't have music?\n\nIt seems like all people ever always sang or danced together.", "For a long time, opera was the hot ticket in much of Europe for the more well-to-do. I unfortunately don't know that much about it, so here's my request for someone to jump in and inform us (I know you're out there!).\n\nA book I'd highly recommend regarding perceptions of music theory and musicality is Vanessa Agnew's _Enlightenment Orpheus_. It's about \"musical exploration,\" if we can call it that, and how Europeans rethought their own perspective on music when encountering music from peoples in the South Pacific.", "Why is Wagner seen as such an important composer?", "While I don't have a period of interest, I can say that music has been an important part of diplomacy. For example, during the Cold War, the [United States sent jazz musicians around the world, Dave Brubeck](_URL_4_) among others.\n\n > From March to May in 1958, the Dave Brubeck Quartet embarked on an ambitious tour of Europe and Asia that was sponsored by the U.S. State Department. This tour was part of a \"cultural ambassador\" program in which the U.S. government sent prominent American musicians abroad to promote American arts and culture during the Cold War. The Brubeck Quartet's tour itinerary documents performances in Poland, Turkey, India, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), East Pakistan (Bangladesh), West Pakistan (Pakistan), Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq.\n\n* [Jazz as Democracy? Dave Brubeck and Cold War Politics](_URL_3_)\n* [Cool Jazz and the Cold War: Dana Gioia Interviews Dave Brubeck on Cultural Diplomacy](_URL_19_)\n* [Hot Jazz and the Cold War in 1950s Mumbai](_URL_2_)\n\nAlso, he ended up producing an album – *[The Real Ambassadors](_URL_15_)* – about civil rights with Louis Armstrong based on his experiences touring around the world.\n\nDave Brubeck played a role in challenging South African apartheid by refusing to perform without their black band members.\n\n* _URL_1_\n\nLater, Paul Simon played a role in promoting South African culture with his album *[Graceland](_URL_10_)*, although [not uncontroversially](_URL_0_) (see the comments). This album was a major step in popularizing the \"world music\" genre.\n\nIn terms of cultural hegemony, U.S. music played a significant role in the Cold War, making the United States and its culture attractive to young Russians who were listening to rock 'n' roll like Elvis.\n\n* _URL_7_\n* _URL_16_\n\nWhat's interesting to me is how genres spread transnationally and along class lines. Which classes adopt punk or hip hop and tailor it to their own domestic context is pretty fascinating. Stories about punk and metal bands in post-Saddam Iraq are particularly interesting to me.\n\n* _URL_12_\n* _URL_14_\n* _URL_5_\n* _URL_9_\n* _URL_17_\n* _URL_11_\n\nSometimes music could be used to translate the experience of a new place into a familiar genre, something like Antonín Dvořák's [New World Symphony](_URL_13_) or [Ferde Grofé](_URL_18_)'s [Grand Canyon Suite](_URL_8_) and [Mississippi Suite](_URL_6_).", "I've been reading a lot about modern China lately, and I've noticed that the Chinese communists used music, along with theatre and dance, to mobilize peasants against the Japanese and the Nationalists. The most salient example is probably \"The East is Red\", which was China's national anthem for a while in the 1960s. It started went from a peasant love song:\n\n > Sesame oil, cabbage hearts \n\n > Wanna eat string beans, break off the tips, \n\n > Get really lovesick if I don’t see you for three days \n\n > Hu-er-hai-yo \n\n > Oh dear, Third Brother mine\n\nto an anti-Japanese war anthem:\n\n > Riding a white horse, carrying a rifle,\n \n > Third brother is with the Eighth Route Army. \n\n > Wanna go home to see my girl, \n\n > Hu-er-hai-yo \n\n > But fighting the Japs I don’t have the time.\n\nand when Mao Zedong assumed control of the Chinese communists:\n\n > The east is red,\n\n > The sun is rising.\n\n > China has brought forth a Mao Zedong.\n\n > He works for the people's happiness,\n\n > Hu-er-hai-yo\n\n > He is the people's great saving star.", "'The Complete History of the Soviet Union, arranged to the Melody of Tetris' _URL_0_\n\nThat is all." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/x9c4e/meta_new_projects_incoming/" ]

[ [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFO0Xo9TZ54", "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYBCpp6tsAA", "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SU76U0Tctbo", "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nElIA_ry-0s", "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8XZgfpLbYI&feature=related", "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvdbDw5bXnQ" ], [], [], [], [ "http://www.metafilter.com/102453/You-Can-Call-Me-Al", "http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Dave-Brubeck-canceled-tour-because-of-racism-3268610.php", "http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/hot-jazz-and-the-cold-war-in-1950s-mumbai/?pagewanted=all", "http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/university-of-california-press/jazz-as-democracy-dave-brubeck-and-cold-war-politics-KoopgnsUai", "http://www.pacific.edu/Library/Find/Holt-Atherton-Special-Collections/Digital-Collections/Jazz-Diplomacy-Tour-1958.html", "http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/arts/music/03metal.html?pagewanted=all", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Suite", "http://www.elvisnews.com/articles.aspx/elvis-behind-the-iron-curtain/1027", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon_Suite", "http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/03/10/iraq-n-roll.html", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graceland_%28album%29", "http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/2008-10-29-iraq-heavy-metal_N.htm", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrassicauda", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._9_%28Dvo%C5%99%C3%A1k%29", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Metal_in_Baghdad", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Ambassadors", "http://www.elvisinrussia.ru/elvisinrus.htm", "http://abcnews.go.com/International/heavy-metal-bands-emerge-baghdad/story?id=12212499", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferde_Grof%C3%A9", "http://www.nea.gov/about/nearts/story.php?id=p07_cooljazz&issue=2006_v2" ], [], [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTFG3J1CP8" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d7hgq1v" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Like with colonization of most of the world, part of it of it was trial and error. The colonists might see, a berry or mushroom, eat it, then get sick/die later, telling the other colonists that it wasn't safe to eat. The Native Americans, however also played a massive role in telling the colonists what they could and couldn't eat. By communicating with the natives, the colonists were able to find out even more about what was edible, even just by observing what the natives ate." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cd73znc", "cd77fa9" ], "score": [ 4, 2 ], "text": [ "I don’t know if it’s the *very* oldest, but the Epic of Gilgamesh describes a woman named Shamat using the pleasure of sex to draw the wild man Enkidu away from nature into civilization.\n\nThere’s also the much later Greek legend of the transgendered prophet Tiresias: Zeus and Hera were arguing over which gender received the most pleasure from sex, and asked Tiresias to settle the debate. Tiresias replied that it was ten times more pleasurable for women, and Hera blinded him/her in anger.", "Sex just having to do with procreation is (arguably) a more modern idea than it sounds like you realize. It's very hard to tell what people were thinking in the Prehistoric Era, but there are many examples of sex and embellishment of sexual organs in Paleolithic cave art and figurines. Some of these are of arguable authenticity, and again, we cannot tell what the creators of these pieces were thinking at the time. Maybe they were drawing sex for procreation rather than for enjoyment.\n\nThere is also the Egyptian Turin Erotic Papyrus, which dates to the 12th century BCE. It depicts a number of women having sex with men who have exaggeratedly large penises.\n\nThere are a lot of other examples, too. But I still have trouble with your question's wording. As far as I know, there's no reason to believe that sex was separated from pleasure in prehistoric humans. And it seems to me that the more immediate and obvious effect of sex is pleasure, not procreation. Prehistoric humans were certainly aware of the link between sex and birth. However, it's odd to assume that people first came to understand that sex caused babies and only later started desiring sex or thinking it felt good." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cg9s7ll" ], "score": [ 55 ], "text": [ "The answer depends on both time and wealth.\n\nThe First and Second Crusades took the overland route through the Balkans and Anatolia, but the failure of the Second Crusade, picked apart on the journey, and the relative success of the English and Low Countries contingent, who came by ship, forced a re-evaluation. All subsequent crusades went by ship, a contributing factor to the disaster of the Fourth Crusade, where the crusaders ordered more ships than they needed.\n\nIf you were with an army on a later crusade, you'd probably go by ship. Even if you were relatively poor, you were probably in service of a lord who would be paying for it - the maintenance of an army was part of the devotional act.\n\nThere were many reasons to go on crusade even if you were not a member of a numbered crusade, so your method of travel in this sort of circumstance would vary with your personal wealth and other factors." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "flz3q8j" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "In February of 1825 when it came to light that John Quincy Adams had won the election, family and friends gathered at John Adams' house and wished him congratulations. John Adams was quoted to say \"No man who ever held the office of President would congratulate a friend on obtaining it.\" \n\nBut that reserved quip about the weight of the responsibility that his son was about to take on was certainly secondary to his pride and happiness in his son. He had sensed his intelligence and talent since he was a young boy, and had been personally grooming him for intellectual and political success all throughout his childhood. He was undoubtedly thrilled. \n\nThe election's effects on John Adams' (who was in very poor health, his eyes being too poor to read or write, he could barely walk without assistance) spirit was even noted by physician and friend, Benjamin Waterhouse:\n\n\"But physicians do not always consider how much the powers of the mind, and what is called good spirits, can recover the lost energies of the body. I really believe that your father's revivial is mainly owing to the demonstration that his son has not served an ungrateful public.\"\n\nThe combination of his son's victory and a drive to live until the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence definitely added to John Adams' ailing spirit and maybe even his lifespan." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d5ehnbp" ], "score": [ 18 ], "text": [ "Interestingly, the wolf *was* once used as a military standard. Pliny the Elder says this in book 10, ch. 5 of *Natural History*: \n\n\"Caius Marius, in his second consulship, assigned the eagle exclusively to the Roman legions. Before that period it had only held the first rank, there being four others as well, the wolf, the minotaur, the horse, and the wild boar, each of which preceded a single division.1 Some few years before his time it had begun to be the custom to carry the eagle only into battle, the other standards being left behind in camp; Marius, however, abolished the rest of them entirely. Since then, it has been remarked that hardly ever has a Roman legion encamped for the winter, without a pair of eagles making their appearance at the spot.\"\n\nThe eagle was the symbol of Jupiter, the king of the gods, so it's importance as a symbol was even greater than that of the wolf. As for the wolf as a motif in other Roman art, she and the twins Romulus and Remus became a popular subject in the Republic and Empire. Here's an [example](_URL_0_) of a semi-precious stone which was carved with the image. However, the famous bronze Capitoline [She Wolf](_URL_1_) sculpture was found to have been made using techniques which were developed much later than the ancient period." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/253818", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/She-wolf_of_Rome.JPG" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ddy9qx6" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Guo Qin lun (过秦论) (dissertation on the errors of Qin) was a memo by Jia Yi (贾谊) submitted to Emperor Wen, part of it was quoted by the widely popular Sima Qian in his annal of the First Emperor. Wikisource has a copy of Guo Qin lun in its entirety here _URL_1_ \n\nIt is an interesting and highly influential document to later days Confucians, but highly biased -- Jia Yi was an early Confucian with a streak of legalist. He believed that only a strong, highly centralized state like Qin could maintain the peace for \"all under heaven\", but at the same time, he believed Qin's unpopular policies, namely legalist practices caused erosion in morality, caused its down fall rather than multiple other probable dispassionate causes. \n\nHow did Qin rise and fall? If you go by the traditional narrative (that adheres closely to official history of the period, completed about a century after the fall of Qin -- Shiji (史记) by Sima Tan and Sima Qian, father and son) , Qin was a state at the edge of \"civilization\" sliding into semi-barbarity until it enacted reforms proposed by legalist Shang Yang (商鞅). Three key reforms were: administrative, taxation, and the rule of law -- feudal *yi* (邑) were converted into prefects (*xian* (县)) with officials appointed directly by the court, ancient practice of *jingtian* (井田) was replaced by direct taxation, and harsh laws were used to terrorize the populace into behaving. Qin was transformed almost over night, the subjugated populace was turned into discipline fighting units, combined with its geographical advantages, belligerent leaders with expansionist mindset, Qin slowly strangled first its neighboring states and then inevitably conquered them all. However, the ruthlessness and its lack of humanity (*ren*) and righteousness (*yi*) of those policies, combined with the emphasis on manipulating the wording of the law to produce results that pleased their superiors, which turned the officials into a bunch of \"wordsmiths\" that unable to report the truth, resulted in Qin's rapid disintegration. \n\nI can tell you that it's much more interesting to dissect the plausible causes of Qin's rise (and subsequently its fall), but that requires going quite deep into the rabbit hole that was Warring States China, with the three Jin states in particular; with a reassessment of diplomatic machination of the period. But that would take longer than just an essay and may be you only want the traditional narrative. \n\nFor prime sources, there aren't that many to draw on: \n\n1. *Shiji*, Annal of Qin, Annal of The First Emperor, Hereditary house of Wei, Zhao, Han, Che, biographies of Wei Ran, Shang Yang, Li Si, et al (I recommend reading directly in classical Chinese at _URL_2_, but if you can't, Burton Watson translated all the Qin-related section _URL_0_) \n2. *Zizhi Tongjian*, book 1-10. \n3. *Zhushu Jinian*, Jin and Wei section. \n\nOther sources: *Zhanguo ce*, *Guoyu*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.amazon.com/Records-Grand-Historian-Qin-Dynasty/dp/0231081693/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1487540117&sr=8-1&keywords=Burton+Watson+Qin", "https://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/過秦論", "zh.wikisources.org" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "co1k6uq", "co1qz3n" ], "score": [ 28, 7 ], "text": [ "In the simplest terms here - Saudi Arabia was created around the House of Saud conquering their neighbours. It is a monarchy because the state which it was built around was a monarchy and when a state has a lot of money to throw at people to prevent revolutions and etc it's likely to remain as-is.\n\nMost of the states around Saudi Arabia are also monarchies, or were until some drastic event changed this (like in Iraq or Iran).", " > Anyway on to your question, during world war 1, the region that would become Saudia was mainly Nejd, Haasa, shammaar and Hedjaz. The regions that were not Hedjaz were split between various families. The house of Saud and the house of Rashid being two very notable ones. Hedjaz on the other hand was part of the ottoman sultanate, during world war one the Sharif Hussein bin Ali of Hedjaz talked to the British Commissioner McMahon in Egypt about revolting against the ottomans, in exchange for support in the formation of an arabian kingdom being formed in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Arabia. Although agreed upon the McMahon correspondence was incredibly vague and in the end, after a short lived Kingdom of Damascus was crushed, The Sharifs sons were placed in rule in Iraq and Jordan (where the dynasty still rules in Jordan.)\n\n > While this was happening, Ibn Saud was unifying the tribes, as well as using Wahabi militia named the Ikhwan, to consolidate power in Saudia, as well as marrying into all other tribes. He was able to quite easily overwhelm and conquer Hedjaz.\n\n > These Ikhwan was a huge part of how he consolidated and stabilized himself, and he would later turn his back on them.\n\n > The money from oil did not really play a part, and actually they Saudies believed for a long time that they would not find oil in Arabia, it was only by accident, when searching for water did they find oil. Which did help in getting themselves into the American sphere of influence protecting themselves from any British intervention that we see in Iran.\n\n > The emir states in the gulf were largely protected by Britain, but i'm not quite familiar on that topic. \n\nFrom a different post of mine. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fgkqtyc", "fglc7qk" ], "score": [ 629, 208 ], "text": [ "Yes. Well, sort of. Starting with Thomas Jefferson, the State of the Union Address was delivered as a written \"Message To Congress\" and this tradition continued until Woodrow Wilson ended it, and reverted back to giving the address in person like George Washington and John Adams had. So maybe not \"said\" but certainly \"wrote\".\n\nIn Franklin Pierce's [fourth and final Message To Congress](_URL_2_), delivered on December 2, 1856, he talked about the growing disunion movement, which he attributed to radicals on both sides (Pierce was very much a \"blame both sides\" type of politician):\n\n > ...[H]ostile [state] governments, driven at once and inevitably into mutual devastation and fratricidal carnage, [are] transforming the now peaceful and felicitous brotherhood into a vast permanent camp of armed men like the rival monarchies of Europe and Asia...[T]hey endeavor to prepare the people of the United States for civil war by doing everything in their power to deprive the Constitution and the laws of moral authority and to undermine the fabric of the Union by appeals to passion and sectional prejudice, by indoctrinating its people with reciprocal hatred, and by educating them to stand face to face as enemies, rather than shoulder to shoulder as friends.\n\nBut he did give them the benefit of the doubt, saying that while these radicals truly meant well and were not consciously trying to divide the Union, that was certainly the result, and the American people have rejected calls for disunion and needed to continue to do so:\n\n > \"[I]n the progress of events we had reached that consummation, which the voice of the people has now so pointedly rebuked, of the attempt of a portion of the States, by a sectional organization and movement, to usurp the control of the Government of the United States.\n > \n > \"I confidently believe that the great body of those who inconsiderately took this fatal step are sincerely attached to the Constitution and the Union. They would upon deliberation shrink with unaffected horror from any conscious act of disunion or civil war. But they have entered into a path which leads nowhere unless it be to civil war and disunion, and which has no other possible outlet.\"\n\nJames Buchanan's [fourth and \"final\" Annual Message To Congress](_URL_0_) on December 3, 1860, was even more dire. This was still before any of the Confederate states had seceded, but after some of them, like South Carolina and Mississippi, had already passed legislation approving public votes to hold secession conventions, which would begin later in December.\n\nHe didn't say directly that the Union was in bad shape, but posed it as a question, and what could be done to solve it:\n\n > \"Why is it, then, that discontent now so extensively prevails, and the Union of the States, which is the source of all these blessings, is threatened with destruction?\"\n\nAfter detailing his own views on why compromise was imperative over the contentious slavery issues of the time, he wrote that peace was still possible. War was not the answer, and as bad as it would be, disunion of the Union was ultimately a better alternative than war:\n\n > \"The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force.\n\nBut just a month after giving this speech, he gave [*another* Message To Congress](_URL_1_), on January 8, 1861. By this time, South Carolina had seceded, Mississippi and several other states were holding secession conventions and were just days away from seceding, and multiple members of his Cabinet had resigned over the unfolding Secession Crisis and his handling of it. \n\nThe Fort Sumter crisis was causing big headaches, and there were public demonstrations against the United States in many cities in the South (mostly in the Deep South), with efforts underway to convene further secession conventions. At the same time, in Philadelphia and other Northern cities, there had been pro-Union demonstrations condemning South Carolina's actions.\n\nSouth Carolina had also passed a resolution to raise 10,000 militia troops, while Georgia (not yet seceded but having convened their secession convention) had already provisioned $1 million to fund their state military operations. In addition to Fort Sumter, many U.S. Army and federal military installations had been raided where they weren't well-guarded. \n\nSo in Buchanan's final final Message To Congress, he basically said that the State of the Union is very bad, condemning \"the dangers which threaten...the existence of the Union\", and calling the situation already \"a great calamity\" at the time of his previous speech that had just gotten worse since:\n\n > \"I deeply regret that I am not able to give you any information upon the state of the Union which is more satisfactory than what I was then obliged to communicate. On the contrary, matters are still worse at present than they then were. When Congress met, a strong hope pervaded the whole public mind that some amicable adjustment of the subject would speedily be made by the representatives of the States and of the people, which might restore peace between the conflicting sections of the country. That hope has been diminished by every hour of delay; and as the prospect of a bloodless settlement fades away, the public distress becomes more and more aggravated...\n > \n > \"The Union is a sacred trust left by our revolutionary fathers to their descendants; and never did any other people inherit so rich a legacy...Should the Union perish in the midst of the present excitement, we have already had a sad foretaste of the universal suffering which would result from its destruction. The calamity would be severe in every portion of the Union, and would be quite as great, to say the least, in the Southern as in the Northern States.\"\n\nHe ends by saying that he hopes the people in the country, and in Congress, will pause long enough to reflect and reconsider the present calls for disunion:\n\n > \"Time is a great conservative power. Let us pause at this momentous point and afford the people, both North and South, an opportunity for reflection. Would that South Carolina had been convinced of this truth before her precipitate action! I, therefore, appeal through you to the people of this country to declare in their might that the Union must and shall be preserved by all constitutional means. I most earnestly recommend that you devote yourselves exclusively to the question how this can be accomplished in peace. All other questions, when compared with this, sink into insignificance. The present is no time for palliatives; action, prompt action, is required. A delay in Congress to prescribe or to recommend a distinct and practical proposition for conciliation may drive us to a point from which it will be almost impossible to recede.\"\n\nSo, while it might seem a bit silly in this day and age, the State of the Union has not always been strong, and for much of the 19th Century, it was very much in danger of collapsing. At the lowest points, Presidents Pierce and Buchanan certainly pointed this out.\n\n**EDIT**: Thanks for the silver!", "While not in his State of the Union address, it is worth noting that President Jimmy Carter did make a fairly brutally honest address in his famous ‘Crisis of Confidence’ speech in July 1979. In a televised address to the American public, Carter described the problems faced by the US as largely a society lacking self-belief: \n \n > \"[i]t's clear that the true problems of our Nation are much deeper—deeper than gasoline lines or energy shortages, deeper even than inflation or recession. … The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our Nation.”^1\n \nCarter’s address was unprecedented in its critical analysis of the US; a president had not previously addressed the American public in such pessimistic terms about its future. As Sean Wilentz put it, \n \n > '[i]t was a form of anti-politics unlike any Americans had ever seen – the chief magistrate, who was supposed to inspire the nation and lift it out of its slough of despond, was instead complaining about unrelieved anguish and emptiness.'^2\n\nEven in the darkest days of the Great Depression, President Roosevelt had famously promised the American people that \"the only thing we have to fear is fear itself – nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.\"^3\n\n***Sources:***\n\n\n1. 'Address to the Nation on Energy and National Goals: \"The Malaise Speech\"', 15 July 1979, Public Papers of the President, Jimmy Carter, 1979: Book II, in *The American Presidency Project*. [Full speech can be accessed here](_URL_0_).\n2. Wilentz, Sean, The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008, (New York: HarperCollins, 2008), p. 98.\n3. Speech File 610, \"Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Inaugural Address\", 4 March 1933, in *Franklin Delano Roosevelt Library*, [Full speech can be accessed here](_URL_1_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/december-3-1860-fourth-annual-message", "https://archive.org/details/lifeofjamesbucha02curtuoft/page/432/mode/2up", "https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/fourth-annual-message-7" ], [ "https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/249458", "http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/_resources/images/msf/msf00628" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cvdggl6" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "Despite the reputation the American zone had for harsher treatment than the French and British zones during denazification, American officials had reason to want to see a quick denazification process that would leave the western occupation zones relatively self-sufficient. While the Soviet Union purged Nazis from its zone's politics, economy, society, and culture, it also witnessed a shortage of qualified and experienced leaders, planners, and other figures to rebuild and grow postwar Germany. The United States and its allies hoped to avoid this situation by punishing the absolute worst offenders but allowing many others off with relatively light sentences or, in some cases, merely fines and temporary work restrictions. The Judges' Trial falls into this pattern; in the east, the Soviet Union worked to replace the judiciary system with one that not only represented the workers, but was populated by them, as crash courses in various branches of law created a whole new batch of East German judges with no connections to the previous regime. In the western zones, however, many judges managed to maintain or later regain their positions, and those who were prosecuted not only received relatively light sentences, but frequently saw these sentences commuted; indeed, in the case of the Judges' Trial, the highest profile case against members of the judiciary, many of those convicted even received pensions from the West German state afterwards.\n\nMembers of the German judiciary in the West also fought for this lighter sentencing as well, in part out of fear that they themselves might someday face investigations into their activities during the Nazi regime, and in part to spare German society the burden of tearing itself apart searching for the murders amongst them, since so many were implicated. Indeed, in the aftermath of World War II many Germans adopted an attitude of victimization--Germans had suffered at the hands of allied bombings, the Red Army, and Hitler and his henchmen." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f9vxjiz" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "[Stephen Turnbull's: The Ninja, an Invented Tradition?] (_URL_0_) Which is him admitting his old book on ninjas were full of mistakes.\n\nIt's not a book. But it's the most academically sound piece.\n\n\"Autonomy and War in the Sixteenth-Century Iga Region and the Birth of the Ninja Phenomenon\" in *War and State Building In Medieval Japan.* Is another good one.\n\nBasically there's a lot of problems with the popular, traditional depiction of \"ninjas\". \"Shinobi\" and people who did scouting/spying existed, but they were often regular members of the army/society who just happened to do those thing, not anything like FBI/CIA/KGB/Seals/SAS or whatever. This question is like asking what was the function/influence of James Bond/Jason Borne on western society, when any impact's pretty restricted to cultural depictions.\n\nAnd no I'm not well-versed enough in the *cultural depiction* of ninjas to give an answer on that sphere.\n\n/u/NientedeNada wrote about a lot of the problems with ninja tradition [here](_URL_3_), [here](_URL_6_), and [here](_URL_5_), and I gave some examples demonstrating why ninja stories in the historical are problematic [here](_URL_1_), [here](_URL_7_), [here](_URL_2_), and [here](_URL_4_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/530c/a6033ff2379c4837081199ba088111840ebf.pdf", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ccpopr/saturday_showcase_july_13_2019/etp7639/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/a9n2et/metatron_gaijin_goomba_and_other_conceptions/edgmvp1/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8o2r9k/what_exactly_is_a_ninja_and_what_was_it_like/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/baq9lp/is_there_any_historical_basis_for_the_so_called/ekgi7lr/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6rja8q/how_many_koku_would_a_ninja_in_medieval_japan_get/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/85s2ml/were_there_actually_female_ninjas_in_koga_andor/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/cirmai/bad_ninja_history_reach_reddits_front_page/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "doc05g1" ], "score": [ 17 ], "text": [ "Plans for long range bombers capable of hitting the US were drawn up in the late 1930s, although Nazi Germany never got any of them actually working to my knowledge.\n\nThe plans did include a list of potential targets (all but a couple of which were in the US) and the closest target to Fort Wayne (to my knowledge) was a division of General Motors in Indianapolis.\nLike most other targets, it was meant to cripple America's industrial capacities, rather than targetting military forces directly.\n\nIf you'd like to read more about the plan, the project's name was Amerika Bomber.\n\nHope this helps!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]