Datasets:

Pavithree

/

askHistorians_9381

like 0

{ "a_id": [ "c8f9nlg", "c8fdyx3" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text": [ "From pages 101-119 [here](_URL_0_), the authors go through an anthropological, cross-cultural analysis of the placenta, with examples from many different cultures. Although it doesn't get into the origins, my speculation as an anthropologist/archaeologist is that each culture will have developed over time a way of dealing with a medical reality, which is that the placenta must be \"birthed' and disposed of (whether through eating or not) in some way. ", "It appears that many other animals (primates included) also eat the placenta. Apparently, the placenta carries iron (which is useful due to blood loss during birth) and other hormones.\n\nSource:\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7Qw2vBWgZU4C&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&dq=The+cultural+anthropology+of+the+placenta&ots=N2rCEvxoHr&sig=DjMB-tfcxCoRpiaUujcd_Mze5XE" ], [ "http://books.google.ca/books?id=Potlqpl-jxgC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=Chimpanzee+placentophagy&source=bl&ots=OIvUj9l_1X&sig=gwyfDgYFy2_Vl2PuYIY-g4k7DBI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aHcdUbLoLeXZigKP2oDADA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Chimpanzee%20placentophagy&f=false" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d2mohds" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Acadians predominantly came from the Poitou and SainteOnge areas of western France. They came to what is now Nova Scotia in waves throughout the first half of the 17th century. Many of the first settlers who established the first permanent establishment at Port Royal are not descendants of Acadians. Most of thedirect descendants would have come a little later, like in the 1630s when they established LeHave.\n\nAcadians had close ties to the local Mik'ma and all Acadians today have a little bit of Mik'ma in their family tree (even though it might be difficult to pinpoint because genealogy records would have charged many of the Mik'ma names to Christian ones).\n\nAcadian French still bears some resemblance to the Poitou-Sainteongeait dialect that you hear among in that older generations in that part of France. The \"j collectif\" for example is a commonality between both regions that still exist. For example, instead of saying \"Nous avons\" (we have) you'll hear Acadians say \"j'avons\". \"Je\" or \"J'\" in standard French is only used for the first person singular.\n\nNova Scotia Acadians share a lot in common with the large Acadian population in New Brunswick and the smaller population in Prince Edward Island, but they're also quite unique in a number of ways. The 4 or 5 communities that still speak French are separated from each other so they've developed independently. The south west region of Clare for example has one of the most distinct and mutually unintelligible dialects in the Maritime provinces. The hard \"j\" sound you hear in all other French dialects is an \"h\" sound in Clare, like in Spanish.\n\nFor more information on the first Acadian settlements, I highly recommend Naomi Griffiths' From Migrant to Acadian: a North American border people, 1604–1755." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dcz0k95" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "There is no standard answer for this question, beyond the general one that most children and male-line grandchildren of European sovereigns, excluding 'sovereign' counts of the Holy Roman Empire, were princes and princesses, even if their titles were translated into English differently, or other titles preferred; there are a few exceptions (e.g. some of the junior Wittelsbachs were titled as Dukes and Duchesses in Bavaria). On a case-by-case basis: 'Infante/a' was employed in Spain and Portugal for children of the king, and sometimes male-line grandchildren; it's appropriate to translate it as prince/ss. The title of Archduke came about when the Habsburg duke Rudolf IV of Austria forged a document in 1358, outlining special privileges due the Habsburgs in Austria; this *Privilegium Maius* was ignored by the reigning Holy Roman Emperor, but eventually accepted as genuine -- in 1453, once Frederick V of Austria had managed to become the Holy Roman Emperor. 'Grand Duke' is a translation of the Russian *veliky kniaz* into English, although 'Grand Prince' would be more literal, and the title is unrelated to the sovereign title of grand duke, or, for that matter, any kind of duke. The Germans, for example, translated it *Großfürst*, which is literal, whereas an Austrian archduke was an *Erzherzog*, or literally an archduke, *fürst* and *herzog* meaning prince and duke respectively, although the use of *fürst* instead of *prinz* in the case above was exceptional. \n\nLet me know if you would like more detail." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e48d9re", "e48g80t" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "The Battle Cry of Freedom is a great read and covers most of this era. Some of the early years are in broad strokes, however, as it mostly focuses on the build up to the Civil War and the War itself. There is a lot of good discussion of the development of industry (plus, an interesting comparison of early industrial capitalism to slavery), and the many political compromises leading to the war are covered with some detail. If you aren't interested in the war itself, you could just read up to that point. But you might find some of the later discussion (particularly the economic co-dependence between the Confederacy and the UK/France) interesting, based on your listed interests.\n\nThere is an earlier book in the same series, \"What Hath God Wrought,\" which covers specifically the period of 1815-1848, and it won a Pulitzer (as did Battle Cry of Freedom). But I haven't read it, so I don't know how much it focuses on the themes you are interested in.", "For a single volume on Jacksonian America, it’s hard to beat “Liberty and Power” by Harry Watson. It covers not just the politics of Jackson’s administration, but also the political climate which brought him to the White House. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c85qoq6", "c85uvoh", "c85whlr", "c85xgl2" ], "score": [ 8, 12, 11, 8 ], "text": [ "I don't know about tanks, but battleships (BBs) would not have used their main guns against aircraft. If American they would have used MGs, 20mm and 40mm cannon, and 5in gun secondary batteries. Other nations would have used weapons in similar caliber. \n\nBB main guns are vastly over powered for anti-aircraft work, nor in most cases could they be elevated sufficiently. The 16\"/45 caliber Mark 6 gun is only rated for a 45 degree elevation. ", "It depends on what you mean: AFV (armored fighting vehicle) or an \"actual\" tank. An actual tank would not have, but for example, in WWII Germany had their flakpanzers. Basically they were anti-aircraft guns mounted on tank chassises. ", "I remember reading an account in a memoir by a Soviet tank officer, Dmitriy Loza, where a group of Soviet tanks (M4 Shermans, actually) were pinned down by German aircraft. After a bit of thinking, one tank commander ordered his tank up a steep hill for angle and fired the main gun at one of the German aircraft. From what I remember it was a direct hit. ", "I am a Desert Storm veteran and I remember hearing about one of our Abrams shooting down an Iraqi helicopter in the first few days of the war. I'll try to find a link.\n\nEDIT: I've found nothing, which is kind of frustrating because I saw the freaking video for myself after the war. It has to be out there somewhere." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cdten4a", "cdtgckf", "cdtgdwy", "cdtglvp", "cdthwt6", "cdtkcxb", "cdtln5a" ], "score": [ 5, 6, 2, 3, 6, 3, 6 ], "text": [ "Maybe a journal subscription would be a good gift. They're not exactly cheap, but they're probably no more expensive than the equivalent in books. \n\nPicking the right journal is the key though, because some of them can be very theoretically oriented, and thus difficult for a non-academic without the professional training. \n\nMaybe a social history journal of some sort would be best; *Past and Present*, perhaps? ", "agentdcf gives a great suggestion, but I would also like to ask about specifics. Is there anything particular that your father is interested in? A historian is usually very focused within one area and might have no interest at all in other areas.", "Would he appreciate some old coins or similar artifacts? They can be really cool and tell a story. Old propaganda posters are always fun and a well made replica could help you cut down on costs.\n\nDo these help?", "Antique books from ebay (printed in the 16th, 17th century) could be one idea. \n\nOr, if he is interested in European history of the last 100 years, how about a book on European history that has been printed say 100 years ago? (something along this: _URL_0_ )", "what about a gun to mount on the wall? You can find awesome replica weapons - if he's interested in American history an M1 Gerand, or a 1795 Springfield, or the British version, Brown Bess. Or a Kentucky Rifle (American Rifle), something like that. It's a living piece of history, even if it's a non-firing replica. It'll set you back about $200. ", "If he ever does archival research, a jeweler's loupe similar to [this one](_URL_1_) would be useful and not a typical gift (don't get the kind that folds into itself--they're awkward to use on photos or documents). If he's seriously hard core, maybe even a [micro-spatula](_URL_0_).\n\nI like the idea of a journal subscription that agentdcf mentioned.", "Small, local antique stores can have some very interesting and undervalued artifacts in them especially if you're only looking back 100 years. \nMy dad consumes all things WWI and WWII related and lately he's become obsessed with the history and practice of straight razor shaving. I was able to find him two straight razors, one German from 1943 and one French from 1921 simply by doing a bit of research on styles and then rifling through the antique stores in my area. I also managed to find my mom a French music box from the 30's that I'm saving as a surprise for Christmas. \nFamiliarizing yourself with the iconic century styles will help with spotting nifty little trinkets tucked away in some forgotten corner of a shop." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://www.ebay.com/itm/1805-UNIVERSAL-HISTORY-ANCIENT-AND-MODERN-WILLIAM-MAVOR-/310807682973?pt=Antiquarian_Collectible&hash=item485d94df9d" ], [], [ "http://www.hollingermetaledge.com/modules/store/index.html?dept=28&cat=177", "http://www.amazon.com/Carson-Optical-Lumiloupe-Power-Magnifier/dp/B000CAHCQS/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1386186118&sr=8-4&keywords=loupe" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cg9thnh", "cg9tho1" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "The occupying US forces deliberately helped rebuild the Japanese economy. As with the [Marshall Plan](_URL_1_) in Europe, they feared that impoverished and desperate countries might turn to communism, a fear intensified by the communist victory in China in 1949. Japan received $2.4 billion in aid from 1945 to 1953, more than any other country except Britain. The Korean War further increased this emphasis and provided additional resources by making Japan the [primary supply depot](_URL_0_) for all the UN forces involved in the conflict. Although the rest of the economy has largely outgrown it, Japan remained a site for US military spending thereafter, and is such to this day. ", "There was a post on AskHistorians a few months back that explained it but it was more a side answer so it might be a bit harder to find via the search. \n\nI can give a bried synopsis of it however and it basically came down to a few key factors: \n\nNo real standing army to maintain (the American occupation forces were seen as sufficient to keep any would be attackers at bay)\n\nHeavy investment from around the world, particularly the USA in terms of manufacturing. Also many of the companies that were pre-war were still operational, iirc many major Japanese firms i.e. Toyota, Mitsubishi were established pre-1915 which meant that unlike other nations i.e. China that were decimated and had to start from scratch, Japan had a good base to start from.\n\nJapanese innovation is a large part of this as well. When I say innovation however I dont mean Gundams and the like, but rather taking many existing technologies and combining them to make more efficient and effective versions of already existing technology. A good example would be the sony walkman which used many parts from European and American designers to make something new. This boosted investment as Japan looked like a good long term investment choice. \n\nJapan also can be seen as a border nation. It, specifically Okinawa is the first point of contact should an invasion force from the USSR and China attempt an attack. So a large military presence in Japan is very important in the case of a war, so its in the best interests of the USA and her European allies to ensure Japan could get back on her feet quickly and maintain a stable government so that no communist uprisings would be successful (the worse off a people, the more likely they will revolt). \n\nI think thats everything and ill try to find the post in question in the meantime.\n\nEDIT: Heres what i found: \n\n_URL_0_\n\nnot much but should help somewhat" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/japan-reconstruction", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan" ], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hjypv/postwar_japan_can_anyone_recommend_an_accessible/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9fcmda", "c9fdzt1", "c9fe6pt", "c9fe8bm", "c9fgqlb", "c9fjmny", "c9fk1et", "c9fmyqf", "c9fo7n4", "c9fvt1f" ], "score": [ 140, 51, 12, 23, 45, 3, 2, 2, 2, 5 ], "text": [ "Long before the Germans were known as militaristic, humorless, and efficient, it was the Prussians who were known as militaristic, humorless, and efficient because there was no Germany. Prussia built up a standing army and used both diplomacy and combat to expand and eventually became identified with a unified Germany, all well before WWI.\n\nEdit: the second \"militaristic\" was a mistake. I meant \"efficient.\"", "[The Battle of Dorking](_URL_0_), an 1871 novella by Sir G T Chesney, describes the invasion of the British Isles by an unnamed country very similar to Prussia / Germany. The tl;dr moral message of the novella is that Prussia is a gigantic jackboot just *itching* to overthrow the free nations of Europe.\n\nThis novella would be an example of how Prussia / Germany was seen by its contemporary foes.", "German speaking immigrants were successful villiage artisans in america before ww1. German heritage festivals in american towns that were once German american immigrant settlements were suspended during wartime. They were seen as industrious, and unless they were Jewish, they were white enough to avoid the scrutiny of cruel stereotypes.", "One entertaining reference is \"A Knave Abroad\" by Mark Twain. Project Gutenberg has a free download of it. In this book he travels across Europe for 6 months. \n\nMuch of the current stereotypes (except for the more modern Nazi aspects) are present then.", "In the 18th and 19th century up until unification in 1871, Germans were considered highly spiritual and humble people and eager story tellers as well as listeners. During a history lecture I took while abroad in Freiburg university, a German professor of mine remarked that at the dawn of the 19th century \"France had had a political revolution, Britain an industrial revolution and Germany a reading revolution.\" This was a little tongue in cheek making fun of Germans not really doing much at the time while the British and French were remaking the foundations of the world. At the same time, though, it was also an acknowledgement that this is was a period that Germans become highly literate and were fascinated by tales of British and French exploration.\n\nThe militarism really does come from Prussian influence and sadly the legacy of Prussia has been badly maimed in the last century. I am going to use this opportunity to point out that the German Empire, unified under Prussia, was the first nation to ever create a system of welfare and unemployment insurance.", "I can give you a perspective from Brisbane, Australia, if you are interested:\n\nThe German population in Brisbane was pretty much shunned in Brisbane in the years leading up to WWI. They were held in such low regard that they settled in some marshy land to the north of the city which eventually got the name \"Zillmere.\" (The northern suburbs of Brisbane are pretty much mangrove flats and salt marshes and the land isn't great for much.)\n\nIn about 1911, my grandfather and his brothers changed their names to be more \"English\" (our name is now spelt the Irish way). There was also some guilt associated with out heritage, as all three brothers signed up to serve with the AIF in WWI. My Grandfather got to England in 1917 and was busted for only being 15 and was dismissed from the army and sent back to Australia.\n\nI can't say that these anecdotes are true for all of Australia (although I have heard stories of some quite nasty treatment of people with German sounding names in WWI) and I have only described the little I know of one part of my family's history... Hopefully it is useful to you.", "The play [The Captain of Köpenik](_URL_0_ is a satire of the Prussian culture of the early 20th century. Focuses on the bureaucracy and military establishment of the area at the time. ", "Honest question here. Speaking of sterotypes, where did the image of the fat german wearing shorts, suspenders and drinking beer come from? (Or perhaps I got the stereotype wrong?)", "Correct me if I'm wrong but I recall reading American sources from around the turn of the 20th century that really seemed to praise Germany as the model of scientific discovery and industrial progress. Indeed, wasn't German a highly recommended language for young American gentlemen, especially if they were interested in the sciences? ", "Here's a somewhat related quotation from Thoreau, relating more to the German nation than its people\n\n > \"Simplify, simplify. Instead of three meals a day, if it be necessary eat but one; instead of a hundred dishes, five; and reduce other things in proportion. Our life is like a German Confederacy, made up of petty states, with its boundary forever fluctuating, so that even a German cannot tell you how it is bounded at any moment. The nation itself, with all its so-called internal improvements, which, by the way are all external and superficial, is just such an unwieldy and overgrown establishment, cluttered with furniture and tripped up by its own traps, ruined by luxury and heedless expense, by want of calculation and a worthy aim, as the million households in the land; and the only cure for it, as for them, is in a rigid economy, a stern and more than Spartan simplicity of life and elevation of purpose.\"\n\nThe general point seems to be that Germany was seen as a disorganized, complicated mess during this time period.\n\nGiven what happened after the Germans got their act together and unified the country under a rigid economy with spartan simplicity and elevation of purpose, Thoreau didn't exactly convince me that simplifying _my_ life was a good idea." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Dorking" ], [], [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Captain_of_K%C3%B6penick_(play)" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbg4k46", "cbg6tyy", "cbgd3qo" ], "score": [ 35, 16, 11 ], "text": [ "Perhaps it's not quite the answer you're looking for, but the Mayans never did disappear. The Mayan people is still alive and well today and you can read about them on [wikipedia](_URL_0_).", "I've read that a generally accepted theory for the collapse of classical Mayan civilization is a series of droughts and famines tht struck in the late 500's. Mayan civilization was by then struggling to feed a rapidly expanding urban population with inefficient slash-and-burn agriculture. Plus, enviormental degradation was endemic as the elite demanded more luxuries. For example, the cities of the Maya were all whitewashed to a gleaming finish. To do this, lime had to be burned at high temperatures, thus requiring the clearcutting of forests surronding Mayan cities that formerly provided hunting grounds, building materials, and edible forage. \n\nTo be clear, there are many theories regarding the Mayan collapse. This one is a combination of two I've read in a National Geographic article and in \"The History of the Medieval World\" by Susan Wise Bauer.", "So /u/DataAndData linked [my earlier post](_URL_0_) on the causes of the Classic Period collapse in the Southern Maya Lowlands. But since the topic has come up I thought I might expand on it a bit by providing a kind of case study of the collapse in a particular Maya site. This site is Dos Pilas, in the western end of the Petexbatun region. I'm choosing this one because it's one of the first cities that collapsed and it's fall was particularly hard. (For sources, I'm drawing primarily on *Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens* by Martin and Grube and *Ancient Maya* by Arthur Demarest. If you want clarification on a particular detail, ask and I'll give you a more specific citation.)\n\nIn 741 a man named K'awiil Chan K'inich was installed as the *K'huul Ajaw* (\"sacred speaker\", or king) of Dos Pilas. K'awiil (a name as ubiquitous to Maya kings as \"George\" is to English ones) was the latest in a fairly recent dynasty which had been installed on the throne by the kingdom of Kaan (also known as Calakmul). Kaan had ousted the prior dynasty which was backed by the rival power Mutal (also known as Tikal). This was a big deal, as Dos Pilas had essentially been established as a second Mutal and even called itself \"Mutal.\" (The confusion was apparent to the Maya who began referring to the larger of the two city-states as \"First Mutal\"). \n\nThis changing of allegiance between vassal city-states was the norm at the time, as Mutal and Kaan's wars were toppling and re-establishing dynasties right and left. But this was bad news for K'inich as many of his vassals likely saw him as an illegitimate usurper placed on the throne by a hostile overlord. This sentiment was driven home when Dos Pilas was fortified and turned into a military outpost in Kaan's ambitions to expand further into the region. In 695 Dos Pilas's overlord in Kaan had been defeated, but Dos Pilas remained as Kaan's greatest military asset in the Petexbatun region. So by the reign of K'awiil his political position was thus fairly precarious and depended largely on his own military strength and the support of his powerful patron the Kaloomte (emperor, roughly) of Kaan, B'olon K'awiil I. \n\nAs a vassal of Kaan, it appears that K'awiil Chan K'inich (and thus the city of Dos Pilas) was drug into the larger battle for supremacy between Kaan and Mutal. He fought in wars as distant as Yaxchilan. Unfortunately for him, and the entire city of Dos Pilas, the wars were not going well. Kaan's vassals were falling one by one to the cities aligned with Mutal. In 761 AD, K'awiil's vassals felt which way the wind was blowing and turned against him. The city is sacked, the principle culprit being Dos Pilas's former vassal, a smaller city-state called Tamarindito by archaeologists. K'awiil flees into exile, but things in Dos Pilas only go from bad to worse. \n\nThe Hieroglyphic inscriptions then go dark. No more stone monuments are erected. The archaeological evidence shows the entire Petexbatun region undergoing a violent fragmentation as smaller groups start fighting to fill the power vacuum. Regional population starts dropping substantially. The city of Dos Pilas is almost completely depopulated - its population drops to between 5% and 10% of its former total. The remaining citizens of Dos Pilas abandon their homes on the city's periphery to move into the city center. There they set up a squatter's village in the main plaza and begin ripping apart the palaces and pyramids for limestone. As they do this, they ritually destroy several carved stone monuments. (This is known as a 'termination ritual,' it reflects the Maya belief that even objects of religious veneration have finite existence. By ritually destroying the stela it allows them to strip the temples of limestone without defiling the place.)\n\nThey use this cannibalized limestone to build a double ring defensive wall around the city core. Each ring is 500 m long and 1.5m high topped with a wooden palisade – giving a likely total height of 3-4m. Similar makeshift fortresses pop up in surrounding sites as well, as the remnants of Classic Period political factions entrench themselves against the escalating violence. Much of the Dos Pilas dynasty appears to have set up shop in the nearby clifftop site of Aguateca, where over 5km of stone walls are constructed, augmented by dug out trenches/moats. Their heroic last stand doesn't save them – the corpses of defenders are found strewn around the walls with spearpoints in them. The unrest and warfare has now engulfed the entire Petexbatun region and most of the people who weren't killed in the fighting or starved in the ensuing famines have fled the region to other parts of the Maya lowlands, which will soon collapse themselves. The only inhabited settlements are in defensible positions, and these are no longer able to support the high populations of previous ages. \n\nIn the year 830, B'aktuun 10 turns over uncelebrated. Few Classic Maya cities have inscriptions that mention it at all, but Dos Pilas as a city is gone by now. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_peoples" ], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18bz3f/what_are_some_likely_causes_of_the_massive/c8djpkn" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cwzoyko" ], "score": [ 19 ], "text": [ "Richard Bulliet, perhaps the most respected Middle East history authority, said, that from 1517 (when the Ottoman conquered Egypt) to 1830* (conquest of Algeria by France), the Arab World was effectively insulated from any violence or mass conflict. Compared to Europe which was in constant conflict throughout its history, until 1945 (and that is not even counting Eastern Europe/Balkans), the wave of violence that hit the Middle East post-1945, is unprecedented (with the major inter-war revolts being rather minor in comparison). \n\n*And this is only really true for Algeria, we can push the date all the way to ~1883 for Egypt, or 1914/1915 for WW1. \n\nThat being said, the worst since the Syrian Civil War, was perhaps the [Great Syrian Revolt](_URL_1_) against the French between 1925-1927. French control of Syria has constantly been under threat, as the French after removing \"Greater Lebanon\" from Syria, was never able to win the trust of the elite or common man. The rebellion saw the French using artillery, bombing and levelling suburbs of Damascus. When \"elections\" and \"freedom\" were introduced as a measure to calm the non-rebellious populace, the response was the revolt of Homs and Hama, whose notables (A'yan) did not trust French. The French ended up winning, but realizing the cost of suppressing the revolt, decided to cut back operations, much like the British in Iraq had done at the beginning of the decade. But still maintained it as a Mandate, until 1943 (when the Vichy French were evicted by British and Free French forces). \n\nI'd also put up as another candidate, for \"civil\" insurrection, was Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad's, literal levelling of entire parts of the [city of Hama in 1982](_URL_0_), after the Muslim Brotherhood and other dissident elements, attempted to sieze power from him. The resulting massacre of the entire city, pushed the rebels, and specifically the Muslim Brotherhood underground until 2011. \n\n**Sources: The Arabs: A History - Eugene Rogan**\n\n**Richard Bulliet's lecture series iTunes: \"The Modern Middle East\"**\n\nTo be sure this is an [educated] opinion, no way of finding a true parallel, given the huge amount of destruction modern weapons can inflict. \n\nEDIT: Please note that pre-modern conflicts, like the Crusades or the Assyrians, didn't really effect the common everyday man, as much as more modern conflicts, like the ones I listed above did. I don't think you could even compare the bloodshed to be honest, which was on an entirely different scale, with far more destructive weapons. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Hama_massacre", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Syrian_Revolt" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cwkklk2", "cwkn0wz", "cwkrfpq", "cwl6to5" ], "score": [ 122, 57, 760, 5 ], "text": [ "As a follow up, do we have records of which of the varieties of gladiators tended to win? \n\nSuch as a man with a spear and net having an advantage over an opponent with a sword and shield? ", "Hi all. There have been several attempted answers removed for not meeting subreddit rules, so before answering, do please review the rules, particularly regarding the expected level of expertise and source citation. Here's a handy link: _URL_0_\n\nAdditionally, do also actually *answer the OP's question*: this subreddit is /r/AskHistorians, not /r/WhoWouldWin: OP is asking for *records from Ancient Rome*, not Youtube videos of animal-x vs. animal-y. \n\nThanks!", "TLDR: Circumstantial evidence suggests tigers would win. \nEdit: added TLDR. Edit, spelling mistakes.\n\nSeems like no one has answered your question. I studied Roman animal games in college. I was more interested in how the animals were procured and transported instead of what animal would win. \n\nThe question is who would win between a tiger and lion in an ancient Roman animal game. Circumstantial evidence suggests that tigers are the favored animal, but direct evidence seems scarce. \n\nRomans loved animal games, called *venatios*. Large cat games were probably high quality games that attracted many spectators since tigers were harder to source than lions. Lions predominantly came from North Africa. Lions became common combatants in Roman games after they first appeared in Rome in 186 BCE. (Livy, 39.22.1-2). According to Livy, lions and leopards were first debuted in Rome in the same year. There are numerous Roman mosaics depicting lions in great and accurate detail suggesting they were familiar with the animal. Many attribute the disappearance of the North African lion to *venatios*. \n\nTigers seem to be the favored animal because they are slightly more aggressive. The reasons are two fold: 1) tigers are mostly solitary animals while lions live and fight in packs/prides; 2) tigers are more aggressive, going straight for the kill, where as lions tend to pounce and exhaust their prey. \n\nIn 1899, the Gaekwar of Baroda in Hindostan, hosted a battle between a lion and a tiger. He had a specially prepared amphitheatre and hosted the games for local and European guests. Apparently, he set the odds at 1 to 37,000 rupees, against the tiger. The tiger won; the Gaekwar of Baroda lost 37,000 rupees. (*Lion Against Tiger*, Baltimore Sun, Jan. 26, 1899). \n\nIn 2011, a Bengal tiger killed a lion in a Turkish zoo in Ankara. The tiger broke into the lion's cage through a gap in the fence. Allegedly, \"the tiger severed the lion's jugular vein in a single stroke with its paw, leaving the animal dying in a pool of blood.\" (*Tiger kills lion in Turkish zoo*, BBC, Mar. 7, 2011). \n\nFurthermore, Smithsonian Zoo biologist Craig Saffoe also favors the tiger. In an interview with Live Science, Saffoe suggested a tiger would win because \"[w]hat I've seen from tigers, they seem to be more aggressive; they go for the throat, go for the kill ... [w]hereas lions are more 'I'll will just pound on you and play with you.\" (*What Would Happen If a Lion Fought a Tiger?*\n , LiveScience, Jul. 16, 2012). There are, however, mitigating circumstances. If a lion is older, he is more likely experienced in combat. But, if he is older, he is probably more used to going along unchallenged in a pride. Younger lions, especially lions without prides, are less experienced fighters (ergo, no pride). \n\nFrom what I studied in college, I will add that a tiger raised in captivity would probably be more aggressive than a lion in captivity. One of the ways big cats were captured and sold was by a process called *cubbing*. Cubs were abducted because they were easier to capture, easier to transport, and less dangerous to handle. Tigers are generally solitary animals and have little inclination to work in a group. On the other hand, lions are \"pack animals.\" Lions can coexist in a social unit. If a lion was raised in captivity, it is less likely to be a dominant animal because a human would attempt to curb any dominant behaviors. A tiger, however, would be less indomitable. (This is my speculation). \n\nHowever, a lion may have been favored against a leopard. Some direct Roman evidence of big cat fights is found in the House of the Doves in Pompeii. Mosaic VIII.2.34 shows a snarling lion pinning a wounded leopard to the floor. The leopard's blood gushes unto the floor from its neck and from a wound on it's flank. \n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_4_\n\n_URL_5_\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n", "how did the roman empire get tigers? I didnt realize they had access to India" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_answers" ], [ "http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12669308", "http://www.pompeiiinpictures.com/pompeiiinpictures/R8/8%2002%2034%20entrance%20p2.htm", "http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/tiger-vs-lionwho-would-win-83275452/?no-ist", "http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/baltsun/doc/536084718.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Jan%2026,%201899&author=&pub=The%20Sun%20(1837-1985)&edition=&startpage=&desc=LION%20AGAINST%20TIGER", "http://www.livescience.com/21619-lion-tiger-fight.html?cmpid=514626", "https://books.google.com/books?id=3xfjyTqqR7IC&pg=PA440#v=onepage&q&f=false" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f4aq99u" ], "score": [ 19 ], "text": [ "Top of my head. Mosley wrote a book in 1936 called *Fascism: one hundred questions asked and answered*. Here's a very poorly formatted [link](_URL_0_).\n\n**A bit on democracy:**\n\n\"15. What about Dictatorship ? \n\nThe Fascist Movement represents Leadership, not Tyranny. It offers to the people a Leadership in national revival which they will accept of their own free will. The Dictatorship is a Dictatorship of the will of the people expressed through a Leadership and Government of their own choice. The only way in which the will of the people can be carried out is through a Leadership which they choose for the purpose and give the power to act. \n\nFascism offers that Leadership through which the will of the people can be effective. Thus a Dictatorship of the people themselves replaces the present Dictatorship of Vested Interests. Parliament and Government are paralysed by universal talk. Programmes for which the people have voted are never implemented. As a result real Government under Democracy rests in the hands of the great interests, such as International Finance. Fascism restores to power the people. \n\nThat power can only be expressed through Leadership voluntarily accepted and chosen, but armed by the people with power to do what they want done.\"\n\n**Just some quotes about judaism and jews in general.**\n\n\"48. - How will you enforce your banking code? \n\\- The banking code will have the force of law with heavy penalties attaching to it. Any banker who breaks the law will go where the poor go to-day when they break the Law. As most bankers prefer the luxury of their present apartments to a sojourn in gaol, very few will break the law. Furthermore, the worst offenders will already have been deported as falling within the category of Jews who have grossly abused the hospitality of Britain.\"\n\n\"95. - What is the Fascist attitude towards the Jews? \n\\- Jews must put the interests of Britain before those of Jewry, or be deported from Britain. This is not a principle of racial or religious persecution. Any well-governed nation must insist that its citizens owe allegiance to the nation, and not to co-racialists and co-religionists resident outside its borders or organised as a state within the State. The Jews, as a whole, have chosen to organise themselves as a nation within the Nation and to set their interests before those of Great Britain. They must, like everyone else, put \"Britain First\" or leave Britain.\"\n\n\"97. - Will the Jews then be persecuted or ill-treated? \n\\- It is untrue to suggest that Jews will be persecuted under Fascism in Britain. Bullying or persecution of any kind is foreign to the British character. We shall not keep Jews here to bully them. Those who have been guilty of anti-British conduct will be deported. Those against whom no such charge rests will be treated as foreigners, but in accordance with the traditional British treatment of foreigners within these shores, will not be ill-treated or molested. On the other hand, foreigners who have not proved themselves worthy citizens of Britain will be deported.\" \n\n\"98. - Will they be allowed the right of citizenship or permitted to be officials or M.P.'s in the Fascist State? \n\\- As stated above, the Jews have deliberately maintained themselves as a foreign community in Britain, setting their racial interests above the national interest. As such, therefore, they will be treated, and none can complain of treatment which accords with their own actions. We do not permit foreigners to be M.P.'s or officials, or afforded the full rights of British citizenship, and Jews will not be afforded these privileges. Anyone in the service of the State under Fascism must be entirely British.\"\n\n\"99. - Will Jews, who are deported, be able to take their money with them? \n\\- They will be able to take anything they have honestly earned.\"\n\nThat's just one book. That should be sufficient for your friend to realize that Mosley wasn't a good person, wasn't pro-democracy, and he was most certainly antisemitic.\n\nFor an interesting perspective not only on Mosley but on allied fascism in general, I'd recommend Michael Fleming's *Auschwitz, the Allies and Censorship of the Holocaust.*" ] }

[]

[ "https://www.oswaldmosley.com/" ]

[ [ "https://archive.org/stream/100QuestionsAboutFascism/100-questions-about-fascism-oswald-mosley-2006-politics_djvu.txt" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d2c1f1y" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ " > During the 19th century when Italy was being unified into an independent state, the vast majority of Italians of the time would have been Catholic. I can't imagine that it would have sat well with many of them having to attack and conquer the leader of the Catholic Church. \n\nThat pope Pio IX wasn't exactly loved by the time of the breccia di porta pia and in general all the Italian risorgement was made against curch's wishes.\n\n Let's go back of a few decades at the beginning Pio IX seemed the man that everything one hoped for introduced a constitution banish torture then in 1948 in the climate of revolution that was flaying over italy Carlo Alberto king of Sardinia-Piedmont attack the austrians the Pope send a contingent of troops that quickly retract this was seen as a treason and pushed the people of Rome to revolt and the Pope was forced to run. The repubblica romana was born that was able to resist for months against the troops of Napoleon III that were called by the Pope to regain the city. After the fall of the roman republic the Pope eliminated all the progressive reform and introduced the concept of Papal infallibility in a (doomed to fail) attempt to contrast the independence ideal. He quickly ended up to really despised.\n\n\n > Was it hard to inspire people to want to fight against the Papal forces? \n\nNo.There were many attempts to get the city between 1948 and the breccia di porta pia (rome annexation) all stopped by either french or piedmontese troops. \n\n\n > Did many Italians take up arms for the Papacy? \n\nNo not many. Actually the city was taken pretty easily thanks in part to the fact that Pio IX realised that holding the city. But is significative that the Pope tried to block the invasion menacing excommunication to whatever general will ever ordered tho fire on rome the problem was averted thanks to the fact that a Jewish general gave the order.\n\n\n\n > Did Papal resistance to Italian unification cause popular unrest in unified Italy during the early years of the new nation? \n\nUnrest maybe is too strong word but the roman question definitely caused problems I'll copy paste here a comment that I wrote of the topic in the past :\n\n when italy invaded and conquered the Vatican state the Pope declared himself a political prisoner inside the Vatican and declared that all good catholics should stay out the politics and priests discoraged people to vote (except in the areas where pro curch parties where prevalent obviously). Is easy to imagine the problems that this created in a mostly catholic country. The strategy that our first governaments followed basically this : let's ignore them the will calm down some day. After 70 years we admitted that this strategy wasn't working and so we passed from confrontation to appeasament. And during Mussolini era we signed the treaty called Patti lateranensi they got Vatican City , monetary refund for nationalised properties ,an \"apology\" for the invasion and to teach religious education in schools. Then after the war this treaty was inserted in the constitution since not even the communist party was eager to reopen that querrel. Then after some decades in the 70s the church started losing is grip traditional values become contested a more modern idea of society was born and contraceptives, abortions, divorces become allowed. \n\nDuring the 80 the treaty of Patti lateranensi was rewritten: the refunding become volontary as religious education in schools. This negotiations appened during the Craxi era who was the first socialist italian pm. \n\nAnd that's all I hope to having been useful op and sorry for eventual error in the writing. \n\n\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cowe1bm" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Yes, this is a true story and the author is a respected historian. Poland and other Eastern European countries have a sad history of violent anti-semitism. Particularly poignant are the killings of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust after the liberation of Poland: between 1944 and 1946 hundreds of survivors were killed by Polish gentiles. The largest mass killing took place in Kielce in July 1946 when 42 Jews were killed. See [this](_URL_0_) for further reading. \n\nAlso poignant are the numbers of Jews in hiding during the war that were betrayed to the Germans or killed by Polish gentiles. Particularly harrowing are the stories of escapees of the mass escapes from the death camps of Sobibor and Treblinka being killed by Polish partisans and peasants when they were hiding in the forests around the camps. \n\nHowever, mass killings on the scale of Jedwabne were rare in Poland. They were, however, not so rare in the Baltic states, particularly in Lithuania where the Germans found very willing executioners among the local gentiles, whether spontaneously or as part of their duties as auxiliaries to the German forces. It has been argued that the majority of Jews killed in Lithuania during the war were killed by Lithuanians and not by German forces. See [this](_URL_1_) for further reading. Similar things happened in Estonia in Latvia though not on the same scale. " ] }

[]

[ "http://www.amazon.com/Neighbors-Destruction-Jewish-Community-Jedwabne/dp/0142002402/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1424836237&sr=8-1&keywords=Neighbors%3A+The+Destruction+of+the+Jewish+Community+in+Jedwabne%2C+Poland" ]

[ [ "http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%203128.pdf", "http://hgs.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/1/27.abstract" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dcd9wtz" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Nobunaga indeed had no use for two puppets. In 1568, Ashikaga Yoshiaki used Nobunaga to get back control of Kyōto, and Nobunaga used Yoshiaki to get to Kyōto. Relations turned sour almost as soon as he entered Kyōto, and by 1570, Ashikaga Yoshiaki was part of an anti-Nobunaga alliance openly fighting against him, and by 73, Yoshiaki was expelled from the Kyōto area by force (again).\n\nNobunaga's relationship with the court is complicated and still debated. There's a question of whether Nobunaga asked Emperor Ōgimachi to retire in 1581 or if the Emperor asked Nobunaga his opinion on the subject (he retired in 1586, 4 years after Nobunaga's death). A couple of decades ago it was even theorized the court played a large part in Nobunaga's death.\n\nHowever I think the evidence better points to a mutually assisting relationship, at least after the ousting of Yoshiaki. Nobunaga used his considerable resources to restore the courts finances and political functions. The court in term seem to have supported Nobunaga politically. The court, after all, would rule Japan through Nobunaga if he did succeed in his conquest. As described [here](_URL_0_), the court held firm the power to formally bestow ranks and titles, and so had considerable legal powers. After entering Kyōto, Nobunaga climbed in official rank quickly reaching Third Rank General of the Guard, the highest official military rank (Seii Tai**shōgun** was technically supposed to be special-directive, temporary rank). And except for refusing the rank of deputy-Shogun (which was Yoshiaki's idea) seem to have had good relationship with the court. Nobunaga demonstrated he at least respected the court enough to agree to a peace settlement with Ishiyama Honganji in 1580 when the court ordered it (though everyone wanted peace at that point). He also seemed to have great relationship with Konoe Sakihisa, despite being erstwhile enemies (Sakihisa had sided with Yoshiaki in 1570, also despite being erstwhile enemies), who worked in the court with Nobunaga from 1575 onwards, rising to Daijō-daijin in 1582 (he was Kampaku before Yoshiaki ran him out of Kyōto in 1568). Nobunaga supposedly even promised the Konoe family a province once he finished conquering Japan." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5j5t80/how_did_the_japanese_emperors_lose_power_to_the/dbebhzf/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "egkeow7" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "The use of \"canon\" in this context comes from the application of higher criticism to the Christian Bible (and related religious works), and was first applied to popular literature by Rev. Robert Knox in \"Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes\" (1911). The use was subsequently taken up by later fandoms, although the process took a while. When H. P. Lovecraft and his contemporaries were piecing together the shared universe that became known as the Cthulhu Mythos, for example, Lovecraft made some aborted efforts to keep certain matters consistent between authors, and after his death considerable work by August Derleth, Francis T. Laney, and others went into trying to catalogue, codify, and classify different aspects of the Mythos - characters, entities, books, places, that kind of thing.\n\nPart of the reason that the idea of a \"Canon\" came up is because Sherlock Holmes generated so much *un*canonical secondary material, including pastiches, parodies, chronologies, supposition, etc. derived from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original work, and a need was felt to distinguish between the primary texts and the secondary additions.\n\nIt is difficult to argue if the idea existed earlier than this, although certainly higher criticism and textual criticism didn't arise out of nothing. There was very much an idea of later works which built upon but were separate from earlier works, like Homer's *Iliad*, Virgil's *Aeneid*, and Dante Aligheri's *Inferno*, but if there was an early application of the idea of \"canonicity\" to tales which referenced or were in some way dependent upon earlier works, I'm not aware of it." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "doad6z8" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "Because WWII was never waged as an ideological war against fascism.\n\nFranco was a pragmatist par excellence, and was very careful to steer a course in between the Allies and the Axis for more or less the entire duration of the war, never committing to either. He did this of course, for precisely the reason that he did not wish to be overthrown should he find himself on the losing side, despite his personal sympathies with the Axis (especially considering that he likely would never have been able to defeat the Republic without the aid from Italy and Germany). \n\nFranco had, during the high-water mark of Axis success, shifted Spain into a position of 'co-belligerence' and seriously considered entering the war. Official state press was intensely sympathetic towards Germany. U-Boats refueled in Spanish ports. Franco's brother in law Serrano Suñer, a committed Fascist and Germanophile, served as foreign minister during this time. But Franco was ever careful and unwilling to commit, and soon enough, Germany's fortunes took a turn for the worst, and he soon distanced himself from the fascist powers. \n\nIn short, by the end of the war, there was really no pretext for overthrowing Franco. He had never fought alongside the Axis officially. He had never declared open opposition to the Allies. The populations of the Allied countries were exhausted by the war. It would have been unjustifiable to invade a neutral country, and cause thousands more deaths, simply because its government had fascist sympathies. There simply was no reason to cause more turmoil in Europe. \n\nOf course, it's worth noting that many Spanish Republican exiles (and Republicans in Spain) had hoped the Allies would do precisely that. Indeed, for a few years after WWII, Franco's Spain did become an international pariah of sorts. The UN passed a resolution condemning Spain's form of government as fascist and the country itself was barred from UN membership. \n\nBut once WWII ended and the Cold War began, Franco's staunch anti-communism soon became usefull to the United States and its allies in their fight against the USSR. Spain became the recipient of western aid, and Franco framed the Civil War as a crusade against Bolshevism in which he had only accepted the aid of fascist powers because they where the only ones offering. He soon styled himself the 'Sentinel of the West', the first to have fought against the scourge of communism. \n\nAnd that was that." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cb0ij3i", "cb0mvfc" ], "score": [ 5, 13 ], "text": [ "This question needs to be narrowed down quite a bit. Where do you live, what time period, are you in the army of the nation you live in? Are you a nobleman, a peasant?\n\nBroad questions like this are difficult to answer.", "The estimates of the Great Khan's body count are pretty widely variant and depend on how many degrees of separation you want to credit him for. If a Mongol solider chopped your head off on orders from the Khan that's pretty clearly his fault, but what if you starved to death because your entire civilization pretty much collapsed after having its major city centers set on fire by the Mongols?\n\nNumbers range from somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million to somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 million. \n\n[Assuming a world population of around 310,000,000,](_URL_0_) that gives you as much as a 1 in 6 change of being offed by Genghis Khan either directly or indirectly. " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cpjrvhp" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Just a couple of notes:\n\n > [...] instead of refusing to abide by their treaty and ultimately switching over to the allies during the conflict?\n\nThis is incorrect. The Italian government did not abide to the treaty since it was a *defensive* agreement... meaning that its provision were unapplicable nevertheless due to Austria-Hungary having started the war in the first place.\n\nMoreover, the A-H government had already refused multiple times to either hand those very same territories or make any concession whatsoever to its Italian ally; the worsening conditions of the ethnic Italians in the Empire, the sheer impopularity of the Treaty itself - let's not forget that Italy had fought *three* wars of Independence against the Austrians - which had been signed in 1882 by prime minister Francesco Crispi in spite of the French (they had seized Tunisia a year before without his government's consent...) was what led to Italy ultimately forsaking the agreement.\n\nMoreover, this did not happen mid-conflict but sometime before Italy's entry into the war on May 24, 1915.\n\n > [...] Did Mussolini also feel the Italian government should have acted differently [...]\n\nAs it's already been explained no, not at all. The very fact of Italy joining the war against the Central Powers was largely justified from an Italian perspective, and Mussolini himself not only supported the war effort but also enlisted as a volunteer (even though he had more than happily evaded his duty to be conscripted in 1902).\n\n > [...] These territories were Trentino & South Tyrol, Dalmatia, Trieste and Fiume [...]\n\nActually these were Istria - which comprises both Trieste and Fiume - Dalmatia and Trentino. South Tyrol was added in a second moment not so much because of the (tiny) Italian minority there, but also because it provided a more easily defendable front-line; it was, in other words, a strategically convenient place.\n\n > 'Italia irredentia'\n\nFor everybody's information, that'd be spelt \"Italia irredenta\".\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpb8ppn" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The process for forming a town officially is called *incorporation,* but towns can exist without that. Take Alaska, for example. The state capital, Juneau, was founded in 1881, but it wasn't incorporated as a city until 1900 because no laws existed to allow a town government.\n\nNow, if you look at older maps, you'll see Juneau on there. You'll also see lots of other towns in Alaska. Town placement is determined by the mapmaker and his or her desires. If you look at a lot of maps of Alaska, you might see a town called Circle, on the Yukon River. It was founded in 1896 and is one of three places where Alaska's road system meets the Yukon River. It appears on lots of maps, yet it has a population of about 100 people.\n\nDeadhorse, Alaska has a population of fewer than 10. It's an industrial town; no one actually lives there. Yet, it's the home of Prudhoe Bay, so you'll see it on maps, too. Importance is a relative term, and maps reflect that relativism." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "caltvie", "calu7pw" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "At least in the desert Southwest, Native Americans were and are agrarian. People north of the Rio Grande did have dogs as beasts of burdens, and how everyone stayed hydrated is they lived and traveled along river routes.\n\nAs far transporting water from rivers to villages, folks used pots (surely you've seen the Edward Curtis photos of Pueblo maidens balancing ollas on their heads), tightly woven baskets rubbed with pine pitch, and on the Northern Plains, bladders—particularly buffalo bladders.", "Prior to the introduction of the horse, Plains cultures were generally much more sedentary. Even afterward, the stereotypical nomadic Plains cultures--the Apache, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Cheyenne, the Lakota, and so on--are mostly relative new-comers to the region. For these cultures, when on the move before the horses, dogs served as beasts-of-burden, carrying supplies on travois. Here are a few images [[1](_URL_0_), [2](_URL_4_), [3](_URL_2_)]. Travois could also be pulled by hand, or people could carry supplies in satchels or bags. Not that you really need to carry a lot of water out on the Plains. There are [rivers](_URL_5_) and streams all over the place.\n\nBut as I said, pre-horse, most Plains cultures were more sedentary and lived in permanent settlements like this [Mandan village](_URL_1_) or this [Caddo village](_URL_3_), which were built along rivers or other water sources, so hauling water around wasn't an issue." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://moniyawlinguist.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/161_b.jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Catlin_mandan_village.jpg", "http://www.firstpeople.us/pictures/art/odd-sizes/ls/Lakota-Woman-And-Dog-Travois-Rosebud-Reservation-800x571.html", "http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/80/132280-004-00500E26.jpg", "http://www.digitalhorizonsonline.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fuw-ndshs&CISOPTR=307&DMSCALE=100&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=1&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=&DMTHUMB=0&REC=1&DMROTATE=0&x=219&y=178", "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Mississippirivermapnew.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cofmq30" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "This was asked and answered not too long ago in another thread: [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2qvdpe/in_1001_arabian_nights_dunyazad_lays_under_the/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c4o7i44" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "What an unusual selection your library has! Well, out of those three, the third one (Sider) isn't a translation, it's study notes, so you can rule that one out for a start. The Signet Classics one (W.H.D. Rouse) is from the 1930s and is in pretty bland prose (it looks very boring to me). Mitchell adds to the text a bit, and subtracts a lot as well, but if I had to choose between that and Rouse, Mitchell would be the winner in my opinion.\n\nYou say you prefer hardcopies. I take it that you don't have a Kindle or something similar? If you do, you can always get a translation from the internet and stick it on there. The trouble is that the out-of-copyright translations are not good for general purpose use. The most widely available ones would be (all easily googlable)\n\n* A.T. Murray (ca. 1924?) -- prose full of needless false archaism, dull as ditchwater (though a step up from Rouse)\n* Chapman (1600s) -- verse, pretty to listen to but difficult to follow\n* Pope (1700s) -- also verse; very different from the original, not as hard as Chapman\n* Lang, Leaf and Myers (late 1800s) -- prose, full of false archaism (but I love the style, which is modelled on old bible translations)\n* [Ian Johnston's recent translation (2002; also available in print)](_URL_3_)\n* [Tony Kline's translation](_URL_0_) -- 2008; straightforward, pleasant prose\n\nOf those, I think Johnston would be my pick. I'm not familiar with Kline's, but it looks OK.\n\nIf you could spring for a bought copy, my pick of the most popular versions these days are:\n\n* Richmond Lattimore, 1951 -- blank verse; quite literal, not *very* easy to read, but *very* powerful\n* Robert Fitzgerald, 1974 -- blank verse; not literal, very poetic; I'd recommend it ahead of Fagles (below), but they're both good; this one and Lattimore are probably the most *powerful* ones listed here, in the sense that the text takes hold of your soul and won't let go\n* Martin Hammond, 1987 -- prose; pleasant without being dull\n* Robert Fagles, 1990 -- (Penguin Classics) blank verse; not so literal, more poetic and grandiose; I like it, not everyone does (beware that Penguin Classics have two translations; I'd recommend avoiding the older translation by E.V. Rieu, as it's a strange combination of blandness and randomly altering the text in a vain attempt to spice it up)\n* Stanly Lombardo, 1997 -- blank verse; has a good track record in pedagogical circles of getting students to engage with the poem, but not very literal\n* Rodney Merrill, 2007 -- blank verse; keeps the rhythm of Homeric verse, while also being very literal; not as poetic as Fitzgerald, but this is an underrated translation; I like the combination of great sound and faithful translation, so I'm a big fan\n\n(EDIT: omitted Lombardo by accident)\n\nThe *Iliad* has been translated *a lot*. [Here's a New Yorker article](_URL_1_) comparing four versions; [here's a page prepared by Ian Johnston](_URL_2_) with links to previews of several dozen more. (Johnston's translation isn't my favourite of them all, but he's a very very good egg for taking the trouble to make that page!)\n\nTL;DR: take out the Stephen Mitchell version. If you can get hold of others, try instead for Fitzgerald, Lombardo, or Merrill, depending on what you prize most. (I recommend these last three for the *Odyssey* too.)" ] }

[]

[ "http://www.amazon.com/The-Iliad-Stephen-Mitchell-Translation/dp/1439163375", "http://www.amazon.com/The-Iliad-Signet-Classics-Homer/dp/0451530691/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337060289&sr=1-1", "http://www.amazon.com/Homers-Iliad-David-Sider/dp/0671005014/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337060399&sr=1-1" ]

[ [ "http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Greek/Ilhome.htm", "http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2011/11/englishing-the-iliad.html", "http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/homer/homertranslations.htm", "http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/homer/iliad_title.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cr9pkj8", "cr9tdd6" ], "score": [ 50, 4 ], "text": [ "Defining what makes a 'superior' weapon is somewhat difficult, as its effectiveness is dependent not only on functionality, but on logistics and employment. For example, the U.S. BAR was a deficient squad light machine gun, compared to the Bren or MG34/42, but this was not a failure of the U.S. arms industry, rather a doctrinal choice to focus on the rifleman (with a semiautomatic M1) as the focus of the squad, as opposed to seeing the riflemen as support for a machine gun. So you could say that the U.S. had a better infantry rifle and the Germans had a better machine gun, but that misses the point.\n\nYou mention the STG-44. This firearm is seen as special because it's more-or-less the first assault rifle, which type has become dominant for primary infantry weapons. However, this isn't really a technical achievement- the allied powers could certainly have fielded an assault rifle, had they identified a need for one. Rather, it was a doctrinal acceptance by the Germans that there needed to be a weapon in between submachine guns firing pistol ammo and rifles firing full-power rounds (i.e. an assault rifle). They had determined that most infantry actions did not occur at ranges where a full-power cartridge was needed, and the intermediate round in the STG allowed it to be used for automatic fire, and at ranges greater than the MP-40. So it was sort of a happy medium, but again, it was a doctrinal development, not a technical one.\n\nWere there instances of U.S. troops using German weapons? Sure. Was it widespread practice? No. Again, it's about logistics and employment. If you give someone a weapon they aren't trained to use, that requires ammunition and spare parts that they have to capture as well, and moreover may have a very distinctive sound that would draw friendly fire, they aren't going to have a good time. So even if one side had had much better weapons, it wouldn't have behooved the others to use them.\n\nSo, what's the upshot for you? You could certainly give a lecture on all this weapons procurement jazz, or on squad-level infantry tactics, but I don't think that's what you should be doing. All these nitty details are important and interesting, but maybe not so much on a high school level. You could go for the typical Reddit wargasm of \"Simo Häyhä could noscope Russians from a mile away and Audie Murphy had the highest killstreak of all time!\", but, again, that isn't really valuable for understanding. If you link the anecdote into the history, i.e. explain that Häyhä got so good at shooting through prewar training with the White Guards, and that he was advantaged by the Soviets' early lack of winter camouflage, their poor training, and their officer corps that was gutted by Stalin, then you're on the right path to mix evocative narrative with deeper comprehension, at least to my mind.", " > as far as I'm aware they weren't the technological masterminds that movies and books paint them to be...were they?\n\nNazi Germany revolutionized tank and air combat. They were the first country to deploy radios in their tanks as standard equipment, and the first to include a tank commander position in all of their main battle tanks. This means there is a man in the tank who basically watches for the enemy, gives orders, and mans the radio. All other tanks separated these jobs onto people who were already doing other super important work like driving the tank, aiming and firing the main gun, or reloading/swapping ammunition. The russian T-34 is an example of a tank that went into a modern war using flags and hand signals. Germany also had extremely good glass and lense makers, meaning they had extremely good weapon sights for the tanks. This allowed german tanks to be effective at much longer ranges. They built an incredible fighter at the time in the ME/BF-109. It was fast, tough, had a radio, and was armed with a cannon in a time when most warplanes still used smaller machine guns. It was also armored. Through regular upgrades this plane stayed competitive through the end of the war. Other technology? Well, they did amazing things for rocketry as you mentioned. They did not (in my opinion) do nearly as well with small arms, which I will get into later.\n\n > In terms of the primary small arms of the varying forces, was there a definitive \"superior\" weapon?\n\nYou're going to get a different answer depending on who you ask but I agree with General Patton. The M1 Garand marked a paradigm shift in basic infantry capability and doctrine, and put a level of firepower at the most basic level of an army that no other army in the world at the time had. Every other country went to war with a bolt action, 5-6 round full size battle rifle (the british SMLE, the german KAR-98k, the russian Mosin-Nagant, the japanese type 99 Arisaka, etc). \n\nThe Garand put 8 rounds of rapid firing semi-automatic power in the hands of every rifleman. It could be reloaded extremely quickly with a \"stripper clip\" injecting a full magazine worth of rounds in a second. With the Garand, an 8 man rifle squad was able to generate the same amount of fire on a target as a machine gun grew, while being far more mobile and using the same ammunition. The US army was the only force on the battlefield capable of this during the war. \n\nI would also say the russian Ppsh-41 is a standout. All armies developed a sub-machine gun (germany - mp40, america - m1a1 thompson, england - Sten, etc) but the ppsh stands above the rest because it does the 2 things you need an SMG to do better than any other option: high rate of fire and large (reliable) magazine capacity. The thing is literally a bullet hose that makes no pretense of trying to be accurate which is great for a weapon that was usually fired at point blank ranges, from the hip, while running.\n\nLastly it might be worth mentioning that the infamous AK-47 was a direct result of Russia capturing STG-44's and reverse-engineering/improving the design.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cr8zc22", "cr918v4", "cr9bkyw" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Any surgery that was taken place before the 19th century was considerably risky. There was no anti-septic sterilisation process, penicillin was still to be discovered, and as a result many patients had a high risk of dying from infection after any operation. Therefore the circumstances which surrounded someone having an operation was pretty much a last resort. \n\nSurgery itself wasn't even a defined profession until the 19th century, up until such a time the local barber was also your surgeon should you require any operation. You would most likely have been either given copious amounts of alcohol and given something to bite on. It's also quite likely many people would eventually pass out from the pain.\n\nSource: GCSE History classes", "Surgery in Great Britain during the 18th and 19th century was a tricky thing indeed. For centuries, there had been two basic types of medical practitioners: physicians and surgeons. Physicians were the first point of contact for the sick and often advised on a course of treatment. They were also typically university educated and were licensed by the Royal College of Physicians to practice medicine throughout the United Kingdom. Physicians also had several related professionals who would help them carry out their instructions. Apothecaries focused on stocking and mixing medicine. Nurses provided palliative care. Midwives specialized in delivering children. Surgeons merely amputated or cauterized their patients.\n\nSurgeons had never been considered to be of the same class as doctors. Most early surgeons were also barbers and were paid for their ability to perform an amputation quickly and efficiently: no one wanted to be carved up over the course of several minutes. Surgeons were therefore paid for the speed at which they could perform amputations rather than the skill at which they conducted them. This led to the famous quip that Robert Liston was the only person in history to achieve a 300% mortality rate during the course of one operation: while amputating the leg of a patient, Liston also cut off the fingers of his assistant and slashed the torso of a spectator. All three later died in the hospital of gangrene.\n\nThere had been considerable attempts at developing anesthetics, although most of this consisted of opium, liquor and other common drugs. Laughing gas had been isolated as early as the 18th century, but it was banned in Britain due to its abuse as a narcotic by members of the upper class who held parties consuming the substance in drawing rooms throughout London. By 1850, both ether and laughing gas were beginning to be used for surgery, thereby allowing surgeons to refine their skills although the mortality rate was still considerably high.\n\nPatients were typically strapped or held down to a table while the surgeon got to work. Naval vessels of the period carried limited stocks of medical supplies but the business of working in the Navy was treacherous enough that malaria and scurvy had a better chance of killing you before gangrene did, thereby making such preparations rather moot. Similar procedures were implemented on land. Since surgery carried such a high chance of mortality, however, it was often seen as a last resort.", "A fascinating read on the subject of surgery in the 18th century and leading into the 19th is *The Knife Man* by Wendy Moore." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eazdzdk" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "Shininess isn’t an indicator of whether or not something is made of iron or steel. **Most Roman armor from the late Republican and the Imperial periods was made of iron.** It isn’t until the early medieval period and the creation of blast furnaces that large-scale steel production for armor is really viable.\n\nThe “plate armor” you’re referring to is the so-called *lorica segmentata* (this name actually dates from the 1500s and we don’t know what the Romans called this style of armor). *Lorica* being “armor” in Latin, and *segmentata* meaning “segmented,” for the banded construction. Its use dates from just before the 1st century AD to around the 3rd century AD, the period we’d think of as the height of the Roman Empire.\n\n**Some of this style of Roman armor was part-steel.** A fragment of a *lorcia segmentata* found at the Vindolanda fort south of Hadrian’s Wall in England is part-iron, part-steel. The inside of the armor is softer wrought iron. The outside is harder mild steel. The steel was made by taking iron and wrapping it with organic material. This was then wrapped in organic material and heated in a forge, transferring some of the carbon into the iron. Today, we’d refer to this technique as case-hardening. The iron and steel pieces were then welded together, creating a laminated metal strip. Similar steel-iron laminating techniques were used to build Roman hand tools like knives and axes. But these steel armor examples are fairly rare, and iron seems to have been the primary material used to make armor.\n\nAs for the point about mass-production, here’s some context. Prior to the Marian Reforms in 107 BC, then-Republican Rome didn't have a professional military. Instead, private citizens were expected to provide their own weapons and armor when called up (or asked to volunteer) for military service. Since arms and weapons were made by individual craftsmen, they were quite pricey, so limited military service mostly to the lower-middle, middle and upper classes. This leads to very visible social divisions with the legion itself. The manipular legion is divided into three main lines of infantry, with the younger, less-prosperous *hastati* in the front line and the older, richer, and better-armed *triarii* at the rear as a reserve. The poorest men fought as unarmored skirmishing *velites* and the richest men fought as *equites*, mounted on their expensive horses.\n\nGaius Marius, then the junior consul, shakes this system up. In 107 BC, Rome is fighting two wars: one Transalpine Gaul (i.e. the French Riveria) and one in North African against the Numidians. Marius needs more troops to fight in Africa, so he persuades the Roman government to let lower-class Roman citizens join the army. Since lower-class recruits obviously can't pay for their own equipment, the government has to provide them with weapons and armor (at the time, the *lorcia segmentata* hadn't been invented, so it wouldn't have been issued). It's almost certain wealthier citizens doing the military service would have still bought their own armor and weapons.\n\nThe Marian reforms also reshape the Roman legion. Gone is the three-lined manipular legion. Instead, the legion is divided into ten cohorts, each with six centuries with 80 fighting men (yep, only 80 legionaries in a century, but there are 20 servants in the century, making it a round 100 men). This basic organization would remain in place until nearly the end of the Empire.\n\nThe Marian Reforms essentially create a (partially) state-armed Roman army. The basic organization of the Marian-era legion, the growing professionalism, and the practice of more universal recruitment become important characteristics of the later republican and imperial legion. This also means the government of the Roman Republic has to start producing and procuring armor on an even large scale. When Rome becomes an empire and continues its aggressive expansion, the demand for weapons and armor only grows. So, how to meet this demand?\n\nContinued...\n\ne: some edits for clarity." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cx14ntp" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I can't give the whole picture, but I can try to explain how it happened in Norway. It had a lot to do with the \"modernization\" into a proper medieval state. \n\n* 793-1000: The norse traders, settlers and pirates get into contact with Christian people more and more often. \n* 10th century: The oldest remains of Churches. \n* 935-961; Hákon Aðalsteinsfóstri, known as \"the good\" is the first Christian king. Raised in England by king Aethelstan. He brings the first bishop and tries to convert people on a smaller scale, until the chiefs in Trøndelag forces him to participate in a blót, unless he wants to loose his title. He let them have their faith in peace after that, but did manage to give the religion a true presence. \n\n* He did not rule all of Norway though, as the Danes had power in the south-east, around today's Oslo. A rune stone after the Danish king Harald Bluetooth (dead 985) says he won Denmark and Norway, and made the Danes Christian. \n\n* Haraldr gráfeldr was the next king. 961-970? didn't matter much. \"Gunhild's sons embraced Christianity in England, as told before; but when they came to rule over Norway they made no progress in spreading Christianity -- only they pulled down the temples of the idols, and cast away the sacrifices where they had it in their power, and raised great animosity by doing so.\"\n\n* Hákon jarl inn ríki was the defacto king in Norway from 970 to 995. He was in theory a vassal of the Danish king, but renounced Christendom a while into his rule. He was a good commander and beat the Jomsvikings and the Germans. His end came after he had become a unfair ruler, and forced himself upon noble women. The people in Trøndelag revolted and he was killed by his thrall while hiding under a pig sty. He was the last heathen ruler. \n\n > \"Hakon the earl, so good and wise,\n\n > Let all the ancient temples rise; --\n\n > Thor's temples raised with fostering hand\n\n > That had been ruined through the land.\n\n > His valiant champions, who were slain\n\n > On battle-fields across the main,\n\n > To Thor, the thunder-god, may tell\n\n > How for the gods all turns out well.\n\n > The hardy warrior now once more\n\n > Offers the sacrifice of gore;\n\n > The shield-bearer in Loke's game\n\n > Invokes once more great Odin's name.\n\n > The green earth gladly yields her store,\n\n > As she was wont in days of yore,\n\n > Since the brave breaker of the spears\n\n > The holy shrines again uprears.\n\n > The earl has conquered with strong hand\n\n > All that lies north of Viken land:\n\n > In battle storm, and iron rain\n\n > Hakon spreads wide his sword's domain.\"\n\n\n\n* Óláfr Tryggvason (king 995–1000) was the king who did most of the real work to make the land Christian. As many of these kings he had converted while out travelling. Leif Eirikson, who discovered america is said to have been baptised by him. He was strict, and would burn in practitioners of magic and kill heathens unless they converted, as was standard. \n\n > The king let all these men be seated in one room, which was well adorned, and made a great feast for them, and gave them strong drink in plenty. Now when they were all very drunk, he ordered the house be set on fire, and it and all the people within it were consumed, all but Eyvind Kelda, who contrived to escape by the smoke-hole in the roof.\n\nIn the region of Trondheim he was invited into the temple to \"observe\" their customs, as the landowners wanted peace with the king. In there he cut the statues down, as his men outside cut down the main oponent of his, Iron Beard. Without that chief to speak for them, they did not dare oppose him and were \"baptised\". Similar things happened all over, as he went from assembly to assembly and forcefully converted people. \n\nHe died after a battle with the allied Swedes and Danes against him. It is worth noting that the Christian Dane allied with the Pagan Swedish king to kill the Christian Norwegian king. \n\n* After that the Danes instated their own Christian vassals over Norway. Things calmed down a bit, but paganism was severely prosecuted still. \n\n* Óláfr \"The holy\" Haraldsson is the most famous king in Norway when it comes to Christendom. He is a Orthodox and Catholic saint, with hundreds of churches dedicated to him in the Nordic countries and Russia. He was probably bapticed in Rouen, and was king from 1015-1028 when the landowners were tired of him and revolted in favour of the Danish king. He fled to Russia for 2 years before returning in 1030 to die and be declared a saint. \n\nHe continued as the king before, and during his reign Christendom had become the main region in the land. A few places still were a bit behind, but he dealt with them aggressively. When the chiefs in Trøndelag, who had \"converted\" earlier were busted in still sacrificing and praising the old gods, even though they had assured him they did not, he killed the main guy, Ölvir á Eggju, and burned his farm down.\n\n > \"If I must say the truth, king, as it is, I\nmust declare that in the interior of the Throndhjem land almost\nall the people are heathen in faith, although some of them are\nbaptized. It is their custom to offer sacrifice in autumn for a\ngood winter, a second at mid-winter, and a third in summer. In\nthis the people of Eyna, Sparby, Veradal, and Skaun partake.\nThere are twelve men who preside over these sacrifice-feasts; and\nin spring it is Olver who has to get the feast in order, and he\nis now busy transporting to Maerin everything needful for it.\"\n\nAfter his death the Danes again had the rule for a while, but now Christendom was the undisputed religion in the land, with churches being built and people forcefully converted. And the new Christian laws ruling. \n\nSources: Store norske leksikon, and the medieval Sagas. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7xsykh" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Quick example answer:\n\nIn the mid seventeenth century it was a relatively common assertion, at least among his political enemies, that Charles I of England had arranged the fatal poisoning of his father, James VI/I, when all official records indicated otherwise." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-23166.html" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dgrbwzs" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "In short, they were dispossessed of their lands in an attempt to displace them and replace them with a Protestant settlement. This came after the final defeat of the Gaelic Chieftains at the Battle of Kinsale in 1601. Up until that point Ulster was the most Gaelic of the Irish provinces so it had proved a difficulty for the English Crown to control and bring under English law. \n\nThe guidelines for the Plantation of Ulster are contained in a parliamentary document known informally as 'The Printed Book' of 1610. First and foremost it was to be a Protestant settlement i.e no Catholics were allowed own or settle on the land [just about the whole of Ulster] that had been confiscated by the Crown. Lord Chichester the Lord Deputy of Ireland, believed that the entire country might be transformed into loyal subjects using this system of dispossession and replacement. He saw the defeat and departure of the Gaelic Chieftains as the opportunity for “a plantation of the whole realm, and especially the fugitive counties [in Ulster].” The “fugitive counties” of the northern region were planted with people invited to come in for the purpose of displacing the native population.\n\nSegregation was the basis for settlement. It was declared in law that no native Irish were to be allowed to settle on the confiscated land. In addition, no one taking possession of the land could hire the Irish in any way. Craftsmen and labourers were to come in from Scotland so that the entire community would be made up of the Protestant new comers. Any Protestant found violating the law and hiring the native Irish would lose their property. But this proved to be impossible to carry out mostly because they needed the native Irish as servants and labourers. \n\nBetween the years 1610 and 1630 over 40,000 Protestant immigrants settled in Ulster. The area being planted covered the modern counties of Armagh, Tyrone, Donegal, Derry, Fermanagh, and Cavan. Counties Down and Antrim were excluded because successful private plantations had already taken place there with a group of specially chosen families from Scotland who would be certain to remain loyal subjects of the Crown. \n\nTo act as possible defenses against a hostile native population one of the laws states that “the said undertakers, their heirs and successors, shall have ready in the house at all times, a convenient store of arms.” The Protestant tenants were also to build stone homes to be clustered around a principal residence of the Protestant land owner. As to the Irish Catholic natives, those few who were legally allowed to remain in a designated area were to be given “an allowance of timber” to build homes in the areas they were assigned to but warned that “there will be a proviso or forfeiture of their homes if they enter into actual rebellion.” There were a few Gaelic Lords who had been granted land ['deserving Irish' who were deemed not to be rebellious] but their taxes were considerably higher than the Protestant settlers and they found it impossible to survive and were shortly to find themselves heavily in debt. This was likely the plan. Ultimately, the amount of land in their hands was steadily eroded over time as more and more land went to the planters.\n\nThe economy in the province was in the hands of the new Presbyterian settlers and Belfast, the new town, was given a charter by King James in 1613. It became the centre of that Protestant economy. Catholics were excluded from this new community and from its economy but they did become the servants of these planters. \n\nThe native Irish population remained a sizeable community. In fact in counties Donegal, Cavan, Fermanagh and Derry the native Irish Catholics remained a majority. In spite of the initial plan to keep the two communities absolutely separate not enough support type families came in to Ireland to act as servants and labourers to the new landowners. This created a gap in the system because the planters could not exist without someone to take on these servile roles. With no other option open to them, the native Irish became the underlings of the planters. Consequently the area became a region of discontent and frequent rebellion by the dispossessed native Catholic Irish. \n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "coib8rp" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "I'm a finance guy, not a historian, so my sources may need further sourcing. Here's a graph you may enjoy: [600 year graph](_URL_0_). Note that this is a logarithmic graph, so the drop is actually way more significant.\n\nNotably, silver seemed to be significantly more valuable in the 1400s 1500s than it is today. The 1770s' saw a slight decline, though I wouldn't necessarily attribute that to American independence, as it is part of a greater downward trend lasting more than 50 years. Likely due to new mines being discovered/opened and new mining techniques developed to more easily access the silver.\n\nAlso, it is interesting that ratio in value between gold and silver did not change much between the 1400's and 1800's, at about 15-20x value. I don't know why, but my speculation is that India's rise to wealth and their strong preference for gold jewelry has at least a little impact. I watched a documentary recently about this and i'll try and find the name.\n\nThe biggest shock to the silver market in recorded history was the failed Silver Market Corner by Nelson Bunker Hunt [wiki](_URL_1_), which is an important lesson taught in business school (one of my favorites). Basically in the late 70's, these rich guys decided that they'd \"buy up all the silver\" in order to increase the price. Once the price was high, they'd essentially own all the silver at this new high price and be hugely rich. This ultimately is unsustainable for several reasons: the amount of silver in the market is not fixed (more can be dug up, people will melt down their cutlery) which will reduce the price and the mere fact of trying to sell this new fortune will cause the price to fall back down, resulting in a net of 0 (or less than zero as other people have during this high time increased the supply). In the end these two brothers went bankrupt while new laws were enacted to prevent such market disruptions in the future.\n\nAnother cool graph: [100 year gold & silver](_URL_2_) - can you see where they tried to corner the market? :)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/6/18/160728-12453176109648-Sajal_origin.png", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Bunker_Hunt", "http://www.macrotrends.net/1333/gold-and-silver-prices-100-year-historical-chart" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "csu2099", "csud9r6" ], "score": [ 4, 3 ], "text": [ "Well, as you have no doubt noticed there are two real characteristics to the way Caesar draws his opponents: one is that they are characters with motivations, and occasionally given to speeches about how they will humiliate Rome (and thus need to be corrected by Caesar) and two is that he tends to \"flatten\" his enemies so that they all seem intricately connected, which has the side effect of making it entirely reasonable that a war started to halt migration near modern Lyon took him to Britain. So I think it is entirely reasonable to argue that Caesar's portrayal of the Gauls as all interconnected and in communication was a literary device serving a political purpose.\n\nThat being said, the material culture of the time shows that there were pretty extensive networks of exchange among the different Gauls. This even includes the construction of fairly sophisticated roads (or at least well worn tracks). Perhaps more significantly, they were capable of raising large armies to oppose Caesar in relatively short amounts of time--this requires extensive networks of political power and, of course, communication.", "I think readers of history always underestimates the amount of informal communications that far predate any sort of official actions of governments, or recognition by written sources.\n\nConsider tin. When you look at all the ancient sources of tin available (and tin is pretty critical to the bronze age), almost none of the major deposits are anywhere near what we would consider a center of civilization. So where did Egypt, Mesopotamia, Hattusa, Mycenea, China, India and all those other civilizations get their tin from? \n\nIntuitively, these civilizations likely established trade relations with peoples far beyond their spheres of influences, and these peoples are the ones who mined and supplied the tin. Who were these people they trade with? Who maintained the routes? How reliable were they? No one really knows, since these peoples left no records and very few relics. But consider that even in such a distant, distant past, civilizations transported vast amounts of ore from far away regions in a time that predates any named civilizations in the tin-producing areas, and such trade must've regular in order to sustain the vast amounts of bronze being produced. \n\nIf trade and movement was so regular and \"easy\" in the Bronze age, it's not really surprising for it to have been even easier in Roman times. The truth is, trade routes and exchange can far predate records of them, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Germans and Gauls had numerous roads and routes that connected them to Italy and each other for centuries before Caesar was even born. But understandably, records of these are absent, so we may never really know the specifics of them. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpbi9jo", "cpbift9" ], "score": [ 6, 4 ], "text": [ "I think the [Department Military Archives](_URL_0_) of the German Federal Archives would be responsible here, but as it says on the site:\n\n > The archive material from the period up to 1945 suffered considerable losses as a consequence of war. Many of the records of the central service units of the armed forces and of the army leadership, those of the service units and troops of the army below divisional level and those of the air force and the Waffen SS have been lost.\n\nBut on the other hand sending them an email doesn't cost anything, so it's worth a try?", "The main archive is the Bundesarchiv, which keeps the records of the members of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS. It is open for private use, though some fees may be charged. The service records are not avaiable online, you would have to come to Germany.\n\nYou should be able to find more information here: _URL_0_\n\nIf you have trouble with the german language, feel free to contact me via reddit, I can try to help." ] }

[]

[ "http://imgur.com/a/Xd19s" ]

[ [ "https://www.bundesarchiv.de/bundesarchiv/organisation/abteilung_ma/index.html.en" ], [ "https://www.bundesarchiv.de/benutzung/sachbezug/personenbezogen_genealogie/01306/index.html.de" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eoz1ca3" ], "score": [ 983 ], "text": [ "While I can't exactly give much of an answer in the way of why they *currently* continue exist, I can tell you that it became a country in the first place because of religious differences rather than linguistic.\n\nBelgium became independent from the Netherlands in a revolution in 1830, sparked largely by dissatisfaction with William I's supposedly despotic rule, but motivated by the fact that the majority of people in the southern provinces that would become Belgium were Roman Catholic, while those of the north were Dutch Reformed Protestants. The revolution went largely unchallenged by the Dutch army, which pulled out of the provinces after the defection of most of their forces from the south.\n\nBelgium was officially recognised quite early on as well, as William I appealed to the Great Powers of Europe to help him put an end to the revolution after the Belgian Congress officially voted to secede. Instead of helping him, however, the Great Powers chose to recognise Belgium's independence, which must have been a powerful boon to the already fervent nationalistic ideals within the country.\n\nThe Dutch did invade, however, a year into Belgium's independence after they installed Leopold I as their king; the campaign was short and ultimately failed thanks to French military intervention, and in the end the Dutch officially recognised Belgium's independence in 1839.\n\nTo give a sort of TLDR; the Belgians became independent because religious differences and dissatisfaction with Dutch rule sparked revolution; Belgian nationalism became a thing; it was strengthened by recognition from the Great Powers; and ratified by the French military. \n\nIt's possible that the reason Belgium continues to exist despite their completely split population is because of this fought-for independence; even though the majority speak Dutch (something like 60%) it's possible that the reminder of Belgium having gained independence *from* the Dutch in the 1830s reinforces the idea that rejoining the Netherlands isn't the best idea.\n\nSources:\n\n* Fishman, J. S. (1971), 'The London Conference of 1830', *Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis*, 84:3, pp.418-28\n* Schroeder, P. (1994), *The Transformation of European Politics, 1763 - 1848*\n* Witte, E., et al. (2009), *Political History of Belgium: From 1830 Onwards*\n\nEDIT: defection, not detection." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clnr81d" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Orderic Vitalis is one of the first wave of post-Conquest \"English\", born in 1075 to a French father and (presumably) an English mother. His *Historia Ecclesiastica* , especially the second book, deals somewhat with this new concept of English identity and the transfer of power.\n\nWilliam of Poitier's *Gesta Guillelmi* might be of use to you as well, as might the *Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dcyjgiy" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "The French didn't actually perform a frontal charge directly into the enemy's front ranks. Neither did they expect Agincourt to be an easy victory. Their actual battle plan reveals precisely the opposite: the French were led by experienced soldiers who were quite familiar with English tactics of the day. Like the English themselves, they were also painfully aware of the previous famous English victories in field battles like Crecy. When they made their battle plans, they actually made the decision to have the vast majority of the army fight on foot. Only a handpicked group of skilled veterans would remain mounted. Their role was to move around the flanks of the English army and clear away the archers. Between the French missile troops and the cavalry flank assault, the English archers would be either slaughtered or kept busy while the main French force could advance and bring its advantage in raw numbers of men-at-arms to bear. This was not a battle plan designed by arrogant or stupid men. It was a cautious, careful strategy developed by professional soldiers. \n\nUnfortunately for the French, their plan was undone by several factors. For one, their opponent, Henry V, was equally clever and experienced. He avoided battle until he could pick the best ground for the decisive engagement. Instead of the almost completely static tactic usually adopted by the English, Henry allowed the French to believe that he was going to remain in place. Seeing that their enemies were going to wait around for an attack like they usually did, the French decided to wait. Time was on their side, as more French reinforcements were still trickling in and their troops were fresh, rested, and well-supplied. The French began to dismount, eat breakfast, and move around. When Henry saw them becoming disordered, the English began to advance until they were within bowshot range. They protected their lines with wooden stakes that they hammered into the muddy ground. By the time that the French realized what had happened, they had already lost the chance to strike the English while they were out of position and moving around. Now, any advance (and now that the English were within arrow range, there absolutely had to be an advance) would be conducted against a fortified position, along a narrow front, while being pelted with missiles. Due to the disorder and confusion in the French ranks, the planned skirmishers weren't able to push their way to the front and actually attack the English archers. \n\nThe cavalry charge failed for similar reasons. Not enough men could be found to do the job on such short notice (the original plan called for something like a thousand, but only a few hundred (if even that) eventually came forward. The muddy terrain slowed the horses down. The archers took their toll as well. Even when arrows did not injure a knight directly, their impact frightened the horses, further reducing the impact of the charge. The French horse were unable to directly get to the archers because of the stakes. The English darted around from around their stakes, grabbed the French from their horses, and either killed or captured them. The dismal results of the cavalry charge were followed up by an advance on foot. Their valiant efforts were rewarded with similar failure. But this failure should not be blamed solely on French incompetence. Certainly there was incompetence within their army, but they weren't as foolhardy and arrogant as they are often portrayed. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e1sdy0j" ], "score": [ 17 ], "text": [ "Good question.\n\nOne of the terms of Charles II's 1660 Restoration, as negotiated largely by George Monck, was the [Act of Oblivion](_URL_2_), which, in short, indicated that Charles II was not to seek vengeance for any of the injustices (real or percieved) inflicted on him, his family, or his followers during the crises of the middle decades. England was to be forgiven for any acts against the Crown and the House of Stuart in favour of future peace and stability.\n\nNoteworthily, this clause contained one major exception - the foregiveness was not to be extended to any of [the regicides](_URL_0_): the people who oversaw the trial and execution of Charles I.\n\nThe Regicide was a controversal topic in England. The trial itself was something of a farce. Thomas Fairfax, one of the great Parliamentarian military heroes, actually resigned his commission at the head of the trial once he saw that the King's fate had been decided before the proceedings.\n\n(Fairfax did not face recriminations - in fact his daughter married [one of the King's best friends and closest companions](_URL_1_). Another exception, proving the rule, is that Milton, who was *loathed* by Royalists for his vitriolic defenses of the Regicide and (from some perspectives) libels of Charles I was also spared because he didn't directly participate in the legal proceedings, though they made him sweat it out a bit.)\n\nOn top of that, the Royalist party managed to pull off one of the most successful pieces of English-language propaganda ever, [Eikon Basilike](_URL_3_), ostensibly the memoirs and confessions of the lately martyred king. It was a hyperbolic hit on the press, achieving a semi-divine status. Many Royalists started to treat the physical text with a psalter-like reverence - carrying it close to the heart, kissing it, & c. It really became a symbol for England - David Norbrook (*Writing the English Republic: Poetry, Rhetoric and Politics*, 1627-1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 192.) puts it thus: via *Eikon Basilike*, “The king became, for admirers, and for many later literary critics, an emblem of a dying order, a lost union of church, state and aesthetic beauty which had been disrupted by a brutal modern impiety and philistinism.”\n\nSo back to the question, popular opinion in England had shifted far enough against the Interregnum establishments (Pepys has some great passages on this near the beginning of his diary, as does Edmund Ludlow) that it's perhaps fair to say that \"The Nation\" (so far as we can anthropomorphise it) was ashamed of the Regicide. There was little resistance or opposition to the posthumous executions of persons such as Cromwell (he wasn't the only one - Bradshaw suffered the same grizzly, weird fate). Many of the surviving Regicides were executed for treason. Others, such as Ludlow, fled into exile and died there.\n\nSide note on posthumous execution - remember that these were people who had been buried in state. The dismemberment and such was a ceremonial part of removing them from the places of honour assigned to them, otherwise reserved for royalty national heroes.\n\nAs for Cromwell's reputation today, we'll say it's mixed. Some people romanticize his proto-Liberal stance against tyranny, but between his abuses of power - cutting England from a full Parliamentary model into a \"Rump\" Parliament of yes-men - and his religious persecutions, he doesn't have many big fans. He committed genocide in Ireland and was a destructive force in Scotland. The political wave which he rode to power most likely smothered Charles I's aspirations to a centralized absolute monarchy and (eventually) preserved \"The Ancient Constitution,\" but he also led the nation down a road of blood and atrocity." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regicides_of_Charles_I", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Villiers,_2nd_Duke_of_Buckingham", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indemnity_and_Oblivion_Act", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eikon_Basilike" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eih4h5a" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "I'm really not specialized in that period OP asked for (BCE ca. 1750 - BCE ca. 500, at least ca. a millennium before my broad specialty), but I seriously doubt whether any specialist in pre-Historic Nordic Bronze Age is available or covered in this subreddit, so I just try to make a very brief note listing only a few essential academic literatures in English below: \n\n* Kristiansen, Kristian. *Europe before History.* Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998: Kristiansen is actually a specialist in Bronze Age Scandinavia, and published numerous articles as well as books. You can visit his site at _URL_0_ to find some interesting articles. \n* Prescott, Cristopher. *From Stone Age to Iron Age: a Study from Sogn, Western Norway*. Oxford: Hadrian Books, 1995: Prescott's specialty is Neolithic and Bronze Age Norway. \n\nWhile specialising rather in Iron Age Scandinavia, two leading Iron Age archaeologists in Norway and in Denmark respectively, Lotte Hedeager and Klaus Randsborg, have published some books from really broad perspectives, so their works may be also worth checking. \n\nReferences: \n\n* Østmo, Einar & Lotte Hedeager (eds.). *Norsk arkeologisk leksikon.* Oslo: Pax, 2005. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "academia.edu" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ceivno1" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "Republic, please. The ease of transition was due in large part to the period of benign neglect preceding the 7 years' war. Although they were subjects, the British were extremely hands off with the Americas when compared to other colonial holdings. British administrators for the crown had very little power, due in large part to the remoteness of the colonies and the lack of a strong permanent military presence, and much of the actual decision-making and governing was carried out by local representative bodies. By the time the British started demanding that the American colonies pay more taxes to cover the cost of protecting them in the 7 years' war, the colonists had effectively been practicing self government for decades. Also keep in mind that England was by far the most representative contemporary government, and the only reason that the colonists felt a right to representation was because it was guaranteed to them by their status as English subjects. They had a much smaller leap to make than countries like Egypt, and the intelligentsia were obsessed with the Greeks and Romans, so the idea of a Republic as an ideal form of government was never far from their minds.\n\nAlso keep in mind that the transition was not all that smooth. Somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of colonists did not want to rebel. Washington only staved off a rebellion of his officers through sheer force of will. The Articles of Confederation were an immense failure. The Constitution was drafted in secret by a group of men who had dubious legal authority to rewrite the AoC. The ratification battles were vicious and nearly unsuccessful, and still left major questions unanswered such as the role of the judiciary and a long term solution to slavery. The transition may seem smooth in hindsight, but the early republic only stood due to the immense collective character of the men who founded it and a great deal of luck." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ckeqrv6" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The British expedition to Abyssinia/Ethiopia, considered to be \"one of the most expensive affairs of honor in history,\" was a large military expedition sent by the British to rescue a bunch of missionaries and diplomats that had been taken hostage by the Ethiopian Emperor Theodoros II. It all started when Theodoros received a pair of pistols from Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom as a gift. After several embassies to the UK which fell on deaf ears, he decided to take a large number of European advisers, missionaries, and diplomats hostage. In response, the British sent General (later Field Marshal) Napier and 11,000 Indian Army troops (a mix of British and Indian troops, including a large detachment of Sikhs) to go rescue the prisoners and punish Theodoros. \n\nBritish casualties in the campaign were rather hilarious: more people died from sunstroke (10) than gunshot wounds (3), and of the three gunshot wounds, one was a suicide and another was an accidental self-shooting. Ethiopian casualties were very heavy, including Theodoros, who killed himself at the end.\n\nSource: Hozier, the British Expedition to Abyssinia" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cp9scb6" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "**Short version:** it was done to emphasize the fact that romanians are of latin heritage, and not slavic. As scholars started to investigate the history and language, they realized the three countries - Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania - have a roman legacy and this had to reflect in the alphabet as well. \n\n**Detailed version:**\nDimitrie Cantemir (a Moldavian ruler from the 18th century) wrote in his encyclopedic work \"Descriptio Moldaviae\" (latin for \"A description of Modavia\") that until 1439 the latin alphabet was used in Moldavia. \nThe oldest written text in romanian with a cyrillic alphabet dates to 1521 (The letter of Neacsu from Campulung to Hans Benker). Out of the 190 words used in it, 175 have a latin origin, even though they are written in cyrillic.\n\nThe main supporter of the cyrillic alphabet was the Orthodox church. It wanted to differentiate itself from the Roman-Chatolic church who used the latin alphabet and who was also trying to convert the 3 countries. \n\nThe transition will start with the Moldavian chroniclers Grigore Ureche, Ion Neculce, Miron Costin (lived in the XVI and XVII and XVIII centuries). They all asserted the Romance character of the language. \nThroughout the XVII, XVIII and XIX century, the number of cyrillic characters in the alphabet was reduced from 43 (in 1688) to 33 (in 1787 by Ienachita Vacarescu ) and then to 28 (in 1828 by Ion Heliade Radulesc).\n\nThe publishers in Cluj, Brasov or Sibiu used latin characters in their printed works since the XVIII century - mainly for titles or sub-titles. \n\nThe first published work in romanian and with a latin alphabet is Samuil's Mincu \"Carte de rogacioni\" (english: \"Prayer Book\") from 1779.\n\nBetween 1830s - 1840s a transitional alphabet appears, containing both cyrllic and latin letters. This is more prevalent in the newspapers published at that time (Gazeta de Transilvania, Dacia literara, Gazeta Teatrului national, etc).\n\nStarting with 1835, the Blaj typography in Transylvania only uses latin characters. \n\nAfter the union between Moldavia and Wallachia in 1859, a law was passed (February 8th, 1860 by Ion Ghica) making the latin alphabet the default one for all government communications. This can be considered the moment when romanians switched completely to the latin alphabet. \n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cedza44", "cee4nrp" ], "score": [ 9, 7 ], "text": [ "Where are you? Because the usage of \"dinner\" and \"supper\" varies from country to country, and even from region to region within some countries (like in the USA).\n", "Dinner means 'the main meal of the day', supper means 'the last meal of the day'. In the middle ages, there were only two meals: dinner, which was taken in the late morning, and a smaller supper, in the evening. Over the course of the 17th through 20th Centuries, dinner drifted later and later, from 10 or 11 in the morning to 6 or 7 in the evening - first among the upper classes as a sign of wealth in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and then among the working classes in the mid-19th century as a matter of practicality. Dinner and supper merged, though there is certainly still variation in usage of the words today. Lunch showed up starting in the mid-18th Century - first as 'nuncheon', then 'luncheon', and now simply 'lunch' - as a mid-day light meal where dinner once was.\n\n[Source](_URL_1_) and [Source](_URL_0_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://books.google.com/books?id=DOJMAgAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA524", "http://books.google.com/books?id=GsNyprRS7EIC&pg=PA139" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbaeart", "cbaklte" ], "score": [ 6, 3 ], "text": [ "Russia at the time was mainly dominated by the Kievian Rus and they were a trade centred nation. They had strong trade connections with the Byzantine Empire which was Orthodox and few with the rest of Europe or the Islamic World. Orthodox Christianity was obvious because it would bring better relations to their main trading partner. I believe after the leader of the Kievian Rus converted (can't remember which leader) many nobles converted and then the pesants", "The Orthodox tradition was brought to the Slavic people by two 9th century Byzantine monks, Cyril and Methodius. Their extensive missionary work in Easten Europe has had them recognized by both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as saints of the highest order. Among other things, they invented the Cyrillic alphabet, still used by modern Slavs, and translated the Bible into this alphabet." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cefxpf6" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "Voting rights/qualifications were determined by the individual states not by the Federal government as such there is quite a lot of variation between individual states, although a few generalizations can be made. State laws either required or heavily favored land owners for the right to vote, this is often claimed as only allowing the wealthy landed elite to vote but the reality is in many states more middling farming sorts could vote. Pennsyvlania is the notable out layer allowing for most white males to vote in the 1775/1776 state constitutional convention. Increasingly as time went on voting requirements for whites were lessened and then removed all together in most states with Virginia and North Carolina being the two last holdouts, at the same time movements promoted the popular election of judges,governors, senators and presidential electors with only South Carolina still having state elected presidential electors by 1860 (and there were serious indications that South Carolina was finally willing to enter the 19th century). If you have further questions I can do my best to answer, but even studying political history it can be difficult to be knowledgeable with each state's factions and inter-state political battles.\n\nI went over Virginia's property requirements and offered some sources in a recent [bad history thread](_URL_0_) which you may find useful." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/1u4dyv/i_am_sick_to_death_of_the_idea_that_only_land/ceel69q?context=3" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cuyhupz" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Just a little bit of background info on both the pictures:\n\n- The first painting was done by marine artist Geoff Hunt titled \"Arrival of the Portuguese Royal Family in Brazil\" and depicts the Principe Real, a first class 84 gun ship in the Portuguese Navy in the year 1808. Although there are shades of blue in the artists depiction of the ship, particularly its stern and hull, blue is not part of the ships colour scheme in the higher resolution images of this painting. The ship itself is painted either white on black or a standard yellow ochre \"Nelson chequer\" scheme, even though it's a Portuguese ship. In Hunts book \"The Marine Art of Geoff Hunt\" he says regarding the preparation for this painting: \"No plan for the Principe Real was found in the course of researching this painting. Her appearance has been recreated by reference to contemporary sources, including a painting by a naval officer.\"\n\n- the second picture is of a 4th rate vessel from the late 17th century, maybe at the latest circa 1700. So there's a large gap in time between the two vessels and what was popular in way of painting a ship between the years 1690-1815, especially taking into account different navies and then individual captains. It's possible the French captains during the late 17th century would occasionally paint their vessel white, but even in the European navies of the late 18th, early 19th centuries, paint schemes for individual vessel varied greatly from captain to captain. \n\nAn interesting piece of info I read (I can't remember where, maybe someone out there knows where or who it's from) was that at the Battle of Trafalgar the Spanish ships of the Franco-Spanish fleet were not in any particular colour, one Spanish ship was noted as being painted entirely black, another white and red, and the Santisima Trinidad was, as you said, red and black.\n\nFound it: \"The Blackwall Frigates\" by Basil Lubbock:\n\"For instance, the Santissima Trinidada was painted a rich Crimson lake with four narrow white ribbons under her four tiers of guns...the Santa Anna (a Spanish ship) was black from her hammock nettings to her water-line...All shades of yellow were to be found on the hulls of the French and Spanish ships, and gun strakes were often red, so the British ships were unmistakable owing to their chequers.\"\n\n\nTL;DR - No, other than the \"Nelson chequer\" used by the British Royal Navy, navies of the late 18th and early 19th centuries did not try with any determined effort to identify themselves with a particular colour scheme" ] }

[]

[ "http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Sv9lU-H3jMY/T6qmrxnAKQI/AAAAAAAAXg8/J6GdfqPBtTA/s1600/HIUSTORIA+DE+LA+NAVEGACI%C3%93N0003.jpg", "http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vRBjx6wBS7Q/Tsbn6zkU5CI/AAAAAAAAASg/EbIFwLQ8crc/s1600/nau+principe+res.bmp" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d5hu55t" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "People in the ancient world generally frowned on any sort of physical disability even if it was injury from war. Exposure was a common practice not only for Spartans in the movie 300, but most ancient and many primitive societies. It's very likely that steppe nomads would have engaged in similar practices if children appeared physically disabled or deformed, as they did not have the resources to support extra people that, at least in their view, could not contribute like a \"normal\" man or woman. \n\nThat said, children that were exposed could also be adopted by another couple looking for a child. This happened in both Greece and Rome. Perhaps it's also possible that a sturdy looking child, even if it had an unusual facial appearance, would be expected to grow up into a physically strong person and somebody might keep him? For a female however, I think that would be almost impossible as they would struggle to attract a mate in later life. \n\nOverall, I'd say they were generally exposed." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ca8ko94", "ca8mt8j" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "I have a book that I think you would love to read, it is called \"Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World\" The lengths we go to to kill other people can be amazing!", "I think the niftiest stuff was built for sieges. A couple of good ancient descriptions are Polybius's description of the [siege of Syracuse](_URL_1_) in the Second Punic War in which both the Syracusans and the Romans have some great tricks. \n\nThe Siege of Alesia in the Gallic Wars is pretty epic and also has some crafty defenses on the Roman part. They made all sorts of booby traps for Vercigetorix's army. The cool stuff is in Gallic Wars [7.73](_URL_0_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Gallic_War/Book_7#73", "http://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Siege/Polybius.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c97v7r6" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Not long after 1945 when travel was safe again. You can read [here](_URL_0_) about one famous cemetery actually put in place before the end of the war." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cq16h1v", "cq17pmn" ], "score": [ 620, 60 ], "text": [ "Yes, though rarely. \n\nIn Josephus' *Antiquities* (18.79f), we hear of \"the freedwoman of a Roman *eques* who, in league with the priests of a temple of Isis in Rome, had helped him to deceive the woman he longed for, was crucified under Tiberius along with the priests of the Egyptian goddess, who were not Roman citizens but only peregrini\" (Hengel, *Crucifixion*, 1977, pp. 60). \n\nAnd we know of a certain Blandina, who, during the persecutions of Christians in Lyons (ca. 177) was crucified upside-down, and scourged naked (though this is might be a pious embellishment or invention, there is no reason to disbelieve the essence of it), this is found in Eusebius (*H.E.* V.1.55.)\n\nRelatedly, Herodotus recounts (4.202.1 and 9.120.4) the female relations/spouses of crucified victims being killed before them in their sight, as part of the punishment. \n\n*Edit* Crucifixion was regarded, particularly by Romans, as a uniquely hideous form of punishment, (Cicero describes it as the *summum supplicium*, from *In Verrem 2.5.168*), and therefore unsurprisingly there exists a paucity of references in our sources. Many of the references we have of it from Romans (Seneca can be taken as typical in this case, considering it an abomination, *Dialogue 5* 3.6) evince extreme aversion to the subject-matter. According to Hengel (Ibid., pp. 23), Romans tended to downplay their own use of crucifixion--though at times their own employment could be famously excessive, e.g. Varus crucifying 2000 around Jersualem (*Assum. of Moses* 8.9)--and attribute it more to barbarians. \n\nThis is important to consider when looking for instances of female victims of crucifixion, because, given how our sources already demonstrate an aversion from talking about crucifixion, we might further add that they had a heightened distaste for the practice being employed against women, and so might have been glossed over these occurrences even further. This might explain the tremendous scarcity of references to women being crucified, though, in all likelihood, it is probably fair to say that women were crucified in an extreme minority of instances. \n\n*More, on account of boredom*\n\nCrucifixion was typically employed against usurpers, the seditious, rebellious vassals/slaves, as far back as Plato's time (Gorgias 473bc). For Plautus, slaves had been executed on the cross ‘from time immemorial’, and Cicero remarks that slaves suspected of rebellion were handed over for crucifixion *more maiorum* (*In Verrem* II.5.12). Livy (22.32.2) says that in 217 BC 25 slaves were crucified for conspiracy, and further examples abound.\n\nDue, then, to the nature of the punishment, it further rendered it unlikely that women would be reasonable candidates for crucifixion--given the patriarchal and social climate of Antiquity, women would hardly have occupied positions of vassalship, or roles in political/military coups and rebellions, and women would hardly have been involved, actively, and clearly culpably, in acts of rebellion. Note carefully that the two examples of female crucifixion I gave *did* involve some elements of sedition/rebellion, and Blandina was a slave, the other a freedwoman (i.e. an ex-slave). \n", "Saint Julia (*sainte Julia de Carthage*) was crucified in the 5th century. According to Alban Butler's *the Lives of Saints* [1], she was sentenced by a slighted pagan ruler of Corsica to hang upon the *patibulum* (horizontal beam of the Cross) until death. Of further interest is the symbolic manner in which she was dragged to the cross--by her hair [2]. Her martyrdom is illustrated in Hieronymus Bosch's [*The Crucifixion of St Julia.*](_URL_1_)\n\n1: Alban Butler, *The Lives of Saints*, vol. V, entry for May 23. Available [here](_URL_0_). The original source is Victor Vitensis' *Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae, temporibus Geiserici et Hunirici regum Wandalorum.*\n\n2: Roberta Milliken, *Ambiguous Locks: An Iconology of Hair in Medieval Art and Literature*, p. 217. [Google Books Link](_URL_2_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.bartleby.com/210/5/231.html", "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/BoschTheCrucifixionOfStJulia.jpg", "https://books.google.ch/books?id=XF71kR2h1LsC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=felix+governor+of+corsica&source=bl&ots=cTi7PEyqgN&sig=bER5wbUcC2DSj2HZFX6E2zuXSKM&hl=de&sa=X&ei=9DkgVbqDIIWNsAGRwIGIBw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=felix%20governor%20of%20corsica&f=false" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c3thvdm", "c3tilgh", "c3tip05" ], "score": [ 2, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "\nThe Hemmingses of Monticello", "[Setting the World Ablaze](_URL_1_)\n\nAnything by [Joseph J. Ellis](_URL_0_).", "For an exhaustive biography- Duma Malone wrote a [six volume series on Jefferson](_URL_0_). This was over the course of a few decades.\n\nBut I also back up eternalkerri:\n\nAmerican Sphinx by Joseph J. Ellis.\n\nAlso Jefferson has plenty of published primary documents that can add to \"getting inside his head\" (but should not be exclusively relied upon, because he obviously leaves a lot out concerning his personal life). " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-J.-Ellis/e/B000APBENC/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1329853347&sr=1-1", "http://www.amazon.com/Setting-World-Ablaze-Washington-Revolution/dp/0195150848/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329853254&sr=8-1" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumas_Malone#Career" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cl038xb", "cl07xau" ], "score": [ 2, 5 ], "text": [ "The Swedish king Gustav I Vasa did this before he became king. He was a Swedish nobleman during the Kalmar-union, which was a personal union between Denmark, Sweden and Norway. The Danish king Kristian II ruled the union and in 1520 he orchestrated the Stockholm Bloodbath in which he executed a lot of Swedish noblemen, including Gustav's father. \n\nGustav went into hiding and fled in to the region of Dalarna where he tried to gather support for a Swedish uprising. There are a lot of stories about his time in Dalarna. Several of them include him dressing up as a farmer or servant. In one story is he recognized for wearing the farmers outfit on top of his finer cloths, his golden collar became visible while he was working in the farm. \n\nI can tell you shortly about the time he visited an estate outside of my hometown. He had an old friend, Arendt Pehrsson Örnflycht, who owned the estate, so he traveled there, dressed as a farmer in traditional Swedish clothing, hoping for refuge, which he was granted. But what he did not know was that his friend's father in law secretly supported Kristian II. The father in law sent for troops to arrest Gustav, but when the troops came Arendt's wife helped Gustav flee climbing down the second story latrine.\n\nIn the end Gustav did convince the people of Dalarna to join him and together with support from Lübeck did they Liberate Sweden and overthrow Kristian II. Gustav I Vasa was crowned the 6th of June 1523.\n\nMy sources are in Swedish: Alla tiders historia Maxi, Almgren et al.\nSvensk historia, Henriksson. And Nationalencyklopedin. \n\nBut the english wikipedia page has a lot of the information: _URL_0_", "Not in war per se, but Richard I reportedly was captured in Austria while pretending to be a monk or a lowborn. and caught because of the fine jewelry he was wearing despite other appearances. Indeed, Richard I's supposed penchant for disguising himself as a commoner is likely where the trope of a king disguised among his subjects originated from, at least the folk-tales associated with it." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "colcwht", "colcwrr" ], "score": [ 309, 14 ], "text": [ "Ooh, this is a fun one. Time to take a step back in time! I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to answer *everything* perfectly (I'm not precisely sure what \"a standard alleyway\" would be), but I can certainly help out on a few of these categories. I'm really pissed at myself for leaving my books at my apartment over this weekend (I can't carry 50 books with me wherever I go :( ), so you'll have to forgive me for not chattering more than I will :) I will, however, give some book recommendations for you at the end!\n\n---\n\n**Let's start off with the \"Alleyway!\"** There are a few reasons why I'm not so fond of this one, and there are some extra factors that I'll need to discuss to really get into it :) I'll start off by discussing something mildly tangential, but really important to understanding the way these men and women lived. I, unfortunately, can't find any pictures of the house in which Vorenus lived, and I'm unable to screenshot it at the moment. For those who haven't seen the show: They botched it. Essentially, Vorenus lived in what could be seen as a modern-day apartment, even if it was a bit shoddy looking around the edges. His wife cooked, there was a kitchen of a sort, there were seperate rooms, etc.\n\nThe common Roman would have considered this to be a luxury. [Most of them lived in tenements like this one](_URL_4_), which were called *insulae* (sing. *insula*). These *insulae* were often far larger than the one pictured, with some being built up to 10 stories high. If you want a quick idea on the layout, think college dorm made out of plywood. No insulation, no building standards (some of the emperors tried, but they were routinely ignored), extremely flammable, extremely small and cramped. The rooms got smaller and smaller as you went higher up - the bottom floor had relatively nice, roomy rooms which were regularly rented out as shops. Wealthier tenants also lived on the bottom floor, and it was common for young aristocrats to rent out a room in an insula as a nominal way of 'leaving the nest.' \n\nLuckily, Rome had some lovely poets who included anecdotes and jokes about the dwellers in the *insulae* in their books! Here's Martial 7.20:\n\n > No one is more pitiable, no one more gluttonous, than Santra, when he is invited and hurries off to a regular supper, to which he has fished for an invitation many days and nights: he asks three times for boar's neck, four times for the loin, and for the two hips and both shoulders of a hare nor does he blush at lying for a thrush, or filching even the livid beards of oysters. Sweet cheese-cakes stain his dirty napkin; in which also potted grapes are wrapped, with a few pomegranates, the unsightly skin of an excavated sow's udder, moist figs, and shrivelled mushrooms. And when, the napkin is bursting with a thousand thefts, he hides in the reeking fold of his dress gnawed fish-bones, and a turtle-dove deprived of its head. He thinks it not disgraceful, too, to gather up with greedy hand whatever the waiter and the dogs have left. Nor does solid booty alone satisfy his gluttony; at his feet he fills a flagon with mingled wines. These things he carries home with him, up some two hundred steps; and locks himself carefully in his garret and bars it; and the next day the rapacious fellow sells them.\n\nNeedless to say, these people who would \"climb 200 steps to get home\" would be the poorest of the poor, especially considering the rate of collapse and fire in these things. Hell, Cicero himself was a bit of a scumbag of a landlord (sorry Cicero fans). Here are a couple of excerpts from his letters to Atticus (14.9,11)\n\n > [...] As to your question about the reason for my having sent for Chrysippus—two of my shops have fallen down and the rest are cracking. So not only the tenants but the very mice have migrated. Other people call this a misfortune, I don't call it even a nuisance. Oh Socrates and Socratic philosophers, I shall never be able to thank you enough! Good heavens, how paltry such things are in my eyes! But after all I am adopting a plan of building on the suggestion and advice of Vestorius, which will convert this loss into a gain.\n\n > [...] As to the Cluvian inheritance, since in all business of mine you even surpass me in interest—I may tell you that the total is approaching one hundred-sestertia. The fall of the houses did not depreciate the value of the property: I am not sure that it didn't increase it.\n\nTL;DR: Not a single mention of those who passed away in the collapse, but he does express delight at how he'll be able to rent the rooms out at a higher price after the buildings in question are rebuilt. Finally, below, I'll quote some Juvenal at you - he discusses the plight of those living in these tenements in greater detail (*Satires* 3.190-211). I'll put in little notes to explain what he's talking about :) :\n\n > \"Who at cool Praeneste, or at Volsinii amid its leafy hills, was ever afraid of his house tumbling down? Who in modest Gabii, or on the sloping heights of Tivoli? But here we inhabit a city supported for the most part by slender props: for that is how the bailiff holds up the tottering house, patches up gaping cracks in the old wall, bidding the inmates sleep at ease under a roof ready to tumble about their ears. [*The insulae were creaky and extremely unstable - they were held up by makeshift wooden props.*]\n\n > No, no, I must live where there are no fires, no nightly alarms. Ucalegon below is already shouting for water and shifting his chattels; smoke is pouring out of your third-floor attic, but you know nothing of it; for if the alarm begins in the ground-floor, the last man to burn will be he who has nothing to shelter him from the rain but the tiles, where the gentle doves lay their eggs. [*Fire was a SERIOUS problem for obvious reasons.*]\n\n > Codrus possessed a bed too small for the dwarf Procula, a sideboard adorned by six pipkins, with a small drinking cup, and a recumbent Chiron below, and an old chest containing Greek books whose divine lays were being gnawed by unlettered mice. Poor Codrus had nothing, it is true: but he lost that nothing, which was his all; and the last straw in his heap of misery is this, that though he is destitute and begging for a bite, no one will help him with a meal, no one offer him lodging or shelter. [*Poor man who died in a fire - Juvenal lists his worldly possessions.*]\n\n**So to bring this back to alleyways and the picture in question!** Note that, in the picture, there are individual houses along the street, rather than tenement buildings. This would not have been the case - those *insulae* took up entire blocks by themselves. Individual buildings? Not so much a thing. Secondly, that building on the left would not have been in the middle of a bunch of *insulae*. It looks like a well-built mansion - which generally were in nicer neighbourhoods, where the wealthy lived. For an example off the top of my head, the last line of that second letter of Cicero's that I quoted to you earlier is...\n\n > I have here with me Balbus, Hirtius, and Pansa. Octavius has lately arrived at the next villa to mine, that of Philippus. He is quite devoted to me. Spinther is staying with me today: he goes early tomorrow.\n\nOhai, Cicero's also the neighbourhood gossip! He knows everyone who's moving in ;) But you get my point. That scene? Highly unlikely. Finally, the most egregious violation! [It's way too wide.](_URL_1_) That's an image from Pompeii, where the original architecture is still preserved - and Pompeii was far less rambling than Rome when it came to how it was built. Note how tiny that alleyway is! \n\n---\n\n**Next! The Senate.** There's a *very* easy problem with this Senate building in 50 BCE. Namely, the fact that it exists. The Senate building was burned down in 53 BCE (three years earlier), and only began to be rebuilt in 44 BCE. The construction was promptly stalled for another 15 years due to stabby things happening to poor old Julius, and the new Senate House (*curia*) was eventually completed by Augustus in 29 BCE. During that span of time, the Senate essentially met wherever they were called to meet. It could be a manor, or it could be a large auditorium, such as the Theatre of Pompey. We know for sure that the Theatre of Pompey was used - it was where Caesar was assassinated. \n\nIf you'd like, though, you can take a gander at the *Curia Julia* today! It's the Senate which was reconstructed by Augustus, and it still stands. [Here's the facade](_URL_0_), and [here](_URL_2_) are a [couple of shots](_URL_3_) of the interior! [This is an artist's conception of what it may have looked like.](_URL_5_) Senators would shift where they were sitting depending on whether or not they supported the man who was speaking at that moment :)\n\nLucky me! That section was much shorter than talking about alleyways :D\n\n---\n\n", "I cant tell you that the triumph scene is very inaccurate. Rome was a sacred city and as such no one was allowed to bear arms within it. The soldiers would have been in civilian garb, togae if they were citizens and tunics if they were auxiliaries. The returning general meanwhile would wear a solid purple toga, which he does not do here. As for the route, the end destination of the triumph was the temple of Jupiter in the forum, while the scene seems to show the forum the emphasis seems rather on the senators (who would not have been in attendance on stands) and the empty chair, not the sacrifices which would have closed out the triumph. \n\nAs for the alley, the buildings would have probably been much taller. Many Romans lived in blocks of flats called insulae which were often four storeys tall. The alley seems also rather too straight to me. Even to this day a streetmap or Rome looks rather like a bowl of spaghetti. The city grew randomly and haphazardly, twisting and turning. Further, because of the height of the buildings there would have been much less natural light. There are also no open sewers, a setpiece of many Roman streets.\n\nWhile obviously I cannot speak for all Roman markets the one in the picture does not seem terribly accurate. The Romans did have shops, often built into the bottom floor of the apartment blocks and recessed into the building. \n\nAs for the wedding scene, it was certainly normal for people to wish the bride well on her journey to her new home. However, instead of flower petals they should be throwing nuts, which were a sign of fertility. I have not come across either drumming girls or palm fronds in wedding ceremonies but that does not mean that they did not exist. Lastly, it seems to me highly unlikely that a wedding procession would go through the forum since they normally took the most direct path to the groom's house to the brides, where he would then ceremonially carry her over the threshold. \n" ] }

[]

[ "https://dvdbash.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/rome_hbo_dvd_polly_walker_kerry_condon_kevin_mckidd_ray_stevenson_james_purefoy_dvdbash036.jpg", "http://sites.duke.edu/clst182_01_f2012/files/2012/04/HBORome.jpg", "http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews48/rome_blu-ray/large/12_Rome_Blu-ray.jpg", "http://www.daramccarthy.com/images/blog/rome/hbo-rome-set1.jpg", "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Set_of_the_tv_series_Rome_HBO_cinecitta_studios_edit.jpg", "https://tesorotreasures.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/vfx011.jpg", "http://www.ancientworlds.net/aworlds_media/ibase_1/00/07/26/00072655_000.jpg" ]

[ [ "http://www.livius.org/a/italy/rome/curia_julia/curia02.JPG", "https://farm1.staticflickr.com/69/222227096_8bbc606bfd.jpg", "http://www.vitruvius.be/CuriaIuliaintrec.jpg", "http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/photogalleries/rome-reborn/images/primary/10_461.jpg", "http://www.italymagazine.com/sites/default/files/feature-story/gallery/insula1.png", "http://ancientrome.ru/art/artwork/arch/rom/rome/curia-iulia/curia-iulia006.jpg" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f5q0zsx" ], "score": [ 11 ], "text": [ "I'm going to go through your questions in order. Yes, the Western allies set out to find and punish Nazi criminals. The most famous example was the Nuremburg trials. During the first one, the trial of the major war criminals, the Four Powers(USSR, US, Britain, France) worked together in an international military tribunal. Due to rapidly escalating tensions, however, there were no more international tribunals after that, only national ones. The US held an entire series of military tribunals, sentencing Einsatzgruppe leaders, industrialists, and ministers. The rest of the population, however, was much more difficult to deal with due to the sheer numbers. It was estimated that denazification would take many decades if the intended plans were actually carried out.\n\nNow we come to the next question - how did they figure out who to denazify. There were different approaches. The US tried to make everyone fill out a questionnaire, and on the basis of the questionnaire, people were assigned to one of five categories: exonerated persons, followers, lesser offenders, offenders, or major offenders. The British only made people fill in questionnaires if they were applying for certain positions, such as government posts, but they also hunted down people guilty of torturing POW's and similar crimes very zealously. In East Germany, more than ten thousand people were convicted of war crimes, but the trials were not fair and the label of 'Nazi criminal' was often placed on people who had displeased the government in some way. Overall, the process was extremely inefficient. In West Germany, people ended up acting as references for each other, and the denazification tribunals were dismissively referred to as \"fellow traveler factories\". They were extremely overworked and understaffed. The denazification tribunals were all handed over to the Germans within a few years.\n\nOne of the biggest problems the Allies faced was the extremely high percentage of Nazis among teachers, lawyers, and the like. Mass firings did happen, especially in the East, but they were relatively quickly reversed. Both the West and the USSR was willing to overlook Nazi pasts if the people in question were useful. The most famous example is the rocket scientists who were recruited by both sides, such as in the US' Operation Paperclip. \n\nNow, your last question. While the Soviets made a huge fuss about how the West was the heir to fascism and rightfully complained about the presence of Hans Globke, who had been a high-ranking Nazi official, in the West German government, there were plenty of Nazis in the East German government structure as well. Plenty of people were able to switch from the Nazi to the Communist party without much of a fuss. In 1958, it was revealed that \n\n > at least twenty-nine members of the East German parliament had been members of the NSDAP, and that former Nazis occupied high-ranking posts dealing with technical matters such as health, water supply, and machine construction. Yet success for ex-Nazis was not limited to those with scientific or technical expertise; it encompassed more politically sensitive areas such as law, journalism, and the universities.(Herf 186)\n\nLikewise, the president of the East German Supreme Court from 1949 to 1960 had actually joined the Nazis back in 1937. Rectors of many universities had been Nazis. Former Nazis were the editors of major newspapers. On top of that, claims of moral superiority sounded very strange coming from East Germany, whose anti-Israel discourse and refusal to pay restitution raised eyebrows, as did their human rights violations. Many Nazis who found themselves in the Eastern part of Germany simply switched uniforms and proclaimed themselves antifascists. The East German approach of current attitudes being more important than past actions was not so different from the West's.\n\nDuring what soon became known as the \"amnesty fever\", nearly all Nazi war criminals were released. The government of West Germany was determined to put the past behind itself. The chancellor said that he didn't want for the country to be divided into \"those without political blemishes and those without such blemishes.\" He himself had been a staunch anti-Nazi, but Cold War realities were more important. The rearmament of West Germany as a bulwark against Communism was being more and more heavily considered, and the West was willing to play nice with its new ally. West Germany got its army in 1955. East Germany had rearmed secretly, creating paramilitary units, but it was officially rearmed in 1956. The Western allies released all of the war criminals in their custody by the early fifties and put pressure on the USSR to release the last of the POW's they still held. The USSR complained that they had no POW's, only war criminals, but still let them all go by the mid-fifties. \n\nThe only exception to this amnesty were the seven men sentenced by the international military tribunal to prison terms ranging from ten years to life imprisonment. The Soviets needed the prison both for propaganda reasons, and so that they could have troops stationed in West Berlin. They eventually agreed to release three of them for health reasons, as the new Soviet General Secretary wanted to normalize relations with the West, but the other four were out of luck. There was a difference between the rank-and-file Nazi policemen convicted in the USSR and the major war criminals who had been sentenced in front of the world. Three more served out their sentences and were released in 1956 and 1966, the last remained in prison until his suicide in 1987.\n\nWhile denazification was proclaimed complete, it never was. It was argued that punishing only the worst of the criminals while letting the majority of the people go was better than being extremely harsh and fostering resentment and a victim complex, and it was also argued that letting everyone get away would mean that nobody learned their lesson. Anti-Semitism continued to exist in both Germanies, but the situation was worse in East Germany due to the official anti-Semitic line from Moscow and the refusal to talk about the genocide of the Jews. As of the nineties, neo-Nazism was more prevalent in the former East.\n\nWorks cited:\n\n*Divided Memory* by Jeffrey Herf\n\n*Exorcising Hitler* by Fredrick Taylor\n\n*Tales from Spandau* by Norman Goda\n\n*The Neo-Nazis and German Unification* by Rand Lewis" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dhd8zlh" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "If you're asking for a leader who went by the name emperor and ruled after Selassie was deposed in 1974.\n\nJean-Bédel Bokassa declared himself emperor of the Central African Empire ('Empereur de Centrafrique par la volonté du peuple Centrafricain') in 1976 and was only overthrown 3 years later in 1979.\n\nAfter him, there's japan. Which still has an Emperor. As of 2017, Akihito is still emperor of japan.\n\nSo no, basically." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cwx4gd2", "cwx576g", "cwxog1r", "cwxoioy" ], "score": [ 28, 152, 28, 8 ], "text": [ "It is most definitely a term used to describe cultural characteristics that define an ethnicity, so it does not refer to a political entity or any such thing. On the other hand, the very notion of \"The Celts\" is disputed, and regarded by its detractors as a somewhat artificial creation that misleads researchers to bundle up several disparate cultural groups under one innapropriate \"catch them all\" term. However, that is not my area of specialty, so I'm not very familiar with the debate. We better wait for a true expert to show up.", "The British Museum recently opened an exhibit with considerable [online tools](_URL_0_) designed to explore the very question you are asking. The issue you raise is complex, not easy to answer, and does not yield consensus. There is no question that there is a linguistic connection that tied - and to some extent still does connect - people on what has been called the Celtic Fringe. As /u/MrMedievalist points out, the term does not refer to a political entity. Indeed there never was a time when a significant majority of Celtic speakers were under a single political umbrella of their own making (the Romans imposed rule over many Celtic speakers - but that is a different story). And as /u/MrMedievalist points out, there are detractors who have been critical of the term \"Celtic\" and how it has mislead researchers (and more recently, Celtic enthusiasts of all types in the general public).\n\nYour question comes as close to hinting at an answer as anyone is likely to provide. But I do suggest exploring the British Museum website. They have a great video that talks about your question - and it includes lots of wonderful images from the exhibit, so it will be more entertaining than anything written here.\n\nedit: and by the way, you missed Cornwall (as most people usually do). I'm wrapping up the writing of a book on Cornish folklore, and I can tell you that there are many people who would have their feelings hurt because of your oversight!", "When people talk about things Celtic, they're usually conflating a material culture and language family into one cultural package. In reality, Celtic speakers were not required to use the associated material culture, like in Iberia, while the material culture could be used by non-Celtic speakers, which was the case in a large part of Central Europe. \n\nIt's still a contentious issue but I don't think that many Celticists would use the term 'Celtic' or 'Celt' without some sort of qualification. I'd say that there is still a use for the term, but it should only really be applied to speakers of a Celtic language regardless of their political or cultural status. Think of it like the term 'Germanic' - you could use it to refer to speakers of Danish, Old Norse, Crimean Gothic, Frankish or African-American Vernacular English, but it has no political or cultural associations beyond that.\n\nThere's actually an interesting dynamic in the Celticist world of academia: there are many people in Ireland, Wales, Brittany and Scotland who unreservedly stand by the pan-Celtic identity. Of course it's a completely modern identity with no basis in the historical past, but it's in some ways integral to how these people conceive of themselves as Irish, Welsh, Scottish etc. The contention arises when these kinds of people interact with Celticists, because they naturally take an interest in 'Celtic' history. \n\nAs I've said, most Celticists have done away with the unifying Celtic concept, and often clash with modern day self-identifying Celts who peek their heads in to glean some historical basis for their identity, only to find that the scholars committed to its study deny its existence. It's a really interesting phenomenon where the study of history/archaeology intersects with/comes into conflict with contemporary issues of identity, but in a context that isn't very racialized or colonial - these are often scholars of British or Irish heritage interacting with other people of Irish or British extraction. I'm actually planning on presenting a paper at a Celtic Studies conference that's open to the public in the winter and have to prepare in advance to handle potential 'Celts' upset with my Balkanization of the Celtic peoples (my argument is largely contingent on the uniqueness of Irish politics and society when compared to somewhere like Gaul or Britain).", "Everything here is very helpful, but the one thing I haven't seen anyone talk about yet is the origin of the word. The term 'Celtic' derives from Greek and has the force of 'not-Greek' - kind of like the original meaning of the word 'barbarian' (i.e. a person who speaks a language we don't understand). Grouping them all together doesn't really tell you much more than the fact that they were all not Greeks; the linguistic and cultural differences between the various Gaulish, Britonic, and Iberian tribes in the west, as well as the Galatians as far east as Anatolia, were significant depending on where and when you're looking. \n\nOf course there is some shared heritage between the peoples of ancient Ireland and those of Iberia, facilitated largely by the ease of seafaring, but we find many different styles of pottery from Ireland to Switzerland, and for example Gaulish and Celtiberian were distinct languages. So to answer your question: not really. We don't have to blame the Victorians - though they certainly had a hand in our current (mis)understanding - when the Greeks are at the root of it all.\n\nBest source for everything 'Celtic': Barry Cunliffe, *The Ancient Celts* (OUP 1997)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/news_and_press/press_releases/2015/exploring_celtic_culture.aspx" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cvm37iv" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "There were no postal services in antiquity. In fact, there were little to no government services at all. The government mostly provided protection, justice, and obeisance to the gods. In return the government demanded money for taxation.\n\nRome, for example, had multiple options for how to fulfill those services in conquered territory. Most of the time Rome would allow conquered peoples to govern themselves in return for tribute. In order to understand the thought process, it's best to start with the process of conquest.\n\nRomans had many levels of surrender. The most dire was the *deditio in fidem*, unconditional surrender. A city was forced to drag the gods out of their temples and set them before the Roman commander along with all their wealth and property (this was often done symbolically). The Roman commander would then return the gods and take whatever property they wanted. This essentially means that Rome fulfilled the obligations of a ruler by maintaining religion and giving justice (theoretically the army was dispensing justice in the first place).\n\nAfter surrendering, Rome provided arbitration in the form of a traveling governor (like a consul or promagistrate if the town was in a province) or by allowing audience in the Senate. And defense in the form of its army.\n\nMost of the time, Rome wanted conquered cities to see after themselves and thus allowed local government to continue as it was. They could promote support by giving favor to supportive local elites or by maintaining a military presence. If a region was not urban enough to do this (the Ebro valley of Spain comes to mind), Rome would establish cities called *municipia* which had governments modeled on Rome itself and settle the locals in them. The religion and justice system would also be modeled on Rome. In return they offered Roman citizenship to magistrates in *municipia*.\n\nTaxation was gathered by private contractors called *publicani*. They were a major influence in Roman imperialism just like military contractors today! They would give the Senate a guarantee of the tax revenue for a region and have the support of the Roman governor (magistrate/promagistrate) to collect it. They pocketed any extra, encouraging them to be rapacious but also low-ball the Senate (hence the distaste for tax-collectors in the New Testament).\n\nAugustus and Agrippa made the system much more regimented by placing cities in a hierarchy in order to weaken the *publicani*, but they still relied on local cooperation for collecting taxes." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fgtxi8a" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "I wrote a short summary of the flood's ecological effects [here](_URL_0_).\n\nWith the Japanese pressuring the river crossing at Zhengzhou, the Guomindang First War Zone commanders believed the Chinese front was close to collapse in June 1938. If Zhengzhou fell, Japanese forces could then march along the Long-Hai railway (which ran along the south bank of the Yellow River) straight towards the temporary capital of Wuhan. Even more disastrously, the GMD troops retreating along the highway after the Xuzhou campaign of 1938 would be cut off. The combination of surrendering Wuhan and losing China's main fighting force (600,000 GMD troops had been committed to the Xuzhou campaign) would have effectively spelt the end of the GMD-led resistance. Under these circumstances, Chiang Kai-shek and GMD high command took the fateful decision to breach the dikes from 4 June to 9 June 1938.\n\nThis did give some breathing space to the GMD, though probably not as much as they would have liked. The units of the Japanese North China Area Army turned back from Zhengzhou and headed south, linking up with the forces near Nanjing. A few weeks after the flooding, a new Japanese push towards Wuhan was conducted upriver from Nanjing. Leapfrogging static Chinese positions through amphibious landings, Japanese forces advanced steadily and took Wuhan in October 1938. The breaching of the Yellow River dikes was an enormous man-made ecological disaster - however, the GMD considered it necessary for the survival of the nation. Xiong Xian-yu, the officer who oversaw the breaking of the dike, wrote in his diary:\n\n > This action has been taken to impede the enemy and to redeem the overall situation. For this reason, \\[we\\] did not hesitate to make this great sacrifice in pursuit of final victory.\n\nDiana Lary's 'Drowned Earth: The Strategic Breaching of the Yellow River Dyke, 1938' (full reference in the linked answer) is a quick read that focuses on human suffering after the breaching; Muscolino's *The Ecology of War in China: Henan Province, the Yellow River, and Beyond, 1938–1950* is a monograph that covers not only the breaching itself, but also how the GMD, Japanese and Communists interacted with the breached river throughout the Sino-Japanese War and the Chinese Civil War. *The Ecology of War* has great analysis and is certainly required reading on this subject, but it has been critiqued for its detached viewpoint and overuse of environmental jargon: the term for human activity in the book is, somewhat coldly, 'kinetic energy'." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ad6ox6/given_the_scale_of_world_war_ii_its_effects_on/edgi8zg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7lizll", "c7lj523", "c7ljh5j", "c7lq1pq" ], "score": [ 2, 5, 2, 5 ], "text": [ "I am not knowledgable concerning Soviet history, so I'll leave most of your questions to others. \n\nBut I'll take a shot at your last question, with a book that I found absolutely fascinating: Kotkin's *Magnetic Mountain*. From my reading of this work, it might look like both of your perspectives are correct: incredible, explosive industrial growth in large-scale \"hero\" projects that are nonetheless ultimately hollow, inefficient, and damaging.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n", " > Were there major labor shortages?\n\nYes. The shortage in labour led to huge problems. Peasants came into the city to work, and they would be given some quick training so they could operate the machinery. Often though, they were completely rubbish and caused damage to the machinery. If the boss tried to discipline the worker, and the worker was unhappy with this, he could easily move to another factory because there was a major shortage of labour. The process would repeat: bare minimum training, damage equipment, and move job. This resulted in a work force that really didn't know what they were doing most of the time, and had no reason to learn properly. They would just drift from job to job, damaging expensive machinery as they went along.\n\nI believe the term used is 'quick sand society'.", "Sorry I'm on a phone so I can't link you to sources. I suggest reading about the four and five year plans the soviets devised to industrialized the nation. \n\nHowever, this industrialization was not without cost. Much of it was done by moving peasants from farms to factories, and as a result famines killed millions of people and were not eliminated until after wwii. 1921, 1932, 1947 are some big ones off the top of my head, not to mention the Holodomor. \n\nSecondly, it's hard to take Soviet records at face value. For example, according to their records, the Soviet Union produced shoes at a faster rate than any country ever. However, there were lines hours long for imported shoes. So either Soviet shoes were garbage or they didn't exist and the numbers were fabricated to impress the party leadership or foreign governments. ", "Much of soviet growth was illusory and shallow. My favorite example [is shoes](_URL_0_). the USSR produced more shoes per capita than any society in history, but there were still massive lines to buy imported shoes whenever they were available. Why? because the domestic shoes were so lousy and uncomfortable that no one really wanted them. So there was a whole industry, whose production was included in GDP figures, that was producing goods that no one wanted. all of soviet industry was shot through with problems like this. they could make a lot of relatively simply stuff, like steel, but anything that needed any sort of serious quality control had problems. Soviet weapon designers would have to order twice as many vacuum tubes as they needed for some electronic equipment because they knew that half of them would be defective out of the box." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://books.google.com/books?id=Qg6pZ01Eu_8C" ], [], [], [ "http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/09/soviet_shoes.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c49mwi5", "c49q2mi", "c49xijl" ], "score": [ 3, 7, 3 ], "text": [ "Canadian here, lived (and got some education in) Russia. From what I've seen in both countries, they're both given about equal weight, mostly for the story of reaching the South Pole. From what I've seen, Amundsen might be a bit more prominent due to his other work.", "I would think that it is because you mainly get British TV. I've had the exact opposite experience, I've heard much more about the Amundsen expedition. Perhaps that is because he succeeded, where Scott's expedition was an unmitigated disaster ending in the frozen deaths of everyone who went.", "In the UK (where I am) it is certainly tied in with nationalism, and our self-appointed national characteristics of always supporting the underdog (Scott didn't seem the underdog when he set out, of course, but we know how that worked out for him), a self-image of bravado in the face of utter hopelessness, a need to keep a 'stiff upper lip', and a feeling of pride for the selfless and dignified sacrifice Oates made.\n\nHere, Scott is taught slightly better than Amundson." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccqwqtw" ], "score": [ 39 ], "text": [ "Fashion gave way to utility. Prior to about WWI, pocket watches were \"men's\" accessories (largely due to their association with railroad workers), women wore wristwatches and thus it was considered unmanly to wear one. During WWI and the years surrounding it, wristwatches were used simply because they were easier and men began to see that it was better to have a watch on your wrist rather than in your pocket.\n\nYou were less likely to drop or lose it and it was easier to check. Additionally, newer advances in manufacturing meant wristwatches were getting smaller and were therefore less intrusive than a pocket watch might be.\n\nInterestingly enough we still have vestiges of that tradition around with us in our pants. That small pocket on the right side of your jeans was introduced by Levis as a watch pocket. It was handy for things other than a watch once pocket watches fell out of favor so they kept the pockets.\n\nI for one still wear a pocket watch :)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cecvx05" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "To understand the rise of Hezbollah, one must understand their context within the Lebanese Civil War. The Lebanese Civil War was an extremely complex conflict with a mind boggling number of political actors, several different phases, and a variety of different motivations, so I will attempt to be as concise as possible and respond to any comments. Remember however that this is a very broad explanation of complex issue. \n\nThe civil war, which began in 1975, was generally between the Marionite Christians who were in control of the government and the Sunni dominated National Movement and the PLO led by Yassir Arafat. The PLO had been forced out of Jordan following the events of Black September and had taken up residence in Lebanon. The Palestinian population largely lived in refugee camps which were generally located in Shiite dominated neighborhoods and areas. The PLO was extremely well armed and organized, and regularly launched attacks into Israel against the Israeli government. This brought Lebanon into conflict with Israel, which would launch reprisal attacks into Lebanon which would frequently kill uninvolved Lebanese. Several other issues contributed to the outbreak of the civil war, however the Palestinian issue was by far the most pressing, with most of the right wing Christian leadership demanding the PLO cease attacks and much of the left wing Sunni opposition supporting the PLO. \n\nWhen the civil war broke out, the Shiite population of Lebanon was fairly marginalized in comparison to the Christian and Sunnis. Shiites fought on both sides of the conflict, as mercenaries for the Christian militias and with many Shiite communists who fought with the National Movement. \n\nSyria would invade Lebanon in 1976 under the pretext of intervention, and would come to dominate the politics of the country. Israel would invade the south of Lebanon in 1982 in response to continued PLO attacks across the border and were welcomed by the largely Shiite and Christian population, who viewed the PLO as an oppressive force. The South Lebanon Army (SLA) was formed, led by Saad Haddad, which would be an Israeli proxy militia made up of mostly Christians and some Shiites, and the south of Lebanon would be called \"Free Lebanon\". \n\nThe Iranian Revolution took place in 1979, and politically awakened the global Shiite community. Many Lebanese Shiites in the early 1980s, influenced by the revolution and disillusioned with the Amal movement (the Shiite political party in Lebanon founded by Musa Sadr) began to form into their own militias which targeted Israel, the South Lebanon Army and western forces in Lebanon, especially South Lebanon. Israel's occupation of the south had become extremely unpopular with the Shiite community due to several high profile killings and accidental massacres. The most powerful of these rising militias was only known as Islamic Jihad, and was known to receive large amounts of Iranian funding. This group would become Hezbollah, and was likely responsible for many of the high profile kidnappings of westerners and the US embassy bombing. They would also consolidate their hold over areas under their control by fighting the Shiite Amal party, and purging many of the Palestinian camps in Shiite areas in an event known as \"the war of the camps\". \n\nAfter the war ended in 1990, Hezbollah would focus on removing Israel from Lebanese territory, as Israel and the SLA still occupied the area. A guerilla war would last until 2000, when the Israelis would unilaterally retreat from South Lebanon and Hezbollah would eliminate the SLA. Throughout this period, Hezbollah also used large amounts of Iranian, and later Syrian, funds to establish a massive network of clinics, education centers, scholarships, and clientalist benefits for the Shiite population of Lebanon (other groups would benefit as well, partially explaining Hezbollah's support among other communities, particularly Christians). As all Lebanese militias were required to disarm by the Taif agreement which ended the war, Hezbollah was also required during this period to elect members of parliament to ensure that they were not disarmed, citing as justification that they were needed to remove Israel from Lebanese territory and ensure that they stayed out. After Israel's withdrawal, Hezbollah has justified its continued policy of non-disarmament by citing fears of Israeli return and Israeli control of the Shebba farms disputed territory. \n\nAs for their funding and why they have not turned on Iran or Syria: Hezbollah has turned to outside funding. They are well known to control the drug, particularly the hashish trade, in Lebanon. They have also been implicated in diamond and cigarette smuggling, particularly in Africa. They have also been at least partially funded by donations. \n\nGee, that took a while. Like I said at the beginning, this is a very broad overview of Hezbollah and I had to leave a lot out and brush over some important stuff. Ill try to answer any specific questions in the comments, and can point you toward some good sources if you need. These books can start you in the right directions however-\n\n-Pity the Nation by Robert Fisk\n-Hezbollah by Hala Jaber\n-Hezbollah: The Story of the Party of God: From Revolution to Institutionalization by Eitan Azani\n-Hezbollah: An Short History by Augustus Richard Norton\n\nSource: MA in Middle Eastern Studies from American University of Beirut" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5ys9sf", "c5ysgd2", "c5yvaqt", "c5yvs87", "c5ywpd1", "c5yxmq7", "c5yyjhq" ], "score": [ 27, 71, 11, 30, 23, 6, 3 ], "text": [ "[This list of rampage killers](_URL_0_) has events going back to the early 1900s, but it's certainly an older phenomenon than that. \n\nThe most well-known example is probably [\"running amok,\"](_URL_1_) a form of frenzied mass killing that occurred historically in Malaysia, which described by Captain Cook in 1770. Hopefully more knowledgable specialists in other areas can give other examples.", "In 1927 [Andrew Kehoe killed](_URL_2_) 38 elementary school kids by blowing up the school with dynamite. That morning he had beat his wife to death then set fire to the buildings. After blowing up the school he drove up in his car as rescue workers started to arrive and then blew up the car with a car bomb. \n\nThis was a planned out attack because he had apparently taken many months to hide hundreds of pounds of pyrotol and dynamite in the building prior to the event. \n\nThis is still the deadliest mass school killings in US History. \n\nThere are also the [Thuggees](_URL_1_) which were a religious cult in India that would travel across the country. [A leader](_URL_0_) of one of the groups admitted to killing at least 125 men. \n\nIn medieval times it was common practice for an army to go on killing rampages after taking a city as a way of discouraging future cities from resisting. Not sure if that meets your criteria for mass killings though. ", "I belive the John Brown incident in \"Bloody Kansas\" during the 1800s would fall in this category as well.", "Semi-auto fire helps a lot. Automatic weapons help even more.\n\nYou can't really hack more than a few people with a sword or axe before getting tired or being tackled to the ground. Also, there's a lot of ways you can defend yourself from most hand-to-hand weapons. It's slow, and there could also be psychological reasons as well (ie. having to actually hack people to death vs. squeezing a trigger).", "I just want to draw attention to the fact that, even though one of the two psychological evaluations of Breivik deemed him insane, the other one did not, and neither did the court. The judgement makes him out to be a sane terrorist/mass murderer, not a lunatic.", "A related phenomenon from the other side of the world is \"running amok\", which originated in Malay culture, and is known in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. It entails a usually male perpetrator who has previously shown no signs of anger or frustration, suddenly running out into the street and lashing out indiscriminately at passers-by with a weapon, traditionally a sword or knife-like weapon, nowadays any kind of weapon is used. It is classified as a culture-specific syndrome in psychiatric circles. Traditionally, the perpetrator was perceived to be blameless and unable to overcome his urges, though he was very often killled as that was often the only way to stop him.\n\n", "_URL_0_\n\nI'm sure you can find some more there. You could also lump a lot of terrorist attacks in this, couldn't you? Suicide bombings, OKC bombing, etc. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers", "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC181064/" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thug_Behram", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disasterd" ], [], [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Massacres_in_the_United_States" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f4jovyk", "f4k1m2m" ], "score": [ 97, 804 ], "text": [ "This isn’t an answer, but a suggestion for a more helpful sub, so if it needs to be removed I understand. \n\nThis might be a better question for r/etymology, they love doing the research for this stuff.", "Great question! Before we go any further I want to give a quick shoutout to the fine folks at /r/linguistics. It's an amazing subreddit which is generally better suited to these types of questions (duh) but I believe there are some linguists on the payroll in this illustrious place. In lieu of an actual linguist, however, you'll have to deal with yours' truly today... just some random guy with an interest in linguistics, a chip on his shoulder and more time than he should have at 5AM in the morning. Think of me as your hungover, slightly pervy substitute teacher, or your step dad who'll never be as good as your real dad. Make of that what you will. Now then, let's pluck this duck. \n\nDisclaimer: I am not to be held responsible for any uneasiness, annoyance, anxiety, scholarly indignation, nosebleeds, strokes, cardiac arrests or other inconveniences experienced which may or may not result from the forthcoming excessive use of parentheses. \n\nI'm going to split your question into three separate parts. Firstly, why is the word \"son\" so unlike the word \"daughter\"? Secondly, why does the word \"daughter\" have so many silent letters? Finally, does the ending -ter have any etymological significance?\n\nTo answer the first of these we need to give a tiny little background in European historical linguistics. Essentially, without going into levels of depth unnecessary for the purposes of this response, the vast majority of languages in Europe, Greater Persia and the Indian subcontinent derive from a single \"proto\" language. A proto language is a language which can be supposed, usually though a series of very complex linguisticy shenanigans called \"the comparative method\", to be the most recent common ancestor of a family of languages. Just like how, for example, an as of yet unknown ape-like creature is the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps, so too do languages have ancestors and descendants that spread across history in exactly the same way a family tree would do. Apart from creoles. Creoles are weird.\n\nThe proto language in question is Proto Indo European (hereon referred to as PIE). It is the most recent common ancestor of languages as diverse as English, French, Russian, Farsi and Hindi (among many, many others) and was spoken roughly four to six thousand years ago. In PIE, the words for \"son\" and \"daughter\" were very similar. Daughter has been reconstructed as *dʰugh₂tḗr (don't worry too much about the weird symbols, the study of PIE is an academic pursuit and so it requires weird symbols to make linguists feel special). Son has been reconstructed as *dʰeh₁ylios. Both of these originally meant something like \"the suckler\", stemming from a root *dʰeh₁ meaning \"to suck\".\n\nSo, with that in mind, where did \"son\" come from? *Dʰugh₂tḗr looks very much like the word \"daughter\" but \"son\" and *dʰeh₁ylios are clearly nothing alike. Well from PIE spawned a bunch of other languages, some of which went on to become proto languages in their own right. Some of these are Proto-Germanic (the most recent common ancestor of the Germanic languages; English, German, Swedish, etc), Proto-Celtic (the ancestor of Irish, Gaelic, Welsh, Breton, etc) and Proto-Indo-Iranian (the ancestor of the many Iranian and northern Indian languages, Farsi and Hindi being the most widely spoken of these respectively). In Proto-Germanic, the PIE word *dʰeh₁ylios (son) was replaced by *sunuz, itself from PIE *suh₁nús which was another word for \"son\", stemming from the root *sewH meaning \"to give birth\". This word has come down to us in English as \"son\". In the Romance languages however, both the words \"son\" and \"daughter\" are derived from the PIE source stemming from *dʰeh₁ (whence \"daughter\" comes), with Italian \"figlio\" and \"figlia\" coming ultimately (through Vulgar Latin) from the aforementioned PIE terms. So this is why \"son\" and \"daughter\" are nothing alike; the Germans basically said \"nah bugger this, we prefer this word\" and that's just how it is.\n\nOne down two to go. Why does \"daughter\" have a lot of silent letters? This is to do with the conservative nature of English spelling. See, at the time when the spelling standards for older variants of English (Middle English in this case) where being experimented with the spelling \"daughter\" didn't contain any silent letters. It would have been pronounced something like \"dou-ch-ter\" (with the \"ch\" here being my attempt to represent that funny guttural sound like in \"loch\" and somewhat like in German \"ich\"). If you can read IPA, this is /ˈdɔu̯xtər/. As time went on though English people got annoyed with having to make this unattractive guttural sound and grew bored of diphthongs (okay, that isn't *exactly* how it happened), and so what was once /ˈdɔu̯xtər/ became the pleasant sounding word we know today. That is, in *spoken* English it did. The spelling rules of English have not been properly updated for several centuries, and even then they were really rather archaic to say the least. This is why, for example, \"night\" and \"knight\" are pronounced the same today whereas, in Middle English, knight was pronounced /'kniçt/ (k-nicht -- \"ch\" being the sound in German \"ich\") and night /'niçt/. And this pretty much explains all the spelling irregularities and silent letters you see in English. French has much the same problem, perhaps worse. Languages like Finnish do not have this problem, the Finns being a sensible and hardy people who are far too busy [shouting at bears](_URL_0_) and stopping Russians from stealing their land for potato cultivation to be worried about such silly things as \"maintaining our linguistic heritage\", far too rational to adhere to such thoughts as \"purely phonetic spelling looks silly\". Their language is pronounced exactly as it is written -- learn the sounds of the letters and you're practically fluent already!\n\nPhew. Finally, onto question three. So you were correct in assuming that the ending -er (really this ending is -ter) has some etymological significance. You can probably already tell that the \"-ter\" at the end of \"daughter\" is a descendent of the *tḗr at the end of PIE *dʰugh₂tḗr. What you may not realise is that this \"-ter\" ending is etymologically from the same source as the \"-ther\" at the end of \"brother\", \"mother\" and \"father\", as well as the \"-tor\" at the end of \"realtor\", \"gladiator\" or \"excavator\". Words ending in \"-tor\" come to us in English through Latin, whereas words ending in \"ther\" come to us through Proto-Germanic, in which the sound \"t\" shifted to a \"th\" sound in most positions. Meaning that Latin \"pater\", \"mater\" are related to English \"father\", \"mother\" and both containing this ending derived from PIE *tḗr. *tḗr is an agentive suffix. The definition of this given by wiktionary is given as a suffix which:\n\n > \"Derives agent nouns from verbs, denoting someone or something whose role or purpose it is to perform the verb's action.\" \n\nOr in human speak, it tells you that its someone who does the thing. An excavator is something who excavates. A daughter is someone who suckles (remember the root *dʰeh meaning \"to suckle\". And thus, it stands to reason, a gladiator is someone who gladiates.^1 The fascinating thing about language is that nothing is arbitrary -- people don't really just decide to randomly start adding sounds onto words for no reason. If it's there, then there's almost certainly a reason for it and that reason can be uncovered and traced back with the comparative method and that's what historical linguistics is all about.\n\nDon't forget to holla at my boy /r/linguistics. \n\n^1 Gladius. It's someone who wields a gladius (just the Latin word for any old sword)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7_pVrIshxA" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "caiozl0", "caiqif2", "caiqs0q" ], "score": [ 37, 7, 6 ], "text": [ "The key here is division between the papacy of Rome and the patriarchate of Constantinople. The western pope crowned Charlemagne \"Roman emperor\" in a largely symbolic gesture (although this gesture was, indeed, intended to carry legal weight). I say symbolic because nothing really changed in a tangible sense (i.e., nobody suddenly jumped up and pledged allegiance to Charlemagne because of his new title).\n\nWith the papal grant of this title to Charlemagne, the path was opened to his successors claiming to be true Roman emperors, predicated on the idea that the pope had the authority to convey the title to begin with. Charlemagne and the papacy both had a vested interest in this: on the one hand, Charlemagne could bolster his legal right to his position whilst the papacy could gain the position of being responsible for transmitting ruling authority to the monarch (i.e. the right to crown him). Some anecdotal details regarding the coronation are to be found at the Catholic Encyclopedia under the 'Charlemagne' article at _URL_0_, if you're interested.\n\nBear in mind that - leading up to this - a variety of conflicts had arisen between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (as I will refer to them for ease of reference), including papal authority over various patriarchates in the eastern provinces. The Orthodox Church regarded itself as subservient to the state, but the papacy thought that it was superior (at least, up until the \"two swords-theory\"). This has its origin in the Roman Empire as well, wherein the emperors were also the religious heads. This rule was perpetuated in the eastern empire.\n\nSo there were a number of conflicts baked into the situation at this point not just regarding theological questions but also questions of authority and hierarchy. And the pope, who had fled north to Charlemagne in 799 (just before crowning Charlemagne) to escape from marauding barbarians, needed a strong protector.\n\nFollowing Charlemagne's crowning, the new emperor was recognized by both the Caliphate of Harun al Rashid in Ivrea (801) and by the Roman Empire in Aachen (802), according to Ploetz in his review of world history.\n\nFor a time the title 'Roman emperor' went out of use again in the West subsequent to the death of Charlemagne until Otto I (\"the Great\") was crowned by the archbishop of Mainz in 936. At various other points, it's worth nothing, the Carolingian-descended rulers also intermarried with Roman aristocracy (just to provide one example: Otto II married the Graecian Princess Theophano).\n\nWith respect to the legal questions you raised, it's true that it was only in the Roman Empire that the Corpus Iuris Civilis (CIC) was in use. In the west, Charlemagne caused the so called lex Saxorum to be compiled. In general, a mixture of Roman and Germanic laws was applied, in some parts more German laws and other parts more Roman laws (e.g. in Spain, where the Codex Theodosianus was in use). Not until the 12th century was the study of the CIC reborn in the west, at Italian universities like Bologna, and prior to that at smaller legal schools in that area. Later on this study of jurisprudence spread progressively north, first to France, then to Germany and the Netherlands, where it became the 'ius commune' and attained validity next to particular (i.e. local) laws.\n\nI also believe - and anyone is welcome to contradict me, as here I am somewhat cranking out my own theories - that by now, since the 4th century, the Eastern Romans had become accustomed to various powers ruling over the West, ever since the division of the empire. As a result it was probably not so overwhelmingly foreign to them that some other 'Roman emperor' would govern that part of the world. It's entirely possible that the rule of some 'Roman emperor' in the West was regarded not as an affront but as part of the natural order.\n\nWant any more details on any of these points? I'm happy to provide.", "peripatos' description is excellent for the broader context, but there is one argument he leaves out. the Emperor of the East at the time wasn't an emperor, but an empress which, considering the theological role played by the emperor, caused all sorts of legal issues. The pope claimed essentially that these problems meant that a woman couldn't be the emperor, and thus the throne was vacant, which meant that he could bestow the crown on someone, and did.", "To supplement the other answers, the legal pretext for crowning Charlemagne a Roman Emperor was based on a document that turned out to be a forgery: [Donation of Constantine](_URL_0_). The document was written probably in late eight century when the city of Rome was looking to cut its ties to the Empire, and claims that Constantine I gave the rule over the city of Rome and the western half of the Empire to the Pope." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c6qq9fx", "c6qq9zt", "c6qr2i7", "c6qrrz2" ], "score": [ 5, 2, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "[Duck and cover](_URL_0_) is a classic!", "[After only looking for two minutes on You Tube...](_URL_0_). Not sure if you've seen this one in particular, but I hope it helps. I'm not well versed in Cold War propoganda unfortunately, although I can sure dig up some old Chinese prop posters in my study somewhere if I was given time - not that that would be any help to a student over the web however.", "Rocky and Bullwinkle's Boris and Natasha?", "[Animated Propaganda During the Cold War: Part One](_URL_0_)\n\n[Animated Propaganda During the Cold War: Part Two](_URL_1_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0K_LZDXp0I" ], [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GFW3heUqvg" ], [], [ "http://www.awn.com/articles/animated-propaganda-during-cold-war-part-one", "http://www.awn.com/articles/animated-propaganda-during-cold-war-part-two" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8izwl3" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I would try either \"India\" by Stanley Wolpert. That covers the entirety of Indian history but with excellent stuff on the topic you want to learn about. Also, I would consider \"Crossed Swords: Pakistan, Its Army, and the wars within\" by Shuja Khan which is more Pakistan-oriented but key for this area. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8w44hd", "c8w5er0", "c8w61sp", "c8w8ak9" ], "score": [ 15, 23, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Are you in my class? We just talked about this yesterday.\n\nThe short answer is that Baum himself always denied it, but he was a staunch Republican who cared about politics at the time of the populist movement and the symbols hold up pretty well. Because he never admitted that the story was allegorical, however, all we can do is speculate.", "Many writers often face the issue of people attributing things to their works that was never there. Allegory, metaphor and the like is projected by the reader, and has led to many issues of writers being claimed to support one thing or the other.\n\nMy personal favorite is an apocryphal tale told about William Faulkner and his novel [*Sanctuary*](_URL_0_) in which a woman is raped by a man using a corn cob. A woman at a cocktail party is generally being obnoxious to Faulkner asking silly and pretentious questions and finally asks, \"Mr. Faulkner, I know that writers often place themselves in their own novels. May I ask who you are in *Sanctuary*?\" Faulkner not missing a beat replies, \"The corn cob.\"\n\n[Writer's intention versus reader's interpretation](_URL_1_), is probably one of the nastiest debates in studying literature.", "William R. Leach, the modern editor of Baum's work, has a good over-view of this in his book on the rise of American commercialism, [Land of Desire](_URL_0_).", "You may want to ask this in /r/askliterarystudies as well" ] }

[]

[ "http://www.themoneymasters.com/mm/the-wonderful-wizard-of-oz/" ]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_%28novel%29", "https://www.google.com/search?q=writiers+and+readers+projections&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=HsX&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=writer%27s+intention+and+reader%27s+interpretation&spell=1&sa=X&ei=2TxDUYa6D4Lm2QXmkoDoAQ&ved=0CC8QBSgA&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43828540,d.b2I&fp=b1fee2a396897a33&biw=1920&bih=923" ], [ "http://books.google.com/books?id=VHZ6UAudSiUC&q=oz" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cqgldo9" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Do you consider Shays Rebellion to be an impromptu skirmish? There were at least 4,000 people who confessed to participating in the year-long rebellion. I don't mean to ask this rhetorically, rather as a clarification question. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dpw37vn" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "One area where I've tried to look into this, ancient and medieval copper smelting in Oman, the evidence seems to suggest that they didn't.\n\nWith two major caveats: most of the work that I've read on the topic was done in the 1970s and was conducted by a single individual, Gerd Weisgerber, albeit one who [pioneered mining archaeology.](_URL_1_) \n\nSo for instance in his lecture [Patterns of Early Islamic Metallurgy in Oman](_URL_0_), Weisgerber notes:\n\n > The production of more than 200,000...tons of [copper] slag would require not less than 280,000 tons of charcoal...which requires 1,400,000 tons of wood. Thinking of the wood for roasting the ores and refining the copper together with household consumption, an estimated sum of two million tons of wood is not too much. If we take 100kg of wood per tree...it would be necessary to cut twenty million trees down. Therefore we might assume that there were forests of a kind in the Oman mountains and promontaries, a fact which should be of some interest for geography.\n\n > Cutting some thousands and thousands of trees in a relatively short period of time must have led to real deforestation and desertation, even when the trees grew more densely than today. For the moment, we do not believe in an import of wood for smelting purposes.\n\n > We know even from the forest growing conditions of Germany that fuel was the main problem of copper, iron or steel mills in Renaissance and later times. The mills were only to work some months in a year, to save parts of the forest. In a country like Oman, the total cutting of any tree in the mountains surrounding the mining districts (and all over the Oman mountains there are mining districts) means a change to a local drier climate and less perennial flowing water in the wadis. So we think that the desert in the Oman mountains (unlike that of the Ruba al-Khali hinterland [the Arabian \"Empty Quarter\"]) and promontaries in early Islamic times was man made. Perhaps the lack of fuel caused the end of this copper production boom, or is at least one salient factor. The limited activities 150 years later could use the small renewed and regrown vegetation. If our hypothesis of such a considerable desertation is true, there must have been terrible consequences.\n\nHaving driven around those mountains pretty extensively, that is a *mind blowing* conclusion to me, and yet the sheer size of these slag piles and the barrenness of their surroundings makes it awfully convincing to me.\n\nI'm not entirely sure on what basis Weisgerber concludes that there weren't fuel imports to Oman at the time, but it's perhaps worth noting that the *contemporary* trade of wood charcoal from the Horn of Africa to Arabia today is leading to [exactly the same process](_URL_2_) of mass-deforestation and desertification." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.jstor.org/stable/41222972?seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_Weisgerber", "https://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/11/19/250473.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e2ql46x", "e2sn7j6", "e2trtb9", "e2vfnp7", "e2wm51i", "e324xxy", "e32ioap" ], "score": [ 59, 5, 4, 6, 3, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Many thanks to u/thucydideswasawesome for letting me ramble on about probably the most famous bit of Greek military history. There is a tremendous amount to say about the battle of Thermopylai, and this podcast covers far from everything... And we barely even touched on the movie itself! \n\nFor the place of Thermopylai in the creation of the myth of Sparta, see my older post [here]( _URL_0_). Also, here’s a couple of points that are more usefully given in writing, and which I therefore left out of the podcast itself:\n\n & nbsp;\n\n**A few basics**\n\nThe battle of Thermopylai was fought in the summer of 480 BC at the pass on the border between Malis and Phokis, where a steep mountain range reaches down to the coast, leaving only a narrow road between the slope and the sea. The [triple bottleneck of Thermopylai]( _URL_1_) (the narrowest of which was only about a wagon’s width) has historically been the site of many attempts to block armies trying to march into Central Greece. However, a goat path known as the Anopea Path leads up the range and around the pass, and this has decided the outcome of every major battle of Thermopylai. The site is now unrecognisable because the sea has retreated about 2km, leaving a wide coastal plain that would have been at best an impassable salt marsh in Antiquity.\n\nThe Greek alliance led by Leonidas took up position behind a disused Phokian defensive wall and awaited the Persian attack. The battle lasted three days. On the first and second day, the Persians tried in vain to dislodge the Greeks by frontal assault. On the night of the second day, they sent the elite Immortals over the goat path to surround the Greeks in the pass. When the Greeks learned of this, most of them retreated, but Leonidas stayed behind with 300 Spartiates and some others, and all died in the ensuing last stand.\n\n & nbsp;\n\n**The size of the Greek force**\n\nDespite some famous and often repeated numbers, we don’t actually know how many Greeks fought at Thermopylai. Our sources are not precise about the size of all contingents and their totals diverge pretty radically. There are some major problems that the popular version of the battle is all too happy to gloss over – most importantly (and surprisingly) the fact that our sources disagree on the number of Spartans.\n\nThe earliest surviving written account is that of Herodotos, which tells us there were 300 full Spartan citizens at Thermopylai, and treats this as the whole of the Spartan contingent. However, other authors tell us the Spartans sent 1000 men to the pass. We find this number for the first time in the works of the orator Isokrates, who lists a number of notable Spartan feats of heroism, and urges his listeners to remember ‘the thousand who went to meet the enemy at Thermopylai’ (*Archidamos* 99-100). In the later account of Diodoros, Leonidas ‘announced that only a thousand were to join him for the campaign’ (11.4.2); Diodoros later specifies that this force included 300 full citizens (with the other 700 implied to be *perioikoi*).\n\nIn fact, this number of 1000 Spartans, of which the famous 300 were only the Spartiate share, is already suggested by an epitaph cited by Herodotos (7.228.1). Eulogising the entire Peloponnesian part of the army, it says that ‘here once fought against three million / four thousand men from the Peloponnese’. But the numbers Herodotos gives us for the other contingents from this area don’t add up to 4000 – unless we assume the Spartans sent 1000 rather than 300 men (in which case they still don’t, but at least they come a lot closer). And could it be coincidence that the exiled Spartan king Demaratos tells Xerxes that the Spartans may march out with just 1000 men to fight him (7.102.3)?\n\nIn short, we have good reason to believe that Herodotos deliberately suppressed the contribution of the Lakedaimonian *perioikoi* in the battle, writing the story as if they were never there. It is most likely that he did this in order to magnify the role of the Spartiates themselves, and to make more use of the number 300, which was charged with meaning by other heroic Spartan tales. In the podcast, I’ve routinely assumed that there were in fact 1000 Spartans at the pass, of which 300 were full citizens; it was perhaps only the latter who stayed to fight to the death.\n\nAs for the Greek force as a whole, the sources give its numbers as follows:\n\nContingent | Hdt. 7.202-3 | Diod. 11.4.5-7 | Paus. 10.20.1-2 | Justin 2.11.2\n-----------|------------|--------------|---------------|------------\nSparta | 300 | 1000 | 300 |\nTegea | 500 | | 500 |\nMantineia | 500 | | 500 | \nOrchomenos | 120 | | 120 | \nArkadia | 1000 | | 1000 | \nCorinth | 400 | | 400 | \nPhleious | 200 | | 200 | \nMycenae | 80 | | 80 | \n(Peloponnese) | | 3000 | |\nThespiai | 700 | | 700 |\nThebes | 400 | 400 | 400 | \nPhokis | 1000 | 1000 | 1000 |\nLokris | ‘full force’ | 1000 | 6000 |\nMalis | | 1000 | |\n | | | | \nTotal | 5200+ | 6400 | 11200 | 4000\n\nModern accounts tend to give a total of about 7000, which relies on raw assumptions about the size of the Lokrian levy, and which quietly accepts that there were indeed 1000 Spartans, not 300. It’s important to add that none of these figures include even an estimate of the number of helots and other slaves present, even though Herodotos repeatedly states that they were there, and that some stayed to the end.\n\nWhen the Greeks learned that the pass had been turned, most went home, considering the battle lost. But when it comes to those who opted to stay, again, totals vary widely. According to Herodotos (7.222), the Spartiates, Thespians and Thebans remained – a total force of about 1400 men. Diodoros (11.9.2), however, claims only the Spartiates and the Thespians stayed behind, and states that Leonidas was left with just 500 men. Pausanias (10.20.2) has it that the Mycenaean contingent also decided to fight to the death, which would mean a total of 1080 on the final day. Justin (2.11.7-15) says only the Spartans remained, but gives their number as 600, presumably including as many *perioikoi* as full Spartan citizens. It is impossible for us to say which number is the most credible. Herodotos’ very hostile account of the Thebans, who supposedly turned coat at the last second, shows that even his (relatively contemporary) account is already contaminated by propaganda; Plutarch spends some time dressing down Herodotos for this bit of slander (*On the Malice of Herodotos* 31). The only thing all sources agree on is that the 300 Spartiates weren’t the only ones to choose death.\n\n & nbsp;\n\n**The two traditions on Thermopylai**\n\nIt often happens in ancient history that two different sources will give different accounts of the same event. But it is a rare and exciting thing when we find our most comprehensive source *openly struggling* with different versions they’ve heard, trying to justify the choice of one over the other. This is what happens in Herodotos’ account of Thermopylai. His text represents a conscious effort to overwrite an earlier version of the battle with a new one that is far more plausible – but he was not successful, since several later sources repeat the older story. \n\nThis older version is focused entirely on the Spartans and their heroism. It claims that the Spartans were warned well in advance that the Persians were coming, and furthermore, that they received an oracle saying that they could only save Sparta by sacrificing one of their kings. When Leonidas marched out to Thermopylai, therefore, he knew he was not coming back. He brought only as many men (1000, in this early version) as was needed to make a credible statement about the Spartan commitment to the cause. The ensuing battle was all about close combat, and the Spartans deliberately hogged the front line, refusing to let their allies have their turn on the second day. Finally, when Leonidas learned on the night of the second day of the battle that the Persians were coming down the goat path, he immediately sent the other Greeks away. He and his Spartans meanwhile set out on a midnight suicide mission, leaving their position to march deep into the Persian camp in an attempt to kill Xerxes himself. Xerxes fled from them, and when they could not find him, they ‘marched uncontrolled through the whole camp, killing and overthrowing all that stood in their way, like men who knew that they fought, not with the hope of victory, but to avenge their own deaths’ (Justin 2.11.16). At last, when it was already light, they were overwhelmed by Persian numbers and perished to a man.\n\nIt’s pretty clear that this version is blatant Spartan propaganda, and in places it is literally incredible. Much as the Spartans might like to brag about their abilities as heavy infantry, it is as unlikely that they fought without break for an entire day as it is that the Persians would have continued to feed men into the meat grinder rather than pick off the Spartans from a distance. Moreover, as I said in the podcast, the attack on the Persian camp is a physical impossibility. The Persians were encamped miles away, behind a second, narrower pass that would undoubtedly have been guarded. There is no way the Spartans could have made it right up to Xerxes’ tent in fighting condition.\n\nThis account of Thermopylai, then, was launched by the Spartans early on, in order to justify to the Greeks why they had sent so few men, and to reaffirm that they were the right people to lead the alliance against Persia. After all, they had done more, and lost more, than anyone else who fought at the pass. And of course the small size of the army and the bungled attempt to guard the goat path were all part of the plan!\n\n**Continued below**", "Looking at the map I now realize for the first time that I imagined everything backwards, with Persians to the east, and the sea to the south... Anyway, is there a paper or book I could read which would present the battle from the Persian side?", "How much do you know about how the Persians viewed Thermopylae and the wider campaign in Greece?\n\nWas it an attempt at gaining land? Was it a punitive expedition? Both?\n\nI've often found that differing sides in war have very different definitions of victory and considering how in western traditions there's undoubtedly been more scholarship on Greco-Roman sources compared to Persian ones I was hoping you could shed some light on the subject.\n\nThanks.", "I don’t have any questions I just have to say, another incredible episode. I learned so much! This podcast continues to be a staple of my listening diet. \n\nOne critique though. I’m not sure if it’s just me but the audio levels between the interviewer and interviewee are a bit unbalanced. The interviewer is always much louder. Not sure if anyone else has this problems", "I once heard someone say that *300* should be treated similarly to a primary source from this era - that while it may not be an accurate portrayal of what actually happened, it does depict how the Greeks would have told the story. Do you agree to this statement?", "I've been a long time subscriber but just discovered this. Really excited to hear it out!\n\nJust a quick meta-query though: I can't seem to get the first 20 episodes on podcast app via RSS. (android/podcastaddict)\n\nAny idea why? Is there a fix or should I manually download?", "Wow. You have a podcast? Awesome, I did not know. " ] }

[]

[ "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-askhistorians-podcast/id812302476?mt=2&ign-mpt=uo%3D8", "https://soundcloud.com/user679855208", "http://askhistorians.libsyn.com", "https://www.patreon.com/askhistorians", "https://play.google.com/music/podcasts/portal#p:id=playpodcast/series&a=100831514", "http://askhistorians.libsyn.com/rss", "http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/tas-stacey/the-askhistorians-podcast", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8wjd2x/askhistorians_podcast_115_the_friends_they/", "https://askhistorians.libsyn.com/askhistorians-podcast-116-debunking-300s-battle-of-thermopylae", "https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJudPwztZyg2BQjhetw_bww" ]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6rvusy/is_the_military_worship_of_the_spartans_really/dl8ns8q/", "http://www.livius.org/site/assets/files/9118/thermopylae_map.gif" ], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9ediyw" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "I'm going from memory, so do correct me if I'm incorrect. Herod the Great, the builder of Masada, Caesarea and the renovator of Jerusalem exercised a great deal of self-autonomy. Mind you, him, and his predecessors, like Herod Antipater received this almost 'carte blanche' to rule Judea based on their close personal relationships with the Roman leaders, like Pompey, Marc Anthony and eventually, Octavian.\n\nBy currying favour, acting 'Roman', they were able to be proxy rulers of Rome. Initially, there was no real Roman governor since Judea was rather quiet. \n\nIt wasn't until Herod the Great's son Archelaus inherited the kingdom, that a Roman prefect (knowledge of Roman governance is limited; sorry!) was appointed. This was since Archelaus was a rather poor leader, and discontent grew rather quick.\n\nAfterwards, a Roman governor was dispatched, though with the progressively tense Jewish-Roman relations later in the century, Rome could not rely on these proxy rulers and exercised greater control themselves.\n\nA good book that illustrates the relationship between the Herodian Kings and the Romans is Jerusalem: A Biography by Simon Montefiore." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ckyzsk4" ], "score": [ 100 ], "text": [ "New York City has been a major population center for American Jews since the 1880s, so it is no surprise that the association between Jews and Chinese food started here. New York Jews do not just like Chinese food on December 25 - they like it all the time (at least they have a reputation for liking it - I'm addressing the generalization, not making one), and here's how that came to be:\n\nLots of Chinese people had come to California in the mid-1800s during the Gold Rush, and stayed to work on the Transcontinental Railroad and similar construction works. In the early days of Unionization, anti-Chinese sentiment was very high and the terkurjerbs argument prevailed. In 1882, the US passed the Chinese Exclusion act, which basically stopped all immigration from China and prevented resident aliens from gaining citizenship. As a result, two things happened: More Chinese people started moving East (only to find that the racism situation was no better), and many Chinese people realized that the only way to make a living was to find ways to cater to their own communities. So we have populations of Chinese people condensing in the various places now known as \"Chinatown\" and therein we had Chinese restaurants where Chinese people served Chinese food to other Chinese people. New York's Chinatown was pretty small in 1910 though, less than 10,000 people. Restauranteurs quickly realized they needed to alter their menus to appeal to more \"American\" tastes to stay in business. Thus we have the birth of *American Chinese Food,* which really flourished in the 1920s.\n\nThe population of Eastern European Jews in New York City was around 1,000,000 by 1910. While the Jewish community had their own Kosher delis/butcher shops, they, like the Irish, did not get into restaurants the way that the Chinese or the Italians did. When they wanted to dine out, it was more likely that they would be dining on cuisine foreign to their own. Chinese food appealed more than other offerings, because while it was not Kosher, the way it is prepared and the fact that it does not combine meat with milk/cheese was deemed 'less bad' by Jewish immigrants. There was also the shared experience of racism in effect. Jewish people felt more comfortable in Chinese-owned establishments than they did in European ones, because they were on a more equal footing with the proprietors. Chinese restaurants were also the most \"exotic\" (the least Jewish) offering, so it came to be seen as the urbane, sophisticated choice. This was the \"melting pot\" at work, enjoying into the multifaceted American culture. Finally, Chinese food was relatively inexpensive. People could afford to take the whole family - so they did. Going out for Chinese food became *a family tradition.*\n\nChinese restauranteurs recognized their customers, and catered to their tastes, resulting in a positive feedback loop (more Jews eating Chinese - > more Chinese restaurants.) Among other menu tweeks, many Chinese restaurants in NYC became fully Kosher. Additional Chinatowns in Queens and Brooklyn have flourished. New Yorkers in general really love Chinese food, and Jews still make up close to 10% of New York's population today. NYC now claims to have more Chinese restaurants per capita than any city outside of China. Most of them are open on Christmas.\n\nSources:\n\n[New York Jews and Chinese Food: The Social Construction of an Ethnic Pattern\" by Gaye Tuchman and Harry G. Levine.\nContemporary Ethnography. 1992: Vol 22 No 3. pp. 382-407.](_URL_0_) (warning - pdf)\n\n[Chinatowns of New York City, by Wendy Wanyin Tan. Arcadia Publishing. 2008.](_URL_1_)\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/~hlevine/SAFE-TREYF.pdf", "http://www.worldcat.org/title/chinatowns-of-new-york-city/oclc/182525843" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cw5m14n", "cw5npuk", "cw6c7va" ], "score": [ 13, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "This is a surprisingly difficult question. It's kind of the entirety of what historiography and historical methodology is about, and your questions are the ones historians have wrestled with, and have found no definitive answer (nor do I think one ever will be found).\n\nIf I were to boil it down simply, I would say history research is about these linked things: convention, information, and compromise.\n\nConvention because styles in ways of thinking roll in and out. The way people thought about a subject like \"end of civilization\" 100 years ago would not be the way they think about them today. There may, in fact, be nothing wrong about the way people in the past thought, its just that it's \"out-of-date.\" Peter Heather and Bryan Ward-Perkins would be perfect examples of this with regards to late antiquity. They're trying to bring back formerly out-of-fashion ideas regarding migration and economic collapse combined with new evidence to support these new/old theses.\n\nNow, the common criticism is not that they're wrong. Their scholarship and their logic, is sound. But the criticism is more \"you're answering an old question with new evidence, but can't we ask newer questions?\" To put a spin on a more blunt reddit saying, it's like saying \"you're not wrong, you're just boring.\"\n\nAs /u/tiako mentioned in a post a long time ago, and an idea I've taken to heart, the purpose of a thesis should not be to \"select\" the evidence/information to prove your idea, but to \"unify\" the evidence. Anyone can be selective. Holocaust deniers are selective. The Tea Party is selective. What research should attempt to do, is look at the volume of information out there, and unify as much, and as best as possible, and to not discard without good reason.\n\nAnd this is where compromise comes in. Compromise is how convention selects from unity. How \"good reason\" matches up with the \"unity of information,\" with a basis in learning from the trails already blazed. Information is always growing, and with it comes the need to find new ways to organize it. History is both style and substance, the possible and the \"real\". There is not one universal truth (though we all really really wish there was one), there is only the attempt to find the truth.\n\nWhat determines what information we use, is this north star of compromise. But one should keep in mind, because both information and convention are ever changing, the answers we can answer with the information/styles we have now, ultimately are only relevant to us at this particular moment. But so long as we embrace the compromise of convention and information, we will keep history from becoming what we really don't want it to be, and that's propaganda.", "What u/bitparity said, but adding a bit. This is a very difficult question to answer and no answer is really short. First, there’s historiography/historical method. Like how philosophy has different schools of thought or art has different movements, so does history. In fact, a lot of these schools are tied to various philosophical schools or different disciplines. It all depends on when, were, and what one is studying, which is part of the beauty of history. For example, Marxist history emphasizes social class and economics, the Annales school focuses on social history, feminist history focuses on women, and so on. No one school or style is right, even if some would have you think otherwise. Looking at things from different angles is good, even if it means considering two completely opposite viewpoints.\n\nHistory is a science which means, just like a chemist running through a set of steps in a lab experiment, historians are running through a set of steps when looking at sources. Every source has a bias or is unreliable in some way, even something like a census record that appears to just be no-nonsense tick marks in boxes. Part of a historian’s job is to consider what biases a source might have. Who created the source, when/where was the source made, who was the audience, why was the source created, etc. There will be sources about the same event that say completely different things. There will be people who lie, knowingly or not. Things will get lost. It’s weighing each source individually and determining how reliable it is and recognizing that we can only try our best to get as close to the truth as possible. Stuff also gets found all the time too. When new evidence appears, whether or not it contradicts the most accepted theory, you don’t ignore it. That’s bad science.\n\nHistorians do disagree and that’s very important. Again, that chemist in a lab, running experiments has to let their experiment be tested by other chemists. Historians peer review other historians and make sure they \"show their work.\" It's about discussion and exchanging ideas, not proving someone wrong/right. History in schools is a bit tricky. Certain schools might use certain books that subscribe to only one viewpoint to further their own agenda. Text books are generally watered down history to begin with (at least in lower grades). It's getting better, but schools still usually just teach the most agreed upon theory. \n\nNow as to why anyone would/should care about history and how it impacts today is again a very difficult and lengthy answer. As much as I hate the phrase that \"history repeats itself,\" there is something to it. Some things that happened in history and things that happen today are very similar. An easy example would be the repeated invasion attempts of Russia, although there hasn't been one recently to my knowledge. It wasn't successful for Germany, France, Japan, the U.S., The U.K., the Swedes, and many many others so one would think someone would've taken the hint. But you're (probably) not going to invade Russia, so why should you care, especially about something like a [Catholic festival practiced by Italian Immigrants in Harlem in the early 20th century?] (_URL_0_) It doesn't drastically hinder your life if you don't. However, it might be useful to understand a piece of urban/social/religious/immigrant history that makes Harlem as we know it today. You should care because it effects the world you live in, but in the end only you can decide how much you care. \n\nedit: spelling.\n", "Specifically addressing Columbus, he is certainly a magnet for debate that is much politicized. There is so much pop history material out there, from basic elementary school history books to a popular web coming from the Oatmeal. And through history he has been used as a mascot of various political movements, from the celebration of Columbus Day to the Knights of Columbus to an object of criticism and condemnation. So there is a lot of emotion involved when he is discussed. \n\nOn the other hand, there is an obsession to look for a \"smoking gun\" evidence and historical determinism, plus trivia-seeking tendencies. \n\nTake as example the rediscovery of the report of Francisco Bobadilla, which was widely reported and then taken to be *the* proof of Columbus' cruelty, which tended to be written as *the only* proof of Columbus' cruelty. This is absolutely not the case. His own diaries record many of his misdeeds, and Bobadilla was sent to the colonies based on [a large number of reports and complains of cruelty](_URL_0_). \n\nBut both defenders and detractors alike flock to the Bobadilla report, which at the end of the day was immaterial because (1) Isabella and Ferdinand never prosecuted Columbus, although they never appointed administrator again, and (2) Bodabilla perished and was unable to challenge that reversal. Of course, many still think that \"Gee, if I can disprove Bobadilla's report then I could prove Columbus wasn't cruel\" and I expect we will still have many many questions on this subject. \n\n*sigh, this isn't even really my flair area*\n\nNow add to all this those who claim \"Columbus wasn't any more cruel than other people of his era. Look for example the Spanish Inquisition.\" Well, this is patently incorrect because the Spanish Inquisition has [specific rules against torture and specific rules about due process](_URL_1_). \n\nWhat you asked about \n\n > Do historians disagree on things, if so why?/what distinguishes these \"historical facts\" from those more widely accepted and taught in schools?\n\nthis is a great question, and thus the importance of clearly stating sources, such that we may revisit them and examine them in the future. \n\nA great example is in W. H. Prescott, *History of Ferdinand and Isabella* where addressing the claim that Joanna the Mad had kept the corpse of her husband for months, he wrote in a footnote where that claim first appeared and stated that it could uniquely be traced to a contemporaneous history of Spain written by Peter Martyr, who himself was not present. Now, is it a wonder that Prescott is often credited to be North America's first scientific historian? " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/The-Madonna-115th-Street-Community/dp/0300042647" ], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3omvmn/bobadilla_and_columbus/cvyrc4i", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3odn19/does_columbus_and_columbus_day_deserve_all_of_the/cvwarq2" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cb4pvkx", "cb4r3fy", "cb4sder" ], "score": [ 5, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "[John Newton](_URL_0_), a vocal Anglican preacher and abolitionist crucial to the passage of the Slave Trade Act of 1807, spent much of his early life exporting slaves from Western Africa and even was captain of a slave trading ship for several years.", "The most famous ( and I might say badass) is Cassius Clay, cousin of the more famous Henry Clay and the only remaining abolitionist of note in the Antebellum South. Clay fought repeatedly in Kentucky to begin gradual emancipation ( Kentucky's debates are a perfect example that even after the Virginia Slave debate of 1831-1832 emancipation was still possible) at great political and personal cost. On multiple occasions Clay was attacked by pro-slave forces, shot, stabbed he kept up his mission. In one incident he was attacked by multiple members of a pro-slave family, he managed to fight them off knocking out out cold and gutting the other one eventually leading to the attacker's death. On another occasion the Iron Duke ( a prominent Kentucky politician) organized a mob to attack Clay's printer, Clay packed his printing press with two cannons and dared the mob to attack him. Clay would play a large role in another prominent Anti-slavery Kentuckian's life, Abraham Lincoln.", "Carlos Manuel de Céspedes, one of the Cuban \"heroes of independence\" was a slave owner who, one day in 1868, called together all the slaves on his plantation, declared them free, and asked them to join him in a war to secure Cuban independence from Spain and the liberation of all slaves. The Ten Years' War followed, which saw his death and a conditional Spanish victory. Under the Pact of Zanjón, the treaty to end the war, slaves who had fought with the rebels were freed, but slavery persisted for several years after. \n\nFighting with the rebels was a young José Martí, who would spark the Cuban War of Independence in 1895, based upon a very racially progressive platform. Decades later, the Cuban Revolution would again invoke Céspedes, declaring racial crimes to be endemic of imperialism, including Afro-Cubans as a fundamental part of its movement, and denouncing the racial policies of the United States, which had, in the view of leaders like Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, taken the place of Spain as the colonial power." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "dbd179f" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Our [FAQ](_URL_1_) addresses the question of 'levying' troops in a few places. [This Answer](_URL_0_) by u/Rittermeister gives an overview. Generally speaking, medieval armies were not raised by levying large numbers of the general population - the practices of raising an army did not resemble modern conscription.\n\nThese answers touch on the practice of raising an army in Britain and Northern France in the time period you specified. The first of these address armies in the earliest part of the period, the 11th century, while the second addresses the 14th and 15th centuries.\n\n* [How William the Conqueror Raised his Army](_URL_2_) by *u/Rittermeister*\n\n* [How Armies of the Hundred Years War were Raised](_URL_3_) by *u/MI13*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4xbke3/how_did_middleage_armies_break_for_the_night/d6e4tsj/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/57cewr/how_did_william_the_bastardconqueror_raise_such_a/d8saxp5/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3gvi41/how_were_medieval_armies_organized/cu269h2/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ce6fjqu" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "arguably, the Revolutionary War would not have been won without advertising. The \"Join or die\" campaign was so pervasive that the british made fun of the American obsession with the number 13. Before that, Jamestown would have fizzled without pamphleting and propaganda in Britain. \"[Nova Britannia](_URL_0_)\" is a famous example of that, commissioned by the Virginia Company of London.\n\nI'll come back and flesh this out tonight or tomorrow. I have an exam in a few. Modern examples, probably check out graphs comparing Coca Cola's advertising budget versus their revenue. \n\nSmoking is also a modern example, showing that the gov't can reduce stuff with advertising." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/jamestown-browse?id=J1051" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9m9nlj" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "I believe the first aircraft ever designed for the close air support role was the [Albatros J.I.]( _URL_0_) The German military began using close support with the [Infantrie-flieger]( _URL_1_) (Infantry contact patrol) of 1916 during the battle of Verdun. The J.I. was developed from the C.XII reconnaissance plane by adding armor to the cockpit sides and floor and fitting two fixed downward firing machine guns. It entered service in 1917." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=835", "http://books.google.com/books?id=9PGHckhHiX0C&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=Infanterie-flieger&source=bl&ots=dP9mlGevek&sig=qAVynrK1M8VuQ4o-XwOuFhkTccc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BuV4UcbsDqG2iwK0h4HoDw&ved=0CGoQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Infanterie-flieger&f=false" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8oorq8" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "All casualties are on both sides and include civilians (excluding the Eastern front because the it had ~40 million which is far and wide higher than any previous conflict)\n\nMilitary Deaths in the Eastern Front: 4.424 Million\n\nConflicts before the Events\nDeaths in the Thirty Years War (1618-1648): 1.111 Million (Approximately 25-40% of people living in modern day Germany died)\n\nDeaths during the Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864): ~20 Million\n\nCasualties from the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815: at least 3,350,000; at most 6,650,000\n\nCasualties from the Russian Civil War (1917-1923: at least 2,712,824\n\nCasualties of World War I: 9,911,000\n\nConflicts after the events\nDeaths during the Second Congo War (1998-2003): 2.7-5.4 Million\n\nDeaths during the Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005): 1-2 Million (Most due to starvation which was directly caused by the war)\n\nDeaths during the Vietnam War (1955-1975) : at least 882,000; at most 1,881,026 \n\nDeaths during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988): at least 470,000; at most 1,095,000\n\nRwandan Genocide (1994): 500,000-1 million \n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7hsdn3" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "\"genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: \n\n(a) Killing members of the group;\" \nThis kind of sums up the actions of a significant number of the conquistadores. \n\nthere is also [this](_URL_0_), which was hardly an isolated incident. \n\nThe numbers here in the americas were so much more spectacular and horrifying than the bubonic plague. 9/10 is a low figure (some go as high as 9.6/10. So, I think the analogy (which you obviously used for a different purpose) is questionable in the first. " ] }

[]

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

[ [ "http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/amherst/lord_jeff.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "coe0238" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Sasanian, Parthian, or Achaemenid?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdjj4as" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "It depends on which type and the kind of anesthetic used. Several cultures would use opiods such as the Middle East and China (usually morphine and later laudanum) as a kind of soporific, where it wouldn't completely knock them out, but leave them in a bit of a haze during medical care. (spoiler alert- discussion of disturbing imagery).\n\nAlcohol was also used for centuries as if not an anesthetic, but more as a fortifier. One of the most famous pre-anesthetic cases in the late 1700s involved a middle aged woman who had to undergo a double mastectomy with several men holding her down, a shot of alcohol, and a cheesecloth to cover her face so she couldn't watch it (that also failed, she saw the whole thing). She actually survived for several decades after, somehow recounted the whole ordeal in her diary, but was very shaken for years after the procedure. \n\nPeople during surgery basically had to just get through it by personal strength, bit of alcohol, and a strong and very fast surgeon. One of the big drawbacks during awake surgery was that the patients were often thrashing and screaming, so surgery had to be as fast as possible. Darwin had early in his life wanted to be a doctor, but his first time watching a surgery take place left him horrified to the point where he changed studies (much to our entire benefit), and would later claim that that much blood had been terribly traumatizing.\n\n\nBy the early 1800s (it took a few decades from their original discoveries in the 1700s to be used medically), ether was finally starting to be used as a drug, but it was quickly replaced by nitrous oxide, because ether had a lot of drawbacks (vomiting, hard to dose, scary flammable, etc).\n\nChloroform was also discovered in the 1800s, but it had even worse drawbacks, like a much higher mortality rate." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ehgt1i5" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "There were numerous groups in Britain in the 1930s on the far right (e.g. Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists, The Right Club), or advocating closer bonds with Germany (The Link, the Anglo German Fellowship) that were not necessarily explicit supporters of Nazism but naturally attracted people with such views. Most were fiercely patriotic or nationalistic, so on declaration of war in 1939 tiptoed around active support for Germany but pushed for peace, often portraying the causes of war in virulently antisemitic terms. The Link disbanded, the BUF instructed its members (at least publicly, see Richard Griffiths' \"A Note on Mosley, the 'Jewish War' and Conscientious Objection\" for more detail) to \"do nothing to injure our country, or to help any other power\".\n\nRegulation 18B of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act of 1939 made provision \"... for the detention of persons whose detention appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in the interests of the public safety or the defence of the realm\" - interment, or imprisonment without trial. The power was used sparingly for the first months of the war, 40 people had been detained by March 21st 1940, but by the end of July 1940 1,465 were detained. The situation in Norway, with Quisling's support for the Nazis, and the German invasion of Western Europe with widespread rumours of fifth columnists resulted in a fierce clampdown on both enemy aliens (see [a previous answer](_URL_0_) from /u/Surprise_Institoris ) and domestic groups. There was clear justification in some cases; Tyler Kent, a cipher clerk at the US Embassy and member of The Right Club, was found to have stolen official documents including communications between Churchill and Roosevelt and prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. Captain Ramsay, Conservative MP and leader of The Right Club was imprisoned under Regulation 18B, as was Admiral Domvile who had founded The Link, Oswald Mosley, and many members of the BUF. Regulation 18B also proved to be a convenient mechanism to detain others with less clear motives such as members of the Sabini gang (as fictionally portrayed in *Peaky Blinders*) due to their Italian origins. Regulation 18B detentions were supported by the popular press, but fiercely debated in some quarters including Parliament. As the direct threat to the British Isles abated so internees were released, Mosley being freed in 1943 despite widespread opposition and most others by the end of 1944. \n\nFurther reading: \n\"Defence Regulation 18B: Emergency Internment of Aliens and Political Dissenters in Great Britain during World War II\", Aaron L. Goldman, *Journal of British Studies* Vol. 12, No. 2 \n\"Emergency Detention in Wartime: The British Experience\", Cornelius P. Cotter, *Stanford Law Review* Vol. 6, No. 2 \n\"A Note on Mosley, the 'Jewish War' and Conscientious Objection\", Richard Griffiths, *Journal of Contemporary History* Vol. 40, No. 4 " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a7e4hf/were_there_ever_internment_camps_during_wwii_in/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ekm3nlg" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "The vast majority of the Muslim world was colonized by the Allied powers, so the opinions of the people living there didn't matter too much, since the colonizers generally kept the lid on during the war (not always though; we'll come back to this). There is evidence that the anti-Semitism of the Nazis appealed to certain political leaders in the colonized Arab world, but any definitive statement on this is impossible due to the confounding factor of the Nazis being anti-British and French as well, who were the colonizers and thus understandably disliked by the colonized. \n\nThere are three exceptions: Syria/Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey. \n\nTurkey is a very interesting country in the context of World War 2, since they had fairly recently fought and won their War of Independence against the Allies of World War I, including Greece, and had been allies of the Germans during the first war. So naturally, they were not well-disposed towards the Allies. But the Turks also greatly feared a Soviet invasion. As the war between Germany and the Soviet Union escalated, the Turkish military began to regard war with the Soviets as inevitable. As a result, Turkey was in a pretty precarious position, and they walked the line quite adroitly. Overall, in terms of the personal sympathies of Turkey's ruling class, they lay more with the Germans than with the Soviets, but that's not saying much. And the Germans didn't realize much, if any, benefit from this, except perhaps the knowledge that the Turkish border with Bulgaria and occupied Greece was secure.\n\nIraq underwent a full-blown coup in 1941, in which the British puppet monarchy was overthrown by prime minister Rashid Ali al-Gaylani and four senior officers of Iraqi army, which declared war on the British. The war lasted less than a month, with an Allied victory. A few German and Italian aircraft participated on the Iraqi side. As to the opinions of the people, I cannot say.\n\nSyria/Lebanon is also very interesting. In 1936, the French granted autonomy to the Syrian Republic, which had the right to maintain its own armed forces, but was required to permit the French basing rights for their army, navy and air force. In 1940, the region fell under Vichy suzerainty after the Second Armistice at Compiegne, and the famously mercurial Vichy Admiral Francois Darlan signed the Paris Protocols, which gave the Germans substantial basing rights in Vichy colonial territories in Asia and North Africa, including Syria. Indeed, it was through these agreements that the Germans and Italians were able to basically smuggle aircraft into Iraq for the aforementioned brief war. During this time, British commanders in Egypt and Palestine took no action, for a number of reasons, including distrust of the Fighting French, and concerns about overextension at a time when the Italians were invading Egypt, and when German military power was waxing in the eastern Med, due to the fall of Greece. The British and Fighting French finally attacked on 8 June 1941, when British reconnaissance planes spotted German aircraft at Syrian airbases, and attacks on them were authorized. During the five-week campaign that followed, which ended in an Allied victory, the armed forces of the Syrian Republic and Greater Lebanon fought with the Axis forces, and specifically the Vichy French authorities, who controlled the war with limited assistance from the Germans and Italians. However, this does not mean that the people of either Syria or Lebanon supported the Axis, as with Iraq, and likely reflected the rhythms of colonialism more than any great feeling either way." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9djv62" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "How is this a historical question?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d5d651u", "d5dgrmw" ], "score": [ 15, 11 ], "text": [ "I'm sure a specialist in social history can be more helpful here, but urban Rome was a relatively lawless place. There were constant fires, night was regarded a very dangerous time to be on the street, there was no police force and lots of criminals. Protection at night came from weapons and company, just like it would today in a dangerous city. \n\nAs there was no police force no common crime would be formally investigated. However, as would be expected in any society, people had family and friends and other contacts who could help them if they or someone they knew was a victim of crime (especially the client relationships that connected almost everybody in Rome, no matter how distantly, with an actually powerful person). Some Collegium were also like proto-mafia criminal gangs that could probably help find things out and get revenge for a price. \n\nSerious crime in the ruling classes was a totally different matter. Aside from the very public political violence that was a major factor in the collapse of the Republic, which by its public nature didn't really need much investigation (and on numerous occasions resulted in the execution of citizens without trial, an anathematic concept to the Republican Romans), moral and physical crimes in the aristocracy under various circumstances could be framed as serious public issues. Examples include Clodius sneaking into a girls only religious ceremony in a private household in the time of Caesar or the deflowering of a Vestal Virgin. When Augustus recreated the state, it was on strong moral and physical authority and any challenge to that, whether it be from excessive criticism from politicians or the sexual misconduct of his daughter, was investigated and punished severely. \n\nAfter Augustus political crime took a different dimension. The Emperor was the state, and any threat to his authority was a threat to Rome. Such threats abounded internally, especially early on in the Empire or when an Emperor's authority waned for some reason or another. From Augustus the use of informants and specialists that could almost be called secret police became normal practice in the Empire, especially Rome itself. *Maiestas*, or treason, became perhaps the most serious crime of all and was sniffed out thoroughly by imperial servants and punished severely \n\nMy main sources off the top of my head are Daily Life in Ancient Rome by Jerome Carcopino and SPQR by Mary Beard (not really an academic source despite its author's pedigree). I think Beard references some primary source material in the form of Roman literature or poetry that makes light or complains of the dangers of Rome at night, but I can't say who these sources are as I've never read them. Any decent book on Augustus or the early Empire, like Eck's \"Age of Augustus\" should give an outline of political crime in the Principate. ", " > As there was no police force no common crime would be formally investigated.\n\nOtherwise good answer from u/PapurusCursos and I generally agree that the Roman Empire was largely a self-help society, but I'll have to disagree with this point. The Romans DID have institutions of law enforcement in place and were indeed 'deeply engaged in maintaining public order' as Christopher Fuhrmann showed in his newish book ([review](_URL_0_)). If you were wronged, there were different authorities you could turn to - in the provinces, this was different military officials solely or almost solely concerned with policing, such as the *beneficiarii*, *stationarii*, *regionarii* and *frumentarii*, or then you could petition to local magistrates. We have hundreds of papyri left from Roman Egypt where the inhabitants (note - not even just citizens, just all subjects of Rome) petition to the Roman authorities to redeem injustices they have suffered. The reported crimes range from illegal pasturing to stolen olives, from verbal insults to physical abuse, rape, or even murder. The authorities are often asked either to catch and bring to justice a named wrong-doer, or sometimes to investigate when the identity of the criminal was unknown, as was often the case with thefts. \n\nUnfortunately, these petitions, while extremely interesting documents, have quite clear limitations when we try to assess just how effective the law enforcement structure was. Since papyri pretty much only survive in the dry climate of Egypt and nothing like them has been found almost anywhere else in the Roman world, we can't say just how well the policing institution of Egypt (in many respects a highly unique and peculiar province) was representative of the whole Empire. Just because a subject applied for help from the authorities does not mean that he or she received it; and although some court proceedings and correspondence of on-going or finished police/law cases survive from Egypt, too, the data is just not big enough and too random (in terms of geographic locations, time spans etc.) to make any conclusions about how common it was to submit a petition and then be successful in getting justice in court. Also, we don't know what went on in Roman Empire policing outside of the Egypt petitions, like, what these policing officers could (or would) do in the field without a formal petition or orders from higher officers. The picture that emerges from the Egypt petition is that they could intervene spontaneously if public disorder arose, and even help individuals in informal dispute solution, hold potential plaintiffs that tried to escape etc. \n\nSo, back to u/Bears85's question. The Empire did not have a 'public prosecution' system that chased criminals that had offended private persons; unless someone petitioned to investigate the murder you've commited, you'd get away. But, let's imagine that this happens and look at this question from the victim's perspective. What would you do, if you, say, wake up to find that your son has been murdered, robbed and killed during the night? \n\nYou would go to the authorities. We don't know yet why the Romans petitioned to any particular authority in any particular instance - the local magistrate, governor of the province, or army officials were all just as likely to receive petitions about illegal pasturing or violent assault. It's quite likely that your personal relations and the accessibility to any official were among the biggest factors. Anyway, you decide that the best person to petition to is the local army centurion, because a reply from the governor might take months (showing that the law enforcement system did have substantial weaknesses!). You go to the village scribe to get a formulaic petition written - the fees of the scribes were modest, so unless you were among the poorest of the poor, you could afford to petition even if you were illiterate. In the petition, you describe what has happened - it's also always good to add some heart-wrenching emotional pleading, e.g. \"my only son and safety for my old days has been cruelly robbed from me\" - and request that the centurion starts investigating the murder. After a few days, the centurion receives the petition and decides that it is convincing, and sends some of his policing soldiers to investigate. \n\nNow, what would this investigation entail? Unfortunately, we know hardly anything about the process. But, from court proceedings and orations, we know that the evidence brought up in court consists basically completely of witness testimonials, accounts, or letters - no hairs, footprints or anything that would point to some sophisticated forensics methods. So, the military officials would probably ask you who could be guilty of your son's murder: did your son have any enemies? Have any slaves disappeared or acted suspiciously? Is there anyone, who witnessed the crime? If the police officials cannot find any suspects through questioning, that would probably be the end of it.\n\nBut, say, it happens that the soldiers do find a suspect - your son's friend was suspicious of their common friend who left with him after a night in the brothel, someone else has seen him wearing bloody clothes on that same night, and this same friend has suddenly disappeared from town. The Romans had surprisingly efficient systems in place for catching fugitive slaves - it's unclear, though, if the same systems were used to catch private offenders on the run and just how difficult it was to live as an 'outlaw' in Rome. Most likely, in a time before photographs and as long as you were not a public figure: not that difficult at all. \n\nBut, so we can answer your last question, let's imagine the soldiers were able to catch this murderer and prove his guilt in court before jury (in Roman court, establishing guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt' was not always necessary - it was sometimes enough for the prosecution to prove that *he is the kind of person who would do this*!). What would the murderer's punishment be? Well, the Roman law system was differential - where on the social pyramid the murderer and the murdered stood made all the difference (citizenship status, wealth, birth etc.), and although the Roman laws could sometimes be astonishingly specific, the verdict was also largely dependent on the interpretation of the judging magistrate. If you murdered someone of considerably lower status, your punishment would probably be a fine of some sort, tops; if it was a slave, no punishment whatsoever (although the owner of the slave had the right to claim compensation). If you killed someone around your equal, the punishment would have been either a hefty fine or exile. If, however, you killed someone clearly above your status, you could get capital punishment - which, for a citizen, usually took the form of a beheading, which was the more honourable way to die. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2012/2012-09-13.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cv14tjm" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "There are plenty of written letters from troops during the Civil War - Ken Burns' documentary on the subject frequently cites them. They also display an incredible variance in the degree of literacy from soldier to soldier. The same Union that had a trooper writing like this:\n\n > Ituk this time tunnite to informe you that iwas well and hope these fieu lines will finde you all well. We are in roller County. Yesteday we went 40 milse back to flat top mountain. If we would stade on the easte river twenty four ours longer we woode aseede Richmonde ([1](_URL_1_))\n\nAlso had a soldier writing like this:\n\n > Hearing that there is a mail going out this afternoon I thought I would improve the opportunity and write you a few lines.\n\n > I am sorry to tell you I am not very well at present. I was taken sick about three weeks ago with chronic diarhea, and have been in the hospital about a fortnight. I have been pretty sick but I am getting better now and hope to be well in a few days. ([2](_URL_2_))\n\nRegional variance aside, literacy would also depend tremendously on where immigrant Americans came from and how long ago they made the trek. The Nordic countries in the 19th century had a fine tradition of literacy and even peasants were literate; those under the Romanov yoke were far less likely to be educated.\n\nPostal services were also an essential part of state services throughout the Civil War. In total, there were 28,586 post offices in Civil War America, of which 8,535 were operated by the Confederacy during the War ([3](_URL_0_)). \n\nLiteracy was relatively common throughout the Union, albeit in wildly different degrees of development and depending on a host of factors. Postage was a chronic problem for the Confederacy, as were paper shortages; although services were hardly great, the importance of mail in the Civil War is worth noting. I hope someone comes by with more detailed evidence of American literacy specifically and I hope the information I brought along is helpful." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://postalmuseum.si.edu/exhibits/current/binding-the-nation/a-nation-divided/confederate-postal-system.html", "http://www.civilwararchive.com/LETTERS/canter.htm", "http://www.civilwararchive.com/LETTERS/norton.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dyjp81n" ], "score": [ 81 ], "text": [ "[The front page thread in question] (_URL_2_)\n\nIt would be safe to say that Winston Churchill is a controversial figure historically. He was an MP for 65 years and Prime Minister for 9. He held 3 of the four Great Offices of State. Over the course of his lifetime it would be fair to say he had an enormous influence on British foreign and colonial policy. As a significant figure in politics in a time in which the British and other world empires were falling apart, it is natural that he should be involved or implicated in some of the atrocities and events which were perpetrated in the name of preserving the Empire. His critics over the course of the years since his death have refined these various acts of which he is accused into a list which is more or less identical between critics, with a few additions or subtractions depending on the length of the piece. Shashi Tharoor, perhaps one of Churchill's most ardent critics, goes through the list [here] (_URL_3_), the Independent probably has dozens of these articles on record, for example [here] (_URL_4_) and [here] (_URL_1_). However, in the pursuit of revisionism, Winston Churchill the man has become divorced from Winston Churchill the legend. An understanding of both is important to truly evaluate him.\n\nAs mentioned before, Winston Churchill was politically active for 65 years, and was a soldier before that. The sheer length of his service makes it impossible to go over every single controversial event and decision in his life with a fine toothed comb here. In any case, far more able historians than I have already done so in far greater detail than can be achieved here. With this in mind, I will look at a few events throughout his life which I believe can help us to understand him truly. \n\nThe first of these events is the weeks leading up to the 4th of June 1940. Nazi Germany had conquered almost all of Western Europe, the French army had collapsed and British troops were in full retreat. The British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, who for so long had tried to avoid war with Germany, had resigned and been replaced by Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty. While Churchill sat in Number 10 Downing Street, Chamberlain and his close ally Lord Halifax, the Foreign Secretary, still retained much of their influence within the party, Churchill's premiership was unstable at best. An offer arrived from the Italian ambassador to enter into peace talks, an offer which Chamberlain and Halifax urged Churchill to accept. The war was lost, Hitler had won, and the best course of action was to sue for peace before it was too late. Churchill disagreed, he recognised Hitler for a tyrant and believed that Britain could fight on alone and survive, albeit with the help of the United States, who he was desperately trying to bring into the war, to no avail. Matters came to a head in June, and it looked like Britain might have to leave the war before it had even gotten properly underway. Churchill however was having none of it. Going above Chamberlain and Halifax, he gathered the Outer Cabinet and made a dramatic speech, at the climax of which he stated: \"if this long island story of ours should end at least, let it only end when each one of us lies on the ground choking on his own blood\". They were convinced. Six days later he made a speech to the House of Commons promising that Britain would never surrender. The rest, of course, is History. By providing much needed political leadership, Winston Churchill single-handedly saved western Europe from the Nazis, and quite possibly the world.\n\nThis is a prime example of Churchill the legend. This is the Churchill who was voted as the greatest Briton of all time. This is the Churchill who my Nan has a porcelain bust of above her fireplace, the Churchill who saved the world. It also is a legend arising from just over a month of a political career that spans decades. This is the go to moment of Churchill's life that his fans and apologists go to as evidence that he was a great man. My account can be found reflected almost word for word in Darkest Hour, or in Boris Johnson's recent biography of Churchill (incidentally while not a paragon of historical neutrality, I would recommend reading it, not least because it tells us almost as much about Boris Johnson as it does about Winston Churchill). However, it is only one side of the story.\n\nThe second event that I would like to draw attention to is the Bengal Famine of 1943. u/RajaRajaC and u/naugrith go into excellent detail on both sides of the debate about the underlying factors causing the Bengal Famine [here] (_URL_0_), but suffice to say that in 1943 there was a chronic shortage of food in Bengal which would eventually claim up to 2 million lives. Winston Churchill, made well aware of this by the Viceroy of India, refused to divert food shipments from Australia and refused offers of help from Canada. When pressed on the matter, he stated that it was the Bengalis' own fault for \"breeding like rabbits\", and that India was home to a \"beastly people with a beastly religion\", presumably clapping his hands in genocidal glee. By his refusal to aid the people of Bengal, Churchill was directly responsible for the deaths of 2 million people.\n\nThis is also Churchill the legend. This account fails to take into account the logistical challenges of managing food supplies for a global empire which also happens to be at the height of a global war. I am yet to see an account blaming Churchill for having started the famine, and so every single death from starvation cannot be attributed to him, although his refusal to ship extra food to Bengal means that he is certainly responsible for a great part of them. Where above we saw the legend of Churchill the hero, here we have the legend of Churchill the murderer. Neither of these legends are wholly accurate and neither of them are particularly useful in isolation for allowing us to find out who Churchill the man was.\n\n\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/88pu95/was_winston_churchill_partly_responsible_for_the/", "https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html", "https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/8h94ma/til_that_a_young_winston_churchill_was_on_a_south/", "https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/10/in-winston-churchill-hollywood-rewards-a-mass-murderer/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c4a233352086", "https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/winston-churchill-gary-oldman-darkest-hour-prime-minister-conservative-empire-india-colonies-second-a8174201.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cx0dv8h" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "When you don't even know where to start looking, it's actually a great time to make *responsible* use of Wikipedia!\n\nMany Wiki articles, especially on more famous topics, include a Notes and a References section at the end. It's a great place to look for broad overviews of a topic. You have to be a little careful with the dates of the sources listed--a lot of times they're older ones available for free on the Internet--but it's a great way to start when a JSTOR search doesn't turn up much that's useful. Another good place to look for broad overviews is a series like the Oxford History volume that addresses the time period you want, or the New Cambridge Modern History volume. They might not give you the latest and greatest scholarship, but our knowledge of the basic events hasn't changed much since their publication. I'd start by checking my library for the Wiki sources and the relevant Oxford and Cambridge volumes. A little Googling should help you figure out which specific books you want from each series.\n\nYou will do a much better job explaining why certain events are interesting, if you find ones that are interesting *to you* instead of asking other people what is interesting to them." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cofg89b" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "The powers and responsibilities (as well as identities) were fixed in the *Golden Bull* of 1356 under Charles IV. of the Luxembourgs. Although generally not much of it was new this was the first time that the established traditions, understandings and agreements were written down in a single proper document.\n\nBesides setting a fixed protocol for the election process they had quite a few neat privileges. For example they were allowed to collect tolls and mint their own money. \nBut I think most electors' favourite parts were on one hand the forced primogenitur, meaning the electoral lands would always be inherited in full by a single heir instead of getting split up between eligible parties, and on the other hand far-reaching legal immunity.\n\nThis immunity is primarily found in the *privilegium de non appellando illimitatum*, which granted all electors the unlimited right to forbid their subjects from appealing an electorate court's decision at the Supreme Courts of the Holy Roman Empire (the *Reichskammergericht* and the *Reichshofrat*). \nCoupled with that is also the *privilegium de non evocando*, which let them forbid their subjects from primarily calling on the Imperial court and skipping the local one entirely (although some protected classes could always do so regardless); this was later made a general principle with the introduction of the *Reichskammergericht* in the big reform of 1495.\n\nAnd of course one should not fail to mention the political power that came with those privileges and the fact that the Emperor and everyone who was interested in becoming his successor had to be best chums with them, especially during the traditional pre-electional round of bribery and political concessions." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d322f6g" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ " > I've heard arguments which claim that British soldiers were ordered to walk across no-man's land to the German lines, because British military command feared that newly recruited soldiers would not be able to follow complex orders. Was this actually the case?\n\nWhile it was believed that having the New Army divisions attack in small groups would make them more difficult to command and lead to disorganization, in reality they did not walk. In fact, units don't seem to have taken the suggestions of 4th Army tactical notes to mind at all. Robin Prior and Trevor Wilson found that of 80 British battalions that went over the top July 1st, 1916, 53 were already in no man's land before 07:30 and thus attacked over a shorter distance, 12 advanced at something close ton walking pace, but this was behind a creeping barrage mostly, and the other 15 ran at the German trenches from the parapet at 07:30. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d28apvh", "d28b2jk", "d28nzpu" ], "score": [ 11, 6, 4 ], "text": [ "Books were generally sold unbound as loose manuscripts. The verbose title page served the purpose today served by the blurbs on the back cover: To advertise the contents such that a prospective reader (and customer!) might be encouraged to buy the book.\n\nThis practice of long descriptive titles persisted into the 1860s and 1870s when they gradually became less common as the popular press was increasingly dominated by serialized novels.\n\nThere was GREAT thread about 2 years ago that discussed this issue in more detail: _URL_0_", "As for numbered sequels, this seems to become common sometime in the 1890s or early 20th century. The first instance of multiple numbered sequels is the collections of *Winnetou* stories (numbered I-IV) by German pulp-Western author Karl May. I think *Winnetou I* was first collected into a single published volume around 1896. Some other English and American pulp writers of roughly the same period, like E.E. \"Doc\" Smith also published numbed series slightly later in the 1920s and 1930s, suggesting the practice was becoming well-established by then.\n\nIt makes sense that this practice would have been carried over into the early movie industry -- several of the early Hollywood screenwriters got their start writing plot-driven fiction for the pulp magazine market. ", "the early/mid 18th Century saw the rise in popularity of the novel as a literary form, and as such writers at the time almost had to guide or teach the public how to read long prose narratives (whilst novels did exist before this time the most accessible forms to the wider population were plays and perhaps poetry). This often results in giving away a lot of the setting and plot points at the start, in order to draw in a public unused to reading, and sometimes even including the ending (Roxana: The Fortunate Mistress: Or, A History of the Life and Vast Variety of Fortunes of Mademoiselle de Beleau, Afterwards Called the Countess de Wintselsheim, in Germany, Being the Person known by the Name of the Lady Roxana, in the Time of King Charles II being a good example of this). Chapters are also rigidly defined and usually come with a 'previously...' to recap what the reader has already processed, and allow for a much more protracted discourse. \n\nOf course this leads to some incredibly bloated texts with zero suspense, the epitome of this being 'Clarissa; or the History of a Young Lady: Comprehending the Most Important Concerns of Private Life, and particularly shewing the distresses that may attend the misconduct both of parents and children, in relation to marriage'. But hey, that's just my personal gripe against 18thC literature" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1z77ky/why_were_book_titles_of_the_19th_and_18th_century/" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dgoos9d", "dgqg9wx" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "If you're into archaeology and the societal impact of norse migration to Britain I highly recommend picking up two books by Francis Pryor:\n\n* Britain AD; Harper Press, 2004\n* Britain in the Middle Ages: An Archaelogical History; Harper Press, 2006\n\nBoth are well written and easy to read introductions to both anglo-saxon and viking age society in Britain. Britain AD was made into a television series as well, although personally I much prefer the book.", "The Norman conquest: The Battle of Hastings and the Fall of Anglo-Saxon England by Marc Morris is a pretty good resource to start out with. It does well at breaking down the history of Britain and the Scandinavian influence prior to 1066 and the factors that led to William's conquest. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cser50b" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "From 1204AD:\nA Spanish traveller named Clavijo remarked that the Greeks of Trebizond \n > \"arm themselves with bows and swords, like the Turks, and ride the very same way\". According to Mark C. Bartusis this last phrase means \"that they rode nomad-style with short stirrups, almost in a crouch, wich allowed the greater mobility in the saddle rquired of horse archery.\" \n\nDuring the beginning of the twelfth century horse archery in the Byzantine army was in the hands of foreign mercenaries, mostly Turks. The other nomadic peoples the Byzantines encountered (Alans, Tourkopouloi, Cumans) were used as light cavalry. The only native Byzantines using the bow were light infantry troops, of which we know very little.\n\nSource: The Late Byzantine Army: 1204-1453. By Mark C. Bartusis.\n\nDuring the late Byzantine Empire the Byzantine Armies employed mostly mounted archers who were mercenaries from the nomadic peoples on the borders. \n\nAnother source (Byzantine Armies 866-1118, Ian Heath) notes how archery in the Byzantine army was in 'a steady decline' since the 8th century. \n > “Tacita Leo VI had cause to complain that archery has wholly been neglected and has fallen into disuse amongst the Romans. He then proposed the reintroduction of enforced archery practice. Leo also reformed the cavalry in such a wat that two men out of every five were archers and no longer carried lances.\" (note: Leo IV died 11 may 912)\n\nThe Armies of the Roman Empire consisted mostly of heavy infantry using offensive tactics to drive of the enemy. Archers were mostly used as support. From ‘The Roman Army at War 100BC-AD 200. By Adrian Keith Goldsworthy’: \n\nDuring a battle against the Alans, a Sarmatian tribe mostly using shock cavalry:\n > “His [Arrian's] formation was therefore designed to counter this [shock cavalry] threat, and may not jave been used against cavalry who fought from a distance. Arrian’ legions were formed with the first four ranks armed with Pila. The first rank placed the butts of their weapons on the ground and held them firmly at an angle of 45 degrees towards the enemy. The three ranks behind the first were to hurl their pila, then the eight rank would have to throw them 15 m. merely to clear their own formation. (…) behind the the legionaries was a ninth rank of foot-archers, with both horse-archers and artillery firing over the heads of these nine ranks. (…) the auxiliary infantry were similarly supported by archers and artillery firing over them. ”\n\n > “When Mark Antony campaigned against the Parthians he included more of such troops, with the result that his infantry suffered far less. Arrians’s army in cappadocia contained an exceptionally high proportion of auxiliary archers, to protect the infanry from the heavy cavalry “showing how the Roman Army could adapt to such threaths.”\n\nWhile this does not answer your question, i hope it helps with the difference in role during the specified time.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfiawwu", "cfilcvx" ], "score": [ 93, 6 ], "text": [ "Yes, actually, in the British army during the Revolution a new form of urban fighting called 'Street firing' had been developed. It consisted of a rank of men in line firing, and switching out the front lines. The first line would fire a volley, step aside and let the line behind move on up and fire their volley, while the front line would move to the back and reload. This kind of street fighting was optimal in the days where soldiers were equipped with something like the 'Brown Bess' musket where you only had to aim in a general direction and pull the trigger. Fighting in this fashion was also optimal for retreating aggressively down a, for example, London street, but when it was in use during the Lexington/Concord battle of 1775, it failed quite miserably. It was originally meant to be put in use in tight quarters, like I said earlier, while for instance retreating through a city or a narrow street, but when it was put in use by Captain Walter Laurie of the British Army, his forces were surrounded by open plains, and not by buildings. On top of this, the Infantry that Laurie commanded, didn't fully understand the tactic, and confusion followed quickly. Since Laurie (Exactly like the incident with the American Militia earlier in the day) hadn't actually given an order to fire, when a musket suddenly went off, whoever was in line to fire, did so, assuming the order to fire had been given already. But they didn't bother retreating to the back to follow the tactic. The Americans fired in return, and routed the British who ran for Lexington and collapsed as soon as they arrived, and they were finally allowed some rest after a rather long, and taxing day, of fighting - The long day filled with fighting and marching might also explain away whoever fired the first shot. ", "The French in the Austerlitz campaign used a strongpoint tactic - but I'm unaware if this was doctrine or a inspiration. \n\nAt Haslach-Junigingen, Dupont put the grenadiers of his division into a fortified church and then put out skirmishers at the village edge. When the Austrian columns attacked, they were drawn into the village and where they were confronted by the fortified redoubt. The Austrians then began attacking it while the French reserve, held outside of the town, then advanced, blocked the exits and counter-attacked, routing the Austrians. \n\nThe Austrians then sent more columns and the French reset the trap several times. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cu2tvx2", "cu2uml5", "cu2z3ki" ], "score": [ 42, 81, 7 ], "text": [ "Can't speak to prices but it would definitely have been for upper class folks in terms of affordability. But in regards to who did the actual paintings most masters had apprentices who would start off making the paints and supplies and then eventually would learn do larger parts of the paintings. The master would handle composition and fine details like hands and faces. As time progressed master painters had large workshops to pump out paintings and prints in order to meet demand. Rembrandt is known to have had a rather large workshop and sometimes historians have a hard time telling if he or an apprentice were the one to actually create the painting. ", "I also can't speak to the actual prices, but to add on to the \"workshop\" concept sammer is talking about here, a couple months ago Noah Charney was [interviewed by NPR](_URL_0_) on his new book *The Art of the Forgery* and touched upon this issue. \n\nLike sammer said, works by great artists with workshops were often a \"mixture,\" with pupils painting some things like backgrounds, but the \"master\" handling more difficult elements like faces, eyes, and hands. \n\nSomething interesting he noted was that the masters may have gotten more involved or even handled the whole portrait / painting themselves depending on the price paid. In relevant part from the interview linked above, he states: \n\n > We tend to think of artists as individuals creating the work of art in their entirety and that is not the way it has been for many centuries. That's a very romantic notion of how art is created. ... All of the great old masters ran art studios and depending on how much you paid them, they would create themselves a relevant proportion of the work of art.\n\n > If you want a Rubens, for example, you pay him the maximum amount then he paints everything himself and he designs it, too. You pay him the minimum, it's still called a Rubens, but he supervises and designs the object, but it might be entirely painted by his pupils and, in practice, it's usually a mixture. Faces, eyes and hands are almost always done by the master because they're the more difficult (if you're talking about portraits). But backgrounds, architectural elements, still lifes — those were almost never painted by the master. And yet anything coming out of the master studio is considered the work of Rubens.", "To add upon the price thing, it is nearly impossible to measure costs like that in dollars and cents. Historical economies were differently from modern economies, so even if you said something like \"30 1 oz gold coins\" and then calculated how much that would be worth now, the buying power of that would likely be vastly different. It would make more sense to discuss in terms of what one could have bought instead of dollars and cents. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.npr.org/2015/06/23/412244490/could-the-masterpiece-be-a-fake-profit-revenge-and-the-art-of-forgery" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cltrs6c", "clue421" ], "score": [ 3, 4 ], "text": [ "Do you have a pic because I am not quite sure what you are talking about.", "Hi there, thank you for your question.\n\nAs obvious as this might sound, these baking ovens were used to prepare any food which needed baking. This was not limited to just bread, however.\n\nDuring the Early Modern Period, popular baked foods (besides breads) included pies and casseroles. If the owner was rich enough to have an oven large enough to accomodate it, cuts of meat could be baked as well. A griddle or baking stone might also be placed inside and used to make pancakes or something similar.\n\nThere were two different designs which were common during this time: 'white' and 'black' ovens. Each design transferred heat to the food differently. White ovens have the combustion chamber seperate from the food while black ovens have the food placed in the same chamber as the fire is built. Their names referred to the colour the food's chamber would take on with use.\nThe fire would be built in the oven and fed until the temperature rose to the desired level, then the ashes would be mopped or broomed out and the food placed inside.\n\nSource: Ken Albala. Food in Early Modern Europe. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2003. Pages 96, 98.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ci4n9qi" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Your friend is wrong. Very, very, wrong.\n\nJohn Ellis gives the following figures for German losses of tanks, armored cars, tank destroyers and self-propelled guns:\n\nWestern front: Approx. 4,000\n\nNorth Africa: Approx. 2,000\n\nEastern front: Approx. 44,000\n\nFurther, you generally had between 60-80 percent of all Axis forces concentrated on the Eastern Front at any given period after 1941. The Soviet Union absorbed the majority of German military might. There are precise numbers somewhere, I'll have to look them up though.\n\nThis isn't to say the Soviets would have won on their own. It's possible, but there's way too many 'what ifs' to make any kind of accurate guess...and we wouldn't want to get into speculation within the hallowed halls of /r/askhistorians." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f39qp1d" ], "score": [ 14 ], "text": [ "It used to be thought that the shift was caused by individualistic samurai used to fighting in duels being trounced by Mongol/Chinese/Koreans fighting in formation in the Mongol Invasions. But this has been disproven. As I wrote about [here](_URL_0_), samurai did not fight battles in duels and according to Chinese sources they were very well organized.\n\nFor the infantry shift, the theory that I think makes the most sense I read about from Thomas Conlan in *Weapons & Fighting Techniques of the Samurai Warrior, 1200-1877 AD*, though I don't know if he first came up with it. In order the secure the loyalty of provincial lords and allow them to mobilize troops in the Nanbokuchō, the Muromachi-bakufu implemented a system of *hanzei*, which allowed *shugo* to take half the tax revenue of their province (with exceptions). This allowed *shugo* to raise and organize significant number of troops. The bakufu would try and fail to cancel the *hanzei*, and in fact the *shugo* would go and illegally hog more and more of the provincial tax revenue as time went on. So where before hand small banners would all come together to form one big army under a central commander, now we find forces named, and so implicitly raised and organized, by provinces (and then even more detailed local units by the mid Sengoku). While cavalry still dominated the Nanboku-chō, provincially organized big units have the chance to be raised and drilled together, and the *shugo* now have the power and resources to pay for such drilling. Where-as small bands of household levies on foot would quickly get run down by a cavalry charge, larger units of drilled infantry can stand in formation with the *yari*, which prevented cavalry from charging home, and without the ability to charge home cavalry couldn't (by itself) break these new infantry formations. The first time we find this in written sources are in the Hatakeyama Succession Crisis and the following Ōnin War, where we find significant mention of people fighting with the *yari* and also these new *yari* infantry not only holding their own but defeating forces of cavalry. Afterwards we not only see an increase of infantry-based armies, but also cases of horsemen making the conscious decision to dismount to fight." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9g56y0/did_feudal_japanese_samurai_actually_pair_off/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c4ij56f", "c4ijcsi", "c4ijhf7", "c4ijuhe", "c4ijycb", "c4ik3vf", "c4ila9q", "c4imy0f", "c4ipxk6", "c4j15wz" ], "score": [ 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.\n\n(I'm actually just posting so I can find this later and read the good suggestions)", "Hardball by Chris Matthews is actually pretty interesting if you're into political science. There's a series of books on maps of Civil War battlefields, but I can't remember the author. I'll see if I can find out and post again later.", "I'm reading [1861: The Civil War Awakening](_URL_0_) by Adam Goodheart at the moment, and it's pretty good. It covers the mood of the country in the lead-up to the Civil War. Might be worth checking out!", "I read [A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution](_URL_0_) for a constitutional history course, and it was definitely one of the more interesting reads regarding the framing of the original constitution and the challenges the founders faced early in the beginning. ", "I've read *Alexander Hamilton* by Ron Chernow at least five times. It's that good; it reads like a novel. Chernow's pretty sympathetic to Hamilton, which sometimes gets people all fussed, but didn't bother me. \n\nIn that same time period, anything by Joseph J. Ellis (*Founding Brothers*) is pretty solid. Actually, go read *Founding Brothers.* It's excellent.\n\n*The President and the Assassin* by Scott Miller is also a good read - it's about the assassination of President McKinley, and the politics of empire in turn-of-the-century America.\n\nHope this helps! I have more titles I'd recommend, but I tried to think of ones you'd find the most interesting. (: \n\n", "[The Private Life of Chairman Mao](_URL_0_) is a fantastic book about Mao Zedong written from the view of his personal physician Dr. Li Zhisui. I read it for a Chinese Communism class, and couldn't put it down. There are a few riskay parts, but overall a great book.\n Even though it isn't primarily about America, it has a great deal about the negotiations and relations between the US and China. ", "Read some Locke and Rousseau if you want to get into the minds of the Founding Fathers.", "[A People's History of the United States](_URL_0_) by Howard Zinn attempts to present American History from the perspective of the common people rather than economic and political elites.", "The Morris biography of Theodore Roosevelt is wonderful, and provides a good look into the politics of the turn of the century. I may be a bit biased, TR is one of my favorite people, but I feel it's a must read. ", "I read \"Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy\" by Michael H. Hunt earlier this semester and really enjoyed it. He attempts to cover a broad and complex topic but I think he does a pretty good job. One of the major themes is how racism has shaped U.S. foreign (and domestic) policy and he traces it from the American Revolution to the very late 20th century. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://www.adamgoodheart.com/1861-the-book" ], [ "http://www.amazon.com/Brilliant-Solution-Inventing-American-Constitution/dp/0156028727" ], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Private_Life_of_Chairman_Mao" ], [], [ "http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8fzjyj", "c8g1ojc", "c8g8wx5" ], "score": [ 3, 7, 2 ], "text": [ "You might enjoy [this article](_URL_0_), which makes some of the same points. Yes, in many cases Disney racism was a product of its time. After all, Disney was not in the business of offending people. But that doesn't make it right, either.", "This is later than the other movies you listed, but Aladdin (1992) played off of many negative stereotypes-- in particular, barbarism and backwardness--then in use, and still prevalent, about the Middle East. Case in point, the lyrics to the film's opening song:\n\n\"Oh I come from a land, from a faraway place\nWhere the caravan camels roam\nWhere it's flat and immense\nAnd the heat is intense\nIt's barbaric, but hey, it's home\"\n\n...\n\nWhen the wind's from the east\nAnd the sun's from the west\nAnd the sand in the glass is right\nCome on down\nStop on by\nHop a carpet and fly\nTo another Arabian night\"\n\nCheck out:\n\nMelani McAlister, *Epic Encounters: Culture, Media and U.S. Interests in the Middle East Since 1945*\n\n*Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People* by Jack Sheehan (There is also an excellent documentary of the same name based off of this book free on Youtube).", "Song of The South was controversial from the get. Before it was released, even, the producers were \"concerned\" about it possibly offending both \"negro haters\" and \"negro lovers\". Upon it's release it was condemned by the NAACP for presenting the master-slave relationship as a great time for everyone. Here is a copy of the statement they released.\n\n\"The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People recognizes in 'Song of the South' remarkable artistic merit in the music and in the combination of living actors and the cartoon technique. It regrets, however, that in an effort neither to offend audiences in the north or south, the production helps to perpetuate a dangerously glorified picture of slavery. Making use of the beautiful Uncle Remus folklore, 'Song of the South' unfortunately gives the impression of an idyllic master-slave relationship which is a distortion of the facts\".\n\nThe portrayal of the \"Indians\" in Peter Pan is slightly more complicated. It wouldn't have been considered at all \"progressive\" in any way, but it wasn't specifically condemned until much later. At the time (1953) this just wasn't an especially unusual way for Native Americans to be portrayed, so it would have almost been considered fairly innocent and neutral by the mainstream public. \n\nDumbo, which was released in 1941, also wasn't specifically criticized for it's weird stereotypey crows until the 60's, at least not in the mainstream. However, being that it was a cartoony form of blackface minstrel performers, and that blackface had been criticized from the get by progressives like Frederick Douglass, it's likely that some people out there were not thrilled with the portrayal. Blackface was astoundingly common for about a hundred years, and it had a really disturbing amount of mainstream acceptance. Prominent performers like Fred Astaire, Judy Garland, Shirley Temple and Bing Crosby all did blackface at some point in their film careers, and few eyelashes were batted.\n\nYou might want to check out Richard Schnickel's book \"The Disney Version\" for further info. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.cracked.com/article_15677_the-9-most-racist-disney-characters.html" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cn48wry" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "As for the actual process, it'll depend on the specific tech and region. Dispersion happens, as does independent development. The thing to remember, though, is that we can't assign excessive significance to similarities in things like weapons. While there's a plethora of ways to depict a sun god or the number 3, there's only so many effective ways to make a stick to hit someone on the head. Human bodies are essentially all the same, so the tools we make for them will converge towards certain designs." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]