Datasets:

---

Pavithree

/

askHistorians_18762_28144

like 0

{ "a_id": [ "cqjb2oi" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "This really depends on how you define \"liberalism\", \"democracy\", and \"successfully\", but Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany had democratic institutions forced upon them by the Allies, and so far that effort looks pretty successful." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ckxw04j" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Firstly, Lydia wasn’t particularly wealthy on the scale of large empires like Media, Persia, or Babylonia—but it was the closest such empire to the Greek city-states, which were relatively tiny by comparison. So it was the first large empire the Greeks became familiar with.\n\nSecondly, Lydia did introduce gold coinage, and used it to hire a lot of Greek mercenaries who then brought the coins back home. Using gold to pay common soldiers instead of reserving it for the use of nobility was a bit of an innovation—so the first time many Greeks were exposed to the widespread exchange of gold was via coins with Lydian stamps on them, and thus gold became popularly associated with Lydia." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdbqvww", "cdbwqq4" ], "score": [ 4, 3 ], "text": [ "While I don't really have an answer for 'when', it seems to me that with the export of Japanese culture, mostly post-WWII (anime/manga are big mediums there), people were simply introduced to it - and if exported earlier may possibly have spread out as swordfighting was still popular in Europe.\n\nAs to why, I think it comes down to three things: they're *exotic*, when fighting with one you have to rely heavily on *fluid motion* to be victorious, and they're *aesthetically pleasing* to look at.\n\nTo elaborate; while I am not an expert at all on swordfighting in the West, it seems to be mostly consisting of people in a full suit of armour (or close enough), trying to break the other person's shield first. In contrast, Japanese rarely used shields, and often opted for a *[wakizashi](_URL_2_)* instead. With less armour comes two things: It's easier to move, but you also have to move quicker and better than your opponent since one slice could be deadly. Which would you find more aesthetically pleasing, two people trying to brawl it out with broadswords and each trying to hit the other harder - or two people dancing around each other with quick motions, dodging and lashing out constantly to try and catch the opponent unawares?\n\nNow, this is more of a personal opinion of mine, but katana are much more aesthetically pleasing than their European counterparts. The handle being woven in a pattern instead of the more plain swords in use in Europe. [See here](_URL_0_) for two different katana, whereas [broadswords](_URL_1_) look (in my opinion) a lot more dull and boring.\n\nThat, and who doesn't want to be a ninja? :)", "There was already an inherent cultural value on katana's in japanese culture. Historically, due to lack of land, the regent (shogun) could not reward all his vasall samurai with land after he took power (as western kings did). Instead the samurai loyalty was rewarded with a \"high quality\" katana to distinguish the samurai (almost the same symbolic meaning as medals). Also, resources were scarce in Japan, so a well made sword was treasured and shown with great respect, and not because it was razor sharp.\n\nThis transfer of authority and power from the shogun to his samurai, symbolically embodied by the awarding of a katana, went hand-in-hand with the bushido philosophy, where the \"fighting spirit\" or bushido virtues was objectified into the katana. \n\nPopular culture and folk lore myth was bountiful on how the katana of legendary heroes would split their enemies (or rocks) in pieces. \n\nWestern culture also had a few of those myths (Excalibur) but when japanese movies and comics started showing in western society, those media contained plenty of stories on almost magical katanas, that could cut through steel as long as they were wielded by a hero who could direct their \"Chi\" or willpower (cue George Lucas).\n\nSo there isn't any historical incidents where the katanas were shown to be superior to western swords (actually reverse if you compare the height of western weapon smiths to the best japanese smiths). \n\nBut everyone have to agree that a well polished katana with the wavy hamon, looks incredibly badass!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antique_Japanese_katana.JPG", "http://timweske.com/images/weapons/pic01-l.jpg", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Daisho_katana_and_wakizashi_1.jpg" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9hsld5" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "The association of brooms with witches comes from the practice of European witches applying an ointment of Datura, Hensbane or Belladonna (Or really any plant belonging to the Solanaceae family, they're pretty much all what are called tropane alkaloid hallucinogens) intravaginally by applying it to the middle section of a broom and riding it. The earliest suggestion that this was the case comes from a 1324 investigation of Lady Alice Kyteler: *'In rifleing the closet of the ladie, they found a pipe of oyntment, wherewith she greased a staffe, upon which she ambled and galloped through thick and thin.'* \n\nApplying the hallucinogen (which could be incredibly poisonous) via the vagina bypassed the liver and was therefore slightly safer than ingesting it would be. A common theme of tropane alkaloid hallucinogens is the sensation of flight which lead the women using them to believe they were actually flying using the broom as a vehicle. Brooms actually weren't the only method of applying the ointment: pitchforks, baskets, and animal skin were also used but brooms tended to be what was most commonly depicted.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cedbtvh", "cb2wpb3" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The clan system is completely gone, people may talk about wearing their clan tartans (which were invented after the collapse of the clan system), but today people in Scotland are unlikely to think of their clan as a major part of their identity", "If somebody does post an answer, could you tell me how I could find out more about the Petrie clan?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "do49boo", "do58ipv" ], "score": [ 3, 5 ], "text": [ " > […] and occupying a territory north of the Macedonia […]\n\nI have a related question. Has the area connected to the name Macedonia changed over time? Did it ever (before the modern country) include most or all of what is now the F. Y. R Macedonia?", "To clarify the linguistic issue, Macedonian has \"deep ties to Bulgarian\" in much the same way that Danish has \"deep ties\" to Swedish: in both cases we have closely related languages existing in close proximity with a great deal of internal dialectal variation, and neither in each pair of languages 'derives' from the other or is somehow prior.\n\nI don't think there's a whole lot to say specifically about the adoption of the name *Macedonia*, except that it was a geographical term in use in the 18th and 19th centuries.\n\nTo give a condensed version of [Victor Friedman's 1975 article](_URL_0_) on early Macedonian nationalism, South Slavic nationalism started to become a thing in the late eighteenth century, and early on South Slavs in what's now Macedonia and Bulgaria were fairly united in forging a literary language that wasn't Hellenized, but split on what region's dialect to use as a base. Macedonian nationalists came in both unitarian and separatist flavors, as Friedman puts it. Unitarians wanted a single Macedo-Bulgarian standard with some significant Macedonian influence, while separatists felt that their language was too distinct from the nascent Bulgarian literary language for for a unified standard to be usable. On the Bulgarian side, compromise looked like Macedonians adopting the standard based on dialects spoken in Eastern Bulgaria, and Bulgarian philologists and linguists maintained the position that Macedonian was a totally fabricated 19th- or 20th-century corruption of Bulgarian until quite recently. It took some time before Macedonian nationalists really began to be explicit about the project of a national Macedonian language, since doing so would alienate presses and governmental authorities, first in the Ottoman Empire and later in Bulgaria and Greece, though Serbia was somewhat more permissive about the issue.\n\nAs far as structural differences between Bulgarian and Macedonian, Macedonia has the misfortune in an era that defines nations as languages to sit astride a bundle of isoglosses that fan out from the north-eastern corner of the country. Isoglosses are geographic boundaries for a given linguistic feature. Often we see several of them line up together, and they produce a situation where people from areas on either side can't understand each other, but just as often we don't, and there is a gentle shading of one variety into another over tens or hundreds of miles. In a [1985 article](_URL_1_), Friedman describes the situation quite well:\n\n > There is a bundle of significant isoglosses running roughly along the Serbian-Bulgarian political border, but at the Macedonian-Bulgarian political border these isoglosses fan out across Macedonia, so that while the transition from Serbo-Croatian to Bulgarian is relatively rapid, that from Serbo-Croatian to Macedonian to Bulgarian is very gradual.\n\nWhile the linguistic situation in Macedonia is rather complicated, with basically any feature you want to pick showing different dialectal distributions, there are still Macedonian features we can find even in our earliest Slavic manuscripts. As noted in the introduction to Horace Lunt's 1952 grammar of Macedonian (linked below), the Codex Zographensis shows characteristically Macedonian reflexes for certain Old Church Slavonic vowels.\n\nSo although it's not at all the case that Macedonian was invented out of whole cloth by Serbians after WWII, it wasn't really standardized until after WWII. As Friedman discusses, the West Central region was agreed upon as the base for the standard language. The first commission for a standard orthography produced a proposal that looked very Russian (and, unintentionally but more importantly at the time, I think, Bulgarian) in character. The second commission produced a second proposal that was more Serbian in nature, though the letters ѓ ѕ ќ /ɟ dz c/ were particular to Macedonian. About 7 years later, Horace Lunt produced an [English-language grammar of Macedonian](_URL_2_) (large pdf warning) in consultation with Macedonian scholars involved in codifying the literary language.\n\nAll of this is to say that while Macedonian and Bulgarian *are* closely related, and Standard Macedonian and a separate Macedonian identity are somewhat younger projects than their Bulgarian counterparts, it's really not the case that Macedonian or Macedonian identity derive from Bulgarian or Bulgarian identity." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://home.uchicago.edu/vfriedm/Articles/003Friedman75.pdf", "http://mahimahi.uchicago.edu/media/faculty/vfriedm/033friedman85.pdf", "http://damj.manu.edu.mk/pdf/0013%20Horace%20Lunt_Macedonian%20grammar%201952.pdf" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d2g1tkw" ], "score": [ 111 ], "text": [ "So the first thing that we must understand is that the term yellow had a significant place in Chinese history and the term yellow race did not necessarily originate from Europe. Louis XIV viewed a Chinese citizen in his court and described him as a 'young Indian.' Often the Chinese were described as a similar complexion to Europeans with a few exceptions for residents of southern China. \n\nBut, back to the concept of yellow in China. Yellow is considered one of the five 'pure' colors in ancient China and had been symbolic of the Emperor (especially the Emperor of the Middle Kingdom). It was claimed by many Chinese that they were descendants of the Yellow Emperor and originated from the valley of the Yellow River. With the invasion of the Manchus the idea of a Yellow culture appeared (There was a book called Yellow Book written by Fuzhi a seventeenth-century scholar).\n\nFrank Dikotter argues that the Chinese were active participants in creation of the idea of a yellow race. Primarily, he argues that the idea of a yellow race was not simply 'white racism.' It was an identity that became used for anti-Manchu and eventually anti-European movements. Racial discourses worldwide were not simply European created and authoritative narratives but much more complex.\n\nSource: \"Racial Discourses in China: Continuities and Permutations\" by Frank Dikotter. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjmgqf9" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Since nobody answered yet, I'll tell you what one of my Professors said to me: The prohibition of pigs might come from a nomadic livestyle. Pigs are one of the most efficient livestock animals (for food) in a dense, urban enviroment while completely useless with a nomadic livestyle, as you can't take pigs as easily with you like sheep, goats or cattle.\n\nI'd suggest you to re-phrase the question (asking about pigs in nomadic/non-nomadic livestyle and/or asking about the nomadic livestyle of the early Hebrew/Arab tribes) and possibly cross-post it on /r/AskAnthropology to get a more in depth answer." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cntbd9j" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "German Veterans were held with the up most respect by Hitler and Nazi-Germany. They were under the belief that the Germans had not failed during the First World War but instead the problem was the home front: specifically the Jews. \n\nBy this, it was believed that the Jews did not 'provide' for the WW1. They were the cause of failure by the German Army. Hitler also spewed lies that WW1 had indeed never ended. He stated that the Entente never entered Berlin, the capital of Germany, and thus World War 1 was simply on 'hiatus'. This is, of course, not true. Believe me, WW1 did indeed come to an end. \n\nHowever, based on this belief - the German people felt they were treated quite unfairly, especially under the Treaty of Versailles. Nazi Germany had set up a system of propaganda that only believed in the true German warrior but also that those on the home front had failed their task. Hitler himself served in WW1, however became unconscious during so and only woke up after Germany's defeat. \n\nHere are some WW2 examples of a 'the true German warrior' propaganda:\n_URL_0_\n\nHowever, I do not know how the individual German soldier would have been treated and has definitely interested me in further study. \n\nEDIT: Look at how Nazi-Germany treated 'disabled' persons (referred to as the Burden on Society) and a greater picture of Nazi-Germany may take place. \n\nEDIT 2: There were thousands of injured war veterans left out to starve after the return to WW1. Hitler did not believe in a social system to take care of the 'disabled'; however I am unsure if this included veterans. " ] }

[]

[ "https://i.imgur.com/xTtEWhE.jpg", "https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/11733/treatment-of-jewish-wwi-veterans", "https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/10dnqc/12000_jewish_soldiers_died_on_the_field_of_honor/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/2b7g1u/a_disabled_first_world_war_veteran_begging_on_the/cj2o13q", "http://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/adolf-hitler-during-memorial-day-at-the-war-memorial-nachrichtenfoto/463997923" ]

[ [ "http://imperialsoldier.deviantart.com/art/German-WWII-Propaganda-160061897" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cph2e5z" ], "score": [ 15 ], "text": [ "Fairly tense. There's still ongoing culture war between the segment of the population who identify more strongly as Chinese (post-1949 arrivals and their descendants, primarily Kuomintang voters) and the descendants pre-1949 inhabitants who identify more strongly as Taiwanese. \n\nThe differences are subtle, but the greater exposure to Japanese culture due to the 1895 and 1945 rule is a factor, as is of course the distinct sense of isolation from being the mainland, which like any other island allowed a distinct cultural identity to develop. \n\nWhen the Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist KMT retrenched on the island in 1945 after the Japanese surrender, they viewed the Taiwanese culture with a certain amount of disdain for its subservience to Japan (many, including some Indigenous Taiwanese had even served in the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II) and expressions of this distinct culture was suppressed in public life. \n\nTaiwan, meanwhile, had been developed by the Japanese to a greater extent than mainland China had been and the standard of living had risen with it, so there was a sense of simmering resentment on both sides and a very strong sense of Taiwanese civic life, especially when the KMT began taking control of core industries and handing out monopolies to loyalists so tobacco, sugar, tea, paper etc could be cheaply transported back to the mainland's crippled war economy. Inflation kicked in too.\n\nGovernment and law enforcement was increasingly riddled with grizzled army officers, many uniformed freebooters and fanatics, who'd earned their stripes from 1927 in the Civil War and then in the Sino-Japanese War, and weren't perhaps the most delicate hands when it came to maintaining order and goodwill. In the ranks of the Chinese garrisons policing the island, violence and petty crime was rife. Tension was brewing.\n\nOn 27 February 1947 bout of brutality toward a black market Taiwanese cigarette vendor from a Chinese official from the Alcohol and Tobacco Monopoly Bureau lit the touchpaper on a vicious crackdown now referred to as the 228 Incident when a crowd gathered and the Monopoly agent fired into them, killing a bystander. On 28 February, Taiwanese civilians seized official buildings - protesters outside the Governor-General's residence were fired upon, inflaming the already volatile situation. Factions formed and demands were issued, unrest spread to the mainland where Communists pitched in to pour oil on the fire.\n\nOn 8 March, a significant Nationalist army arrived on Taiwan from the mainland and the crackdown began in earnest, with political opposition to the KMT rounded up and executed with the death toll seen as somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000. This isn't a comparison I've seen anywhere, but the way it's viewed is reminiscent as Katyn in that it's seen (by the Taiwanese) as the decapitation of the Taiwanese elite, the real cream of intellectual and political life.\n\nUS diplomat George Kerr's eyewitness account of the event, *Formosa Betrayed*, is available in full [here](_URL_0_)\n\nBy the time the Nationalists had been forced from mainland China and onto Taiwan, the honeymoon period was well and truly over and the KMT were in a state of high anxiety. \n\nA state of martial law was declared, ostensibly to protect Taiwan from the Communist forces across the water, but this provided a screen for combating any and all perceived challenges to Nationalist rule. Also known as the White Terror, which lasted from 19 May 1949 to 15 July 1987 and resulted in the imprisonment of around 140,000 Taiwanese people accused of opposing the KMT.\n\n**Sources:** *Taipei 228 Memorial Museum* (I took lots of pictures of the displays, when I visited funding had just been withdrawn because KMT won the majority in the most recent election), *Taiwan's 228 Incident and the Politics of Placing Blame* by Craig A Smith and *Formosa Betrayed* by George Kerr. There's a woeful lack of books on the subject, frankly.\n\nEDITED: For clarity and George Kerr." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://homepage.usask.ca/~llr130/taiwanlibrary/kerr/front.htm#Prefac" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e48fqy2", "e48if22" ], "score": [ 4, 14 ], "text": [ "Do you have a specific area of Europe in mind? Or a specific surviving religious tradition? All of Europe from the first conversion to Christianity to the modern day is literally an entire continent and nearly 2000 years to account for.", "Mari people have practiced some form of traditional pre-Christian religion to the present day, and the Republic of Mari El (along the Volga) recognizes it as an official religion. This makes it the only territorial entity in Europe that treats a type of paganism as an officially recognized religion.\n\nThey get occasional journalistic articles written about them, but there's not really any good academic or popular histories written about them. You might want to check r/anthropology to see if anyone there has any good resources." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjujigg", "cjujt1q" ], "score": [ 11, 7 ], "text": [ "Two big reasons. \n\nI'm not sure if you've ever been around an angry horse, but they are quite a sight. A horse in battle isn't just standing and maneuvering about with consideration for it's surroundings, it's 500kg of muscle and hooves that is highly stressed and trained to attack with kicks. They are also twisting about, and are huge. Horses are fast, and very strong. A single kick could easily kill a man armor or not, and a horse will often fight on despite serious injuries. Now add to that an armored professional soldier who is swinging a weapon at you with the advantage of higher ground over you. Your swings up will be weaker and less accurate while his swings down are stronger. \n\nThe second reason is that cavalry's strength is in it's maneuverability and quick impact or shock tactics. Generally cavalry would ride in and attack, then likely either break away to regroup and attack again or pursue a fleeing enemy. They wanted to quickly break a unit and pursue it to ride it down, not stand in a protracted melee. Cavalry never wanted to be stationary because what you said could and did happen. \n\nThe best way to counter a cavalry charge was to stand your ground in a tight formation so that the cavalry has to halt or check it's charge and engage you without all the shock and impact. If this happened cavalry would often break off from the fight and try again. Cavalry was able to do this because they could get away from the melee quickly and would not be run down or caught in turn. It took an incredible amount of training, bravery, and experience to stand in the face of a cavalry charge but a veteran would know it was your best chance to survive. \n\nEdit: Finding any scholarly analysis on this was harder than I thought! I had been taking a professors word on it but I did manage to dig a few things up. As one might expect training manuals from ancient times are hard to come by. \n\nPatton wrote a manual on Sabre use, and deals with horseback quite a bit. The book, more of a pocket reader, is called *Manual for Sabre Exercise.* Patton describes the rider of the horse as a second weapon in the whole package of mounted combat, and emphasized that one should ride through and over opponents, not past them. \n\n > The saber is solely a weapon of offense and is used in conjunction with the other offensive weapon, the horse. \n\n > He is a unit in a line rushing on the enemy with the one idea of riding him down and transfixing him with his rigid saber, held at the position of charge saber.\n\nPatton wrote three or four other manuals on cavalry and sabre usage, most of which were out of date within a few years outside using them in colonial areas without modern weaponry to oppose you.\n\nMoving backwards in time there are writings regarding cavalry charges into infantry squares (generally a bad idea) regalling us with tales of horses charging full speed and jumping into and over the lines of infantry. I can tell you from working with horses that a horse would not do this without proper training. John Grant Malcolmson won a Victoria Cross for this very act in 1857 against Persians. \n\nGoing back more to the middle ages, The Schola Forum (a source of much of these sources) found some interesting images of warhorses being trained to rear, kick, and bite when presented with an armed soldier in *The romance of Alexander*. [Link 1](_URL_0_) [Link 2](_URL_1_) [Link 3](_URL_2_)\n\nI can't find them off hand right now, but warhorses from that time are well noted for being mean and aggressive, often biting and kicking grooms. It may be that aggressive horses were well suited for battle and that kicking and biting was simply not discouraged; however, it appears they were trained to specifically attack armed soldiers in battle. \n\nEdit 2: I didn't even get into modern crowd control use of horses which uses a wall of horse bodies to direct crowds, or horses in Polo which can be quite violent.", "Cavalry charges were powerful against broken infantry lines and were often used to break a formation. The cavalry needed to be disciplined, in formation, highly skilled, and outfitted with the best arms and armor for a charge to be effective. If an infantry line did not rout after a charge and the cavalry became entangled with their enemy the cavalries effectiveness decreased dramatically and the infantry attained the advantage. The smart move for cavalry after a failed charge would be to disengage and prepare for another attack. Also steel armor wasn't particularly heavy and a knight could easily get up after falling from his horse, so long as there weren't enemies around him keeping him down." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=658", "http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=661", "http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=660" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cd64l1i" ], "score": [ 29 ], "text": [ "This would require a pretty substantial economic analysis, which I don't really have the expertise for.\n\nHowever, a guess can be made from the costs/benefits involved:\n\nBenefits:\n\n1. Free labor\n* Unethical scientific experiments\n* Confiscated property\n\nCosts:\n\n1. Manpower to guard and kill everybody\n* Loss of productivity from large segments of the population being killed\n* Strain placed on logistics. When you're supply lines stretch thousands of miles into Russia, you want to have your infastructure shipping all the possible equipment, gas, and supplies into Russia, not be used to construct death camps and shuttle around millions of prisoners.\n\nPretty much all of those are difficult to calculate.\n\nedit: But to speculate on their value based on my knowledge,\n\nbenefits:\n\n1. For free labor, this was fairly significant for some things when the German labor force was depleted. But unsurprisingly, slave laborers don't work terribly hard to make military hardware to ensure they're stay enslaved. Additionally, malnutrition and disease hampered productivity, and so many people were just killed that this wasn't as big as it could've been\n* Some experiments were useful--a few helped the Germans figure out military things. But most were just pseudoscience. Not a big economic help.\n* This was *somewhat* significant, but Jews were a small enough minority (and not particularly wealthy, especially in Eastern Europe) that their money wouldn't be a huge help. Most of the property that was taken wasn't used very productively for Germany. You can't confiscate a store in Warsaw and use it to improve Frankfurt. Hell, you can't improve Frankfurt by confiscating a store there--all you've done is destroy a store, lowing economic productivity. That's the basic way the Nazis destroyed much more property than they could possibly use, since much of what they destroyed was illiquid.\n\ncosts:\n\n1. Probably not as huge as you might think. Many of those doing the killing early on were Einsatzgruppen, or mobile killing squads, who generally were people who weren't at the front for a reason. And early on, the Germans were going just fine on the Eastern Front--it was really later on when they needed the men. And later, I don't know how much manpower was necessary to operate things, but quite a bit of it was done by collaborators, not the SS.\n* This might be significant. Having a workforce several million people larger could've made a big difference in the war for Germany.\n* This is also probably pretty big. Particularly later on, when the Eastern Front started to turn, not having to use transportation infrastructure and fuel moving around people to be killed, might've been significant. Someone who knows more about the military aspects of the Eastern Front might know more than me." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d77jqi2" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "There are very open appeals to Amor/Eros (down to calling him a God) and the loved lady (to the same extent) amongst the Dolce Stil Nuovo poets in 13th century Florence. \n\nDante has been one of them and, incidentially, he was also a catholic theologist supporting the Emperor (over the pope) in the Guelph-Ghibelline wars. \n\nHe does address his apparent inconsistency in the Vita Nuova of 1295. His excuse: \"poetic license\". And it's not the Greek god he's (figuratively!) praying to but a personification of love. Ancient poets would also personify inanimate things, so what should be the problem?\n\n > It might be here objected unto me, (and even by one worthy of controversy,) that I have spoken of Love as though it were a thing outward and visible: not only a spiritual essence, but as a bodily substance also. The which thing, in absolute truth, is a fallacy; Love not being of itself a substance, but an accident of substance. Yet that I speak of Love as though it were a thing tangible and even human, appears by three things which I say thereof. And firstly, I say that I perceived Love coming towards me; whereby, seeing that to come bespeaks locomotion, and seeing also how philosophy teacheth us that none but a corporeal substance hath locomotion, it seemeth that I speak of Love as of a corporeal substance. And secondly, I say that Love smiled: and thirdly, that Love spake; faculties (and especially the risible faculty) which appear proper unto man: whereby it further seemeth that I speak of Love as of a man. Now that this matter may be explained (as is fitting), it must first be remembered that anciently they who wrote poems of Love wrote not in the vulgar tongue, but rather certain poets in the Latin tongue. I mean, among us, although perchance the same may have been among others, and although likewise, as among the Greeks, they were not writers of spoken language, but men of letters, treated of these things. And indeed it is not a great number of years since poetry began to be made in the vulgar tongue; the writing of rhymes in spoken language corresponding to the writing in metre of Latin verse, by a certain analogy. And I say that it is but a little while, because if we examine the language of oco [Today: Catalan, Provençal, Gasconian etc] and the language of sì [Today: Italian, Spanish, Portuguese etc], we shall not find in those tongues any written thing of an earlier date than the last hundred and fifty years. Also the reason why certain of a very mean sort obtained at the first some fame as poets is, that before them no man had written verses in the language of sì: and of these, the first was moved to the writing of such verses by the wish to make himself understood of a certain lady, unto whom Latin poetry was difficult. This thing is against such as rhyme concerning other matters than love; that mode of speech having been first used for the expression of love alone. **Wherefore, seeing that poets have a license allowed them that is not allowed unto the writers of prose, and seeing also that they who write in rhyme are simply poets in the vulgar tongue, it becomes fitting and reasonable that a larger license should be given to these than to other modern writers; and that any metaphor or rhetorical similitude which is permitted unto poets, should also be counted not unseemly in the rhymers of the vulgar tongue.** Thus, if we perceive that the former have caused inanimate things to speak as though they had sense and reason, and to discourse one with another; yea, and not only actual things, but such also as have no real existence, (seeing that they have made things which are not, to speak; and oftentimes written of those which are merely accidents as though they were substances and things human); it should therefore be permitted to the latter to do the like; which is to say, not inconsiderately, but with such sufficient motive as may afterwards be set forth in prose.\n\n > That the Latin poets have done thus, appears through Virgil, where he saith that Juno (to wit, a goddess hostile to the Trojans) spake unto Æolus, master of the Winds; as it is written in the first book of the Æneid, Æole, namque tibi, etc.; and that this master of the Winds made reply: Tuus, o regina, quid optes—Explorare labor, mihi jussa capessere fas est. And through the same poet, the inanimate thing speaketh unto the animate, in the third book of the Æneid, where it is written: Dardanidæ duri, etc. With Lucan, the animate thing speaketh to the inanimate; as thus: Multum, Roma, tamen debes civilibus armis. In Horace, man is made to speak to his own intelligence as unto another person; (and not only hath Horace done this, but herein he followeth the excellent Homer), as thus in his Poetics: Dic mihi, Musa, virum, etc. Through Ovid, Love speaketh as a human creature, in the beginning of his discourse De Remediis Amoris: as thus: Bella mihi, video, bella parantur, ait. By which ensamples this thing shall be made manifest unto such as may be offended at any part of this my book. And lest some of the common sort should be moved to jeering hereat, I will here add, that neither did these ancient poets speak thus without consideration, nor should they who are makers of rhyme in our day write after the same fashion, having no reason in what they write; for it were a shameful thing if one should rhyme under the semblance of metaphor or rhetorical similitude, and afterwards, being questioned thereof, should be unable to rid his words of such semblance, unto their right understanding. Of whom, (to wit, of such as rhyme thus foolishly,) myself and the first among my friends do know many. \n\nTwo centuries later Da Vinci would insist on that painting is *poetry*, too, except that it's written in the universal language of pictures. That was him, basically, drawing on the \"license\" that Dante had already secured for the poets." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dueb9il" ], "score": [ 70 ], "text": [ "I'm sure one could write a longer reflective piece on this, but just a few comments and an answer I've written here previously. The general impression of ancient authors was that Aristotle's teachings had a massive impact on Alexander's character and outlook, which might be true, but I don't know how we could assess this in terms of Alexander's concrete actions and decisions; his conquest lifestyle and aspirations are certainly in conflict with Aristotle's philosophy. I have written [previously](_URL_1_) about the fact that we do not actually know much at all what went on in the lessons between Alexander and Aristotle, or how significant the relationship was to Alexander - after all, Aristotle taught Alexander only for a year, when he was 13-14 years old. \n\nThe student-teacher relationship between Alexander and Aristotle became idealised already in antiquity, as did Alexander's image as a sort of 'ultimate philosopher-conqueror', and it's very difficult to say what was the actual reality. Plutarch, a Greek philosophical essayist, is probably our fullest ancient source to the relationship between Aristotle and Alexander, as there are no surviving contemporary sources about Alexander's childhood. But, Plutarch is writing about events that took place 400 years before his time, and a lot of idealised fiction will have mixed with the fact by this point. Plutarch credits Aristotle in instilling in Alexander all his political and philosophical doctrines and a love of wisdom, but it's a bit difficult to say what this would mean because, you know, conquering a *massive* kingdom was wildly inconsistent with Aristotle's philosophy. Although Alexander certainly later in his life promoted Hellenism and Greek culture in various ways, I don't think we can put this all down to Aristotle (as Plutarch does), because a teen-age Macedonian royal prince surely should have received a very diverse Hellenic education from a very young age, long before he met Aristotle. \n\nBut, some of the anecdotes Plutarch tells about Alexander's and Aristotle's relationship probably are fact. He for example says that Alexander on his campaigns always slept with a knife and and a copy of Homer's *Iliad* annotated by Aristotle under his pillow, and sites [Onesicritus](_URL_3_), who accompanied Alexander to Asia, as his source. Plutarch also had access to the writings of Alexander's contemporary [Marsyas of Pella](_URL_4_), who could have perhaps provided him with trustworthy anecdotes about Alexander's education. \n\nHere are the two (short) chapter's where Plutarch discusses Aristotle's and Alexander's relationship: [*Alex.* 7](_URL_2_) and [*Alex.* 8](_URL_0_). I just checked Arrian, our fullest source to Alexander's campaigns in the East (*Anabasis*, which doesn't include anything about Alexander's childhood), and he doesn't actually mention anything about Aristotle apart from a crazy rumour that he provided a poison that killed Alexander, because he had later in his life started to fear Alexandr. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0243%3Achapter%3D8", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3yo0wl/do_we_know_what_aristotle_thought_of_alexander/", "http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0243%3Achapter%3D7#note2", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onesicritus", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsyas_of_Pella" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ceks6nj" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "You'll probably be interested to know that Nietzsche himself was NOT in sympathy with the Nazi ideology, but his younger sister Elizabeth was, after his death she heavily edited and even forged his writings to make him appear to have shared her views. _URL_0_ " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/7018535/Criminal-manipulation-of-Nietzsche-by-sister-to-make-him-look-anti-Semitic.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cb7eufr", "cb7kz02" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "I presume it varies from culture to culture. In the specific case of Greco-Roman culture, definitely yes. Ancient Greek texts that depict dialogue (Aristophanes, Menander, Plato; not as much in tragedy) are full of expressions like \"O Apollo!\" \"O Zeus!\" \"by the dog!\" and so on. Similarly if you look at Roman comic plays, especially Plautus, you'll hardly see a page without a *mehercle* (\"by Hercules!\") or three.\n\nSwearing by multiple gods (\"by all the gods!\") is *not* attested (I think; but it's very hard to prove the non-existence of something, and I'm not sure how I'd go about it in this case). The only case where multiple gods are used is in the specific case of Kastor and Polydeukes (or the Roman Castor and Pollux), who had a joint cult.", "check out this section in the \"popular questions\" wiki*. Most of it is foul language, but some include info on historic oaths like your examples. I'll throw in this [article](_URL_1_) from Wikipedia too.\n\n[Insults, Swears, and Curse Words](_URL_0_)\n\n*see the \"popular questions\" link on the sidebar, or the \"wiki\" tab above" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/language#wiki_insults.2C_swears.2C_and_curse_words", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minced_oath" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbgeqhx", "cbggvix", "cbgh1o2", "cbghg88", "cbgj03a", "cbhpwq5" ], "score": [ 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "In Medieval times, [an acre](_URL_0_) was the amount that could reasonably be plowed in one day with a yoke of oxen. That isn't an average of weight lifting pounds, but maybe it will give you some idea. ", " > even trained knights or soldiers would have been probably about as fit as a civilian who exercises regularly today.\n\nI recently finished a couple of books about the crusades. Battles that last for a day... I'm tired after mowing the lawn!", "I'm more of a Renaissance specialist than a medieval one, but one way to answer this question is to look at the weights of items used then and now. For example, if we compare one handed weapons, [rapiers](_URL_1_) tended to weigh around 2.5 pounds, while the [M1911 pistol](_URL_0_), the standard sidearm for the American military for much of the 20th century, weighed about 2.44 pounds. That's about the maximum weight a trained person could support in combat with one hand for an extended period without undue fatigue, then or now.", "English longbowmen were using bows with draw weights around the 100lbs mark. This suggests that, with regular training, even those from the lower orders of medieval societies could be incredibly strong.", "As a somewhat related question. Does anybody know of any documentation for exercise routines from the time?", " > less knowledge of nutrition \n\nIn contrast to whom? \n\n > even trained knights or soldiers would have been probably about as fit as a civilian who exercises regularly today.\n\nJustify this statement. Specifically, what you know of Knightly training, nutrition, and fitness, vs what you believe regular exercise is today." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acre#Historical_origin" ], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol", "http://www2.nau.edu/~wew/fencing/blades.html" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cuhazuh", "cuhba0t", "cuhi7xe", "cuhibp6", "cuhvya9" ], "score": [ 76, 100, 14, 12, 2 ], "text": [ "Some cave paintings are over 40,000 years old, such as the ones in the cave of El Castillo (which is open to visitors). [Here](_URL_0_) is an example of what's inside. Very cool! ", "Some aboriginal art is thought to be so old that it might depict megafauna. [Here](_URL_0_) is a picture taken at the Arnhem Plateau in the Northern Territory that is thought to depict a Genyornis, a 2 metre tall flightless bird that went extinct around 40-55000 years ago.", "If you're interested in old paintings, you might look into the Chauvet Cave in France. Some say these are the oldest figurative paintings in the world, though as I understand it there is some dispute about which cave paintings precisely are the oldest.\n\nThe German filmmaker Werner Herzog made an excellent documentary, *Cave of Forgotten Dreams*, about Chauvet cave. It's more philosophical than strictly art historical, but, like all his films, well worth checking out.", "To piggyback, how about the oldest painting in a frame?", "If I could add another question, What's the oldest painting on a man made canvas(animal skin, cloth, walls, pottery, etc.) that still exists?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://digventures.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GuaTewet_tree_of_life-LHFage1-1024x803.jpg" ], [ "http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/848188-3x2-940x627.jpg" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ei9bzn7" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I don't have an answer for you, but there is a [six year old thread](_URL_0_) on this with an answer in the meantime. \n\nHopefully someone can chime in with a more detailed and better sourced one here. " ] }

[]

[ "https://i.imgur.com/BGWhybH.png" ]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15ovv3/why_is_there_jus_soli_birthright_citizenship_in" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "etla78w" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I'm sorry, but we don't allow 'First'/'Last' questions on /r/AskHistorians, and so we have removed this submission. It's not that the question is bad; it is simply that, given the rules of this subreddit, these types of questions are ill-suited to its format. We've found that they tend to get responses along the lines of \"the first/last example *I know of*,\" or else many short, speculative responses in the case that the answer went unrecorded. This results in many removed comments, and very few answered threads.\n\nIf this is a question you still are interested in a response to though, you have options!\n\n* Consider the core of the question to rephrase and resubmit. Instead of asking, for instance, \"Who was the first person killed by a firearm?\", try \"What do we know about the early development and use of firearms?\". Asking about origins, developments, or declines is more likely to get in-depth, knowledgeable answers.\n\n* Every other Wednesday we run a \"[Short Answers to Simple Questions](/r/AskHistorians/search?q=flair_css_class%3Afeature+short+answers+simple+questions & restrict_sr=on & sort=new & t=all)\", and if you can hang on to your question until then, it can likely fit unchanged.\n\n* Finally, you could also try submitting your question to /r/History or /r/AskHistory, which doesn't have submission criteria quite as strict.\n\nThank you for understanding!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "em2uaon" ], "score": [ 21 ], "text": [ "They didn’t have time, really.\nThe Stalin Line started out construction in the late 1920s, and was a series of fortifications meant to disrupt an attack from the West. It differs a little from the Maginot line as the French couldn’t afford to lose any ground (as that ground contained a large amount of their industry) and the Stalin Line was more for breaking up an attack to make it easier to counter, but was similar in that it was a series of well constructed fortifications with large guns. A remnant of the Stalin Line is still open to visitors in Belarus, about 45 minutes West of Minsk. \n\nHowever, once a border started to exist with Germany (German occupied Poland, but who’s counting?) the Stalin Line was a little bit too far East. So, it was deactivated and the Molotov line started.\n\nThose cunning Germans, though, attacked before the Molotov Line was finished, but the Stalin Line had already been decomissioned and wasn’t of much use either. So, in the end, really it was just mobile forces which were available to deal with the Germans" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dgb1rth" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "You might want to check out [this discussion](_URL_0_) of that subject / film with /u/restricteddata from a few months back while you wait for other perspectives. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5fg3z2/how_accurate_is_oliver_stones_untold_history_of/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "djgwi4m" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "No, no and no\n\nI remember one of our proffessors called it \"the Hitler channel\" due to their fascination with the Nazis. But it has got even worse since then with ancient aliens and reality TV about pawnbroking (seems pretty random).\n\n\nMost history on TV is quite bad today. There is more of it than there was 10 or even 20 years ago but a lot of it is dumbed down to such an extent the original message is completely lost or muddled.\n\nThe sort of golden age of history documentaries was probably 1960's-early 2000's. In the UK there were several landmark ones such as *The Great War* (1964), *Civilisation* (1969), *A History of Britain* (2000-2002), however these are getting pretty out of date now, especially *The Great War* and (Western) *Civilisation*. The old documentary format, effectively a historian standing in front of a camera for an hour didn't really bring in the viewing figures that TV execs would have liked.\n\nDon't get me wrong, they do still make quality documentaries, but now they are going in more for entertainment with a lot of the new material. David Starkey usually pumps out a decent doc now and again. Then there was another one about the history of the crusades in the media on BBC, and if anyone can remember what it was called please comment as it was really interesting, it was either 2015 or 2016.\n\n\nA history of media person would be better placed to fully answer this question." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "car12re", "car1iag", "car6gjq" ], "score": [ 7, 4, 5 ], "text": [ " > 2) ideals such as liberty etc. came later to justify earlier revolutionary activity which was motivated basically by personal gain\n\nSam Adams [argued that it was morally correct to resist the orders of the government in order to preserve the Commonwealth for his master's thesis in 1743.](_URL_0_) While the issue is not precisely the same as those which preceded the Revolution, it seems clear he was thinking about the proper relationship between the government and the governed pretty early on...\n\nAs far as \"earlier revolutionary activity\" what do you mean, exactly? Adam's letter in response to the Stamp Act in 1768 is as far as I know the first public endorsement of the ideas of taxation without representation being wrong. It comes five years after the end of the French and Indian war and eight years before the start of the revolution. So are you saying that \"revolutionary activity\" is anything opposing the government's actions in the decade-plus between the end of the French and Indian War and the start of the Revolution? That's going kind of far back. \n\nIn the letter, he basically argues that while the American colonists were British subjects, only their local legislatures had the right to govern them, not parliament in London. So it's more like, they wanted to be represented --- but by the their fellow colonialists, in their own parliaments, which would have been unlikely to impose the same sorts of taxes on them. \n\n[To wit](_URL_1_):\n\n*It is, moreover, their humble opinion, which they express with the greatest deference to the wisdom of the Parliament, that the acts made there, imposing duties on the people of this province, with the sole and express purpose of raising a revenue, **are infringements of their natural and constitutional rights; because, as they are not represented in the British Parliament, his Majesty's Commons in Britain, by those acts, grant their property without their consent**.*\n\n*This House further are of opinion, that their constituents, considering their local circumstances, cannot, by any possibility, be represented in the Parliament; and that it will forever be impracticable, that they should be equally represented there, and consequently, not at all; being separated by an ocean of a thousand leagues. That his Majesty's royal predecessors, for this reason, were graciously pleased to form a subordinate legislature here, that their subjects might enjoy the unalienable right of a representation: also, that considering the utter impracticability of their ever being fully and equally represented in Parliament, and the great expense that must unavoidably attend even a partial representation there, this House think that a taxation of their constituents, even without their consent, grievous as it is, would be preferable to any representation that could be admitted for them there.*\n\n \n ", "What you're asking for isn't historical analysis, but a moral judgement. That's obviously going to vary by person. It might be helpful to rephrase your question in a historical way if you want more/better answers.", "It's been stated by someone else, but I'll reiterate, that your question is focused very much on moral judgment of historical undertakings. That's not really what this sub is about. I will point out that, to the revolutionaries, the tyranny was very real and present - not just coming. They viewed taxation without representation, the forced quartering of soldiers in private residences, the refusal to allow much in the way of local self-governance, and various British miscalculations and errors (which were called atrocities, see Boston Massacre) as very overt signs of how dire their situation was. \n\nAlso note that repeated attempts were made to resolve the issue with the crown diplomatically, but these were ultimately rebuffed. There was a *lot* of misunderstanding going on across the ocean, and the ultimate inability of London to pacify the increasing demands of the colonists sparked the revolution. The same \"elites\" who led the revolt and signed the DoI were the same elites who had previously been trying to resolve the issue amicably (albeit with increasingly confrontational tones) just a few years prior.\n\nAs in any such circumstance, it's those with the most to lose who see themselves as the most invested - and thus try to sway opinion the most. In this case, there certainly was a wealthy class that was heavily involved in trying to influence things towards autonomy or independence. Regardless, they were able to convince large parts of the colonial population to go along with them because large parts of the population agreed with what they wanted. Those agreements weren't forcibly coerced. \n\nTo provide a modern comparison (sorry mods, if it's inappropriate let me know and I'll take it down.), take a peek at the Sino-Japanese conflict brewing over the Diaoyu islands. The CCP stirred the pot as a way of minimizing instability during the transfer of power, and had hundreds of millions of very angry Chinese people out in the street. Yes, if the CCP hadn't stirred anything up there likely wouldn't have been unrest over the issue. The fact remains that Chinese people at large see themselves as having massive numbers of grievances against the Japanese state that remain unresolved after more than half a century post-war. The CCP couldn't have done anything if people didn't already agree that those grievances were worth becoming vocal and militant over.\n\nIt's far too simplistic to assume that elites can just use their elite status to sway the opinions of large populations. Without some kind of common cause, it becomes very difficult to affect any change at all. The wealthy land-owning elites of the American colonies and those commoners who elected to rebel did so because they believed in an independent America. Motives varied across the entire spectrum, but the overarching desire remained common. So no, I would not say that the revolution was merely a coup by a small handful of wealthy elites." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://books.google.com/books?id=H39E42RWP18C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false", "http://www.historycentral.com/documents/MassCircular.html" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e17gtyr" ], "score": [ 63 ], "text": [ "Interesting question! Let's share some background information on Jamestown first. \n\nJamestown was settled on May 14, 1607 by the Virginia Company from London. It was located about 60 miles south of the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, and it's location was picked to avoid taking direct bombardments from potential Spanish ships which would have been a serious threat to the settlers. \n\nJamestown was also England's first permanent colony, but it suffered from many problems from the start. Within days of arriving, the Colonists were [attacked by Powhatan Indians](_URL_1_). They were plagued with problems throughout the life of the settlement, from increased attacks by Powhatans to issues with disease and famine. However, fights with the local Natives did fluctuate since they reached periods of peace and when open trading was more common, likely saving the lives of many hungry colonists. But things bounced back and forth between positive and negative, with the negative taking the majority of English lives in the colony. the winter of 1609 - 1610 has been referred to as Jamestown's \"darkest hour,\" when the 300 settlers were besieged by Powhatans that winter, [with only 60 surviving until the Spring](_URL_0_). Some years of peace did take place in the mid 1610s, but by 1619, it was much stronger as a small town. \n\nJamestown continued to grow at a healthy rate until the end of the 17th century. Jamestown started having an assembly in 1619, and saw influxes of immigration going forward until [1676 when Nathaniel Bacon and his rebellion sacked and burned much of the town](_URL_2_), however, Jamestown continued to be Virginia's capital, but did not fully recover from the damage. Hardship hit Jamestown again, and for the last time when a fire destroyed the statehouse in 1698. This led to arguably the biggest factor that led to Jamestown's abandonment was when a new Captail was erected in Williamsburg, which replaced Jamestown as the capital. By the 1750s, the entire area had been overall abandoned by settlers except for two families that had turned it into farmland. \n\nSo in summary, Jamestown as a colonial capital was repeatedly hit with hardship over its 90 year history. Because the town was repeatedly attacked, especially by Nathaniel Bacon, and mixed in with the fire that destroyed the state house, there was less and less reasons for people to stay in the area, especially when larger, safer and better locations like Williamsburg popped up. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://historicjamestowne.org/history/history-of-jamestown/", "https://historicjamestowne.org/history/", "https://www.nps.gov/jame/learn/historyculture/bacons-rebellion.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d1wmyzb" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "While this is for another notable piece of his, \"Berlin 1945\", you might find [this](_URL_0_) META review useful for some perspective on Beevor at least." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3plsso/how_reliable_is_antony_beevors_berlin_the/cw7ld5t?context=3" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7cmp9e" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "An estate is land owned outright. However, in Britain from the 17th century new legal arrangements emerge called *strict settlement* and *entail* which are conditions of inheritance that stipulate the beneficiary cannot break up or sell off parts of the estate. Strict settlement becomes so widespread that it becomes the norm. The goal of strict settlement is to preserve a family's land holdings and ensure the continuation of the legacy. As a practice it is effective, and is a contributing factor to the success and dominance of the British aristocracy, which by 1800 has a greater monopoly on landownership and political power than any other Western European aristocracy.\n\nIncome derived from land ownership comes from *rents*, which are more or less what you think. Landowners lease portions of their estates (which usually have cottages on them) to tenant farmers, who in turn pay agreed upon cash rents. The farmers make their money farming, and pay the cash rent from that. Early on (think pre-1500) it's common for farmers to pay rents in kind, which means by giving a portion of the crop to the lord. As a cash economy develops in Britain over the next 2 centuries this practice ends and rents are paid in cash. That transition happens first in the south and takes longer to happen the farther north you go. The most common form of leasing is called copyhold, and copyhold leases typically last for a period of some years-- 3, 5, 10, or 20 year leases, and the longer the lease period the better deal the tenant is getting. \n\nTenants, unlike sharecroppers in the American south, in fact have a fair amount of power in their relationship with landlords because landlords must compete for qualified tenants. A desirable tenant has agricultural expertise, is responsible, and most critically has sufficient capital in the form of farm implements/animals-- those are the qualities that differentiate them from your common rural labourer. If such a tenant doesn't like how his landlord is treating him he can find a better one at the end of the lease, and there's usually a great demand for qualified tenants so they're able to bargain successfully with landlords for perks, lower rents, or longer lease periods. \n\nSpeaking of responsibility, what's a lord to do if he doesn't want to boring life of tending his estate and needs some extra cash? He probably can't sell, because of strict settlement, so the answer is the *mortgage*. That is, money he borrows against the property he owns outright. Because land is so socially important in this time, it's quite overpriced (compared to other assets in strictly economic terms), and you're able to get a lot of money borrowing against it. Money which you can invest wisely, or squander, as the case may be, and in practice those categories are very fuzzy. This is a golden age of scam investments after all, and some of the purchases that might seem frivolous at the time end up being the most valuable assets a century later, the best example of that being European art. \n\nSo dealing with tenants is the largest part of day to day estate management. Other activities include overseeing the resources of the estate not exploited by tenants. Timber rights being the best example, every 20 years or so a landlord can make some extra money by felling trees on his land and selling it as timber. Depending on the estate there can also be enterprise going on like coal mining. To be a responsible landowner it's important to have a firsthand involvement in these activities; hired stewards are notorious for fleecing absentee landlords.\n\nIf you have a continued interest in the aristocracy of Britain I'd recommend the works of historian David Cannadine. He is one of, if not the, top presently working authority on the subject." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cg8jr4u", "cg8k9ly", "cg8n8oy", "cg8qun7" ], "score": [ 552, 53, 51, 6 ], "text": [ "It really wasn't effective at all.\n\nOriginally, enemy reconnaissance planes that encountered each other would sarcastically wave and smile back and forth, lacking any real way to engage in combat. There are reports of planes ramming into one another in an attempt to bring each other down, but this generally resulted in both planes crashing. Not very efficient.\n\nSoon they started bringing grenades and other munitions to throw, or used their own pistols or rifles to attack enemy planes. These tactics proved to be extremely inaccurate and were rendered useless when the first machine gun was developed that could shoot synchronized through the propeller. This invention is widely credited with creating the basis for modern dog fighting.\n\nThe [Synchronization gear](_URL_0_) article on wiki has some interesting information on it.\n\n[This page](_URL_1_) has some really good info about aerial combat in general, as well as the first reported aviation kills using handheld and front-mounted machine guns.\n\nedit: Added links to some sources. And punctuation.", "During the first few months of the war pilots were strictly used in a reconnaissance form. Generally there would be two people in a plane. The pilot and the map maker. Like stated in another comment, at first the pilots would simply wave at each other and that was about it. Later there started to be more animosity as the fighting on the ground got more fierce. Leading to the pilots to be a little more angry in the air. At this point the map makers started to carry weapons, starting with rocks and grenades, eventually leading to pistols and rifles. The passengers would be the ones using the weapons, so even if there was a kill, it would have gone to the passenger rather than the pilot. William Mitchell discusses the growth of using weapons on planes in his *Memoires of World War I*. He talks about the growth of using small armaments to actual rifles and machine guns. He doesn't directly discuss any deaths from the small caliber weapons. But he does make mention of how the planes would get bullet holes in them and occasionally ricochets and debris from the plane could cause the pilots or map makers to need some medical service. Arch Whitehouse discusses a little more of the heated battles, including Bloody April, but he does make some mention of using small arms in air combat in *Decisive Air Battles of the First World War* but it is limited to saying that they happened and no real casualty count from it. \n\nSo, the real dog fights started when people started carrying heavy machine guns. Once the passengers were able to use swivel guns, that is when pilot deaths really started to rise. The actually death count to becoming an \"ace\" didn't actually start until the middle of the war when the pilot himself had control over machine guns mounted on the wings. These were still wildly inaccurate. Eventually a dutch pilot was able to develop a machine gun that fired at a rate that would allow the barrels to be behind the propellers. This made it so the pilots could be more accurate. The Red Baron said the first time he saw one plane doing this, \"it looked like it was breathing fire\" (from *The Red Baron* book).\n\nBoth sides would steal other's planes and steal their research. So it was a slow fight to take the skies. \n\nIf you have any other questions I would be glad to elaborate more. \n\nEdit:1. I was wrong about some timeline stuff. Working on fixing it. 2. Adding sources ", "Jean Navarre's first aerial victory, in 1915, was over a German Aviatik B.1 brought down by his observer, a Lt. Jean Robert (or Roberts) with three (!) shots. The German plane landed behind French lines and was captured mostly intact ( _High Flew the Falcons_, Herbert Molloy Mason, Jr.)\n\nHe also relates that Navarre chased after what he thought was a zeppelin armed with a kitchen knife, but this turned out to be just a zeppelin-shaped cloud - this is also mentioned by René Chambe in _Au Temps des Carabines_ - although he states that it may have been a joke by Navarre. Early war French observers were often armed with [Berthier Mousquetons](_URL_1_) or Winchester repeaters.\n\n[BBC](_URL_0_) states that the first air-to-air victory with a hand gun took place in October 1914:\n\n > _On 5 October, 1914, the first aeroplane in the world to be shot down from another aeroplane was a German two-seater Aviatik, piloted by Feldwebel Wilhelm Schlichting, with Lieutnant Fritz von Zangen as his observer._\n\n > _It was brought down over Rheims, France. Sergeant Joseph Frantz (pilot) and Caporal Louis Quénault (observer) of the French Air Service were returning from a mission in a Voisin Type 3 (pusher), when they spotted and fired on the German aircraft. Quénault's Hotchkiss machine gun fired about 48 rounds (two clips) before the gun jammed. At this point von Zangen, the German observer, fired at them with his rifle. Quénault returned fire with his carbine, hitting the pilot. The plane, out of control, crashed to the earth and was destroyed._\n\n > _This was witnessed by French troops on the ground, and thus became the first confirmed air-to-air combat victory._\n\nThere are stories of at least one French pilot returning to base with a hole in his fuselage where he had been hit by a brick (!) thrown by a German pilot, but I can't find a useful source for this. Other weapons included heavy steel darts (flechettes), hand grenades, grappling hooks on ropes, shotguns, pistols, and middle fingers.", "Not WWI, but WWII\n\nThere's the story of [Owen J. Baggett](_URL_0_) who may have been the only person in history to down a Japanese Airplane with a M1911 Pistol.\n\nGiven the source I would take it with a grain of salt. But from Wikipedia:\n\n > On March 31, 1943, the squadron was instructed to destroy a bridge at Pyinmana[4] but before reaching their target, the B-24 bombers were attacked by Japanese fighter planes. Baggett's plane was badly hit, and the crew were ordered to bail out. As the B-24 exploded, the Japanese pilots then attacked U.S. airmen as they parachuted to earth, one plane approaching Baggett within feet, and then, nose-up and in an almost-stall, the pilot opened his canopy. Two of Baggett's crew members were killed and Baggett was wounded, who played dead in his harness, hoping the Japanese would leave him alone. Baggott claims to have shot the Japanese pilot with his pistol,[7][8][9] becoming legendary as the only person to down a Japanese airplane with a M1911 pistol.[1][4][10][11][12] He was later captured by the Japanese, and held for over two years.[1][3][13] After 30 months captivity, he and 37 other POWs were liberated by 8 OSS agents who parachuted into Singapore. [14]\n\nEDIT: A better source: an [article from Air Force Magazine](_URL_1_) with more details of the incident." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronization_gear", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_in_World_War_I" ], [], [ "http://h2g2.com/edited_entry/A898761", "http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousqueton_Berthier_1892" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_J._Baggett", "http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1996/July%201996/0796valor.aspx" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cr6kk8c" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The Pilgrims were religious and political dissidents who thought English society was going to hell(literally). Virginia had already been settled, and the Puritans wanted to separate themselves from English society, so they didn't want to settle there. Further south than Virginia they would have been hassled by the Spanish and pirates.\n\nNew England itself had been \"advertised\" as being similar to the English climate, with plenty of 'unclaimed' land and tons of 'untouched' wilderness just begging for English 'civilization'. This attracted the first Puritan leaders, who saw the harsh winters as a blessing from God because it allowed them to work hard." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ekqt4jr" ], "score": [ 70 ], "text": [ "There’s general agreement among urban historians and sociologists that the highrise projects built in many large US cities failed because they so intensely concentrated poverty and hopelessness.\n\nThe movement to provide better housing for the poor had begun with some philanthropic projects in the 1920s, and then true publicly financed housing during the Depression. Initially, these were walk-up apartment buildings with densities very close to the surrounding neighborhood, but typically providing playgrounds, laundry rooms, community gardens, and other amenities that made them a shining alternative to the crowded tenements, carved-up mansions, and alley shacks in which much of the urban poor was housed. But as federally aided public housing began to be built under the Housing Act of 1949, limits on the cost per unit forced big cities like Chicago to build big clusters of highrises rather than the smaller-scale buildings and projects nearly everyone recognized as a superior environment. Federal policy (the “Neighborhood Composition Rule” required projects to house the same race as the surrounding neighborhood, and in many cities there was also local resistance to public housing projects, making sites outside slum areas even more difficult to find. Meanwhile, freeway construction and urban renewal projects were displacing large numbers of families who needed to be rehoused, and some local housing agencies relaxed formerly strict screening of tenants. Social norms and expectations changed substantially in the 1970s, and—like all impoverished urban neighborhoods—housing projects saw increased drug use, single-parent households, and street crime.\n\nIt turned out there were also often problems with the buildings themselves: poor designs and budget eliminations that caused elevators to seldom work, choices (bathtubs rather than showers, no airconditioning) that became anachronistic, poor construction and soundproofing. The energy crisis of the 1970s sent utility and maintenance costs soaring. In some big cities, notably Chicago, building maintenance became almost nonexistent due to political corruption, making the buildings even more undesirable for anyone who could live elsewhere. That created a spiral of deterioration in which the only tenants who remained were desperately poor or drug sellers. None of the residents worked—or even knew anyone who worked. \n\nIn his book *Blueprint for Disaster,* Brad Hunt makes the intriguing argument that Chicago Housing Authority highrises were simply overwhelmed by the number of children, which was often 70% of a project’s total population—far, far greater than an ordinary neighborhood would have and be able to supervise through informal social expectations. Of course, it was unrealistic to expect any direct supervision of older children and teenagers by a parent located 10 stories away. The landscaped areas around the buildings, which initially seemed like a pleasant contrast to wall-to-wall tenements, were quasipublic spaces over which no one had no clear \"ownership\" and control. Design choices such as open-air “sky galleries” became dangers rather than amenities in buildings where the only security presence was control by a street gang.\n\nIn 1968 the federal government stopped funding highrises for family housing, and attention shifted to scattered-site programs and direct subsidies like Section 8 vouchers. A number of highrise projects like Pruitt-Igoe were demolished as unsalvageable. In the 1990s, HUD’s HOPE VI initiative funded reconfiguration and renovation of some midrise and highrise projects, and encouraged new mixed-income replacement communities whose residents would not **all** be desperately poor. It’s interesting that in The Netherlands, Singapore, and South Korea, there’s little stigma attached to residence in “social housing,” and highrises have served well. New York’s public housing complexes, though not ideal, have continued to be an important part of the housing inventory for the poor and lower middle class. The UK and France have had experiences similar to big US cities, and many London “council flats” have been demolished since 1990. There clearly are sociological factors that are just as important as the architecture. \n\nAlas, my library is pretty Chicago-centric on this subject. Besides Brad Hunt’s book, there’s Devereaux Bowly’s chronicle *The Poorhouse: Subsidized Housing in Chicago, 1895–1976,* and Arnold Hirsch’s book *Making the Second Ghetto: Race and Housing in Chicago, 1940–1960.* The Spring 2001 *Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society,* devoted to “Race and Housing in Post WWII Chicago,” includes an article by Hunt on the failure of Chicago’s Robert Taylor Homes." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6kgn2a", "c6kgpfk" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "you'll probably have better luck defining exactly what you mean as \"modern currency\". I mean you can go back to 1770 and find paper bank-notes that were considered currency at the time. As for the idea of aper currency issued and backed the the formal United States Government, I'm sure wikipedia could help you there. Modern denominations are relatively recent, and constantly changing. the $2 bill, for example.", "There's a few answers to this.\n\nThe Federal Government began issuing paper currency as far back as the Revolution. During the American Civil War, however, they began to do so more regularly, to the point that the government were the only ones allowed to do so.\n\nThe Federal Reserve was created, I believe, in 1913, and was backed by gold and silver.\n\nI believe that the gold standard was done away with under Nixon, giving us our current \"Faith-based\" currency." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cwomhpp", "cworkyz" ], "score": [ 16, 27 ], "text": [ "When you consider that only around 50% of 'Americans' were available for service on the basis of gender, and then that percentage is further reduced to males 'fit for military service', i.e. Precluding the young, the old, the infirm, then you're left with a much smaller percentage to draw recruits from for potential military service. I'd be highly skeptical about any figure related to military service that takes stock of an entire population if it includes females.\n\nFurthermore, consider that a portion of the population is loyalist, or in areas under British control where it would be difficult to join the Continental cause because that necessitates a lot of travel and risk of your family and your property's well-being, since both are left in British hands.\n\nConsider also that African-Americans may also be included in your total population, where many are enslaved and most wouldn't be able to join the army anyways.\n\nSo when you start paring away pieces of that 100% who couldn't or wouldn't be expected to fight, that 3% of the total becomes meaningless, if its true to begin with. Furthermore, the size of any Continental Army was always limited by Comgresses ability to pay and supply the men with spotty contributions and taxation.\n\nWhat is relevant to your 2nd Amendment discussions is that in a primarily agrarian society, a large portion of the *available* male population left their farms and their families to fight in the war, many doing so armed only with the weapons they hunted and protected their homes with - at least to begin with. \n\nI'd be interested to hear where you heard the 3% figure, or if there's a source. But if it's being used as a justification to say the 2nd amendment is a fraud, I'd call the statistic extremely misleading and likely dishonest without knowing more about it.", "As others have said this is a spurious claim. A simple google search reveals that the population of the Thirteen Colonies in 1776 was ~2.5 million. Three percent would be 75,000. Even a cursory look at wikipedia's [entry](_URL_0_) on the Revolutionary War, mentions that over 250,000 men fought as regulars or militiamen at some point during the conflict, although the standing size of the Continental Army never exceeded 90,000.\n\nMy guess is that someone took the size of the Continental Army at some point in the conflict when it was roughly 75,000 and divided that into 2.5 million and came up with the figure of only 3% of Americans fought. In reality, the percentage would be closer to 10% and as others have stated, that doesn't account for who was actually being counted in the 2.5 million total, or who was capable and willing to fight based on gender, age, race, etc. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War#Patriots" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cnaayrl" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "It was part of the general Stalinist suspicion of Western and avant-garde influences. Jazz actually didn't fare too badly: it wasn't formally banned until the Late Stalinist (ie post-war period). For comparison, popular dances (eg tango, foxtrot and waltz) and Western popular music were all banned in the early 1930s as examples of capitalist decadence. Here too Stalinism meshed well with an older Bolshevik strain of puritanism. To quote from a Soviet factory newspaper in 1929:\n\n > The foxtrot was banned. Now in the ballroom, in public at youth parties, the foxtrot is danced under the guise of the waltz. When one watches the dancers, one sees what an aroused state they get into. It seems that we can expect nothing from such a waltz but depravity. That is why such waltzes should be forbidden at our parties. Parties are not for debauchery, but for the cultural rest of our youth.\n\nAs I said, jazz actually survived this first wave of cultural reactionarism and a genuine craze for it can be said to have swept the country in the 1930s (the so-called 'Red Jazz Age'). Jazz also nicely meshed with the new Stalinist love of 'cultural improvement' - an appreciation of jazz or the tango was a handy marker for a former-worker/peasant-turned-factory-director trying to impress his peers.\n\nThere were periodic attempts to discourage jazz, often on nationalist grounds, from the late 1930s onwards but it wasn't until the post-war period that jazz came under sustained assault from the state. Notable jazz artists were arrested and the sax was finally banned in 1949. The logic for this broader wave of cultural reaction - the Zhdanovshchina encompassed almost every medium - was a Cold War desire to combat Western (ie modernist) influences. Jazz was obvious expression of American culture in this context.\n\nAnd that's as far as I'm qualified to take the story. I assume that jazz was 'rehabilitated' in the post-Stalin period (certainly notable artists like Leonid Utyosov were popular icons in the Khrushchev era and beyond) but that's outside of my area of knowledge.\n\n**Sources**\nMark Edele gives a quick overview of the fate of popular music in his *Stalinist Society*. Shelia Fitzpatrick's *Everyday Stalinism* touches on it as an example of Stalinist self-improvement. The foxtrot quote came from Kevin Murphy's *Revolution and Counter-revolution*." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdveduz", "cdvhrog", "cdxjy03" ], "score": [ 30, 8, 2 ], "text": [ "Psychological factors played a definite role in US thinking about training officers to launch the bomb. Fear about soldiers getting \"cold feet\" was prevalent in the early days of the Strategic Air Command. The remedy for this was repetitive, numbing, boring drilling. Nuclear command officers would practice nuclear war on a regular basis, to the point where they would, in true Skinnerian fashion, be expected to reliably execute whatever order they received without thinking about it. \n\nThey were portrayed practically as automatons in the popular perception. The reality was more complicated; many suffered from psychological problems and high divorce rates. A lot of work went into trying to monitor the officers and make sure that those on duty were capable of performing it. As an aside, this remains the case today; there is no doctor-patient confidentiality on a nuclear weapons base. There are a great number of special rules regarding who can get even physically near the bomb — if you have been prescribed pain killers, for example, you can still work on the base but not near the nukes. (So a present-day missileer once told me, anyway.) \n\nThis lead to the obvious question of why not use actual automatons — computers? Why not make the reliance on the human factor less acute? But this came with its own, even scarier possibilities of automatic, accidental nuclear war. Or, on the other hand, an enemy exploiting the technical system to prohibit it at a crucial moment. As a result, US command and control systems are a strange mish-mash of human and machine, some of which seem quite crude in our modern Internet age.\n\nOne thing I've found interesting in talking to these people is that all of the American missileers or former-missileers I've spoken with have said that they would basically push the button if they were told to — that was their job and it wasn't their position to second-guess it. On the converse, when one reads of accounts of Soviet missileers, one frequently sees them invoking the human side of the equation as a reason that they might not push the button: \"what would be the point?\" This observation is certainly just anecdata, but I've found it an interesting thing to think about. I also wonder to what degree the man-machine interface is more complicated in Soviet/Russian systems, because in general they had more complicated interfaces of this sort (early Soviet cosmonauts, for example, did not really \"fly\" their rockets at all — it was entirely automated, because the engineers viewed the humans as cargo more likely to do the wrong thing than the right). \n\nWe do know that the Soviets worried quite a lot about a decapitating attack in the 1970s and 1980s, ergo the Perimetr defense system that allowed some degree of nuclear pre-delegation via a radio rocket. (The famous \"Dead Hand\" system, which was never fully automated and thus never really a \"Doomsday Device\" as it is sometimes described.) This is a somewhat different concern, though, than whether the officers would not launch their bombs. \n\nAs an aside, Eric Schlosser's new book, _Command and Control_, has a wonderful phrasing about the problem of all nuclear control systems: the \"always/never\" dilemma. You want nuclear weapons to _never_ be fired when they are not supposed to be fired, but you want them to _always_ fire when they are supposed to. In the history of nuclear weapons, these two requirements have often been in conflict, because the full embrace of one of them can lead to a degradation in the other. This sort of concern was one aspect of this issue. They wanted the bombs to be ready to fire whenever, but never to fire accidentally; this required the human-machine hybrid system described, because they never fully trusted either to do 100% of the job on their own. ", "You may be interested in the story of Maj. Harold Hering who was discharged from the Air Force for asking the question \"How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?\"\n\nHere's the most in depth article I am aware of about him: _URL_0_", "On November 26th, 2013, I interviewed an Air Force pilot who flew recon from Alaska, and he reached at least the rank of Major. We began talking about the Cuban Missile Crisis and this excerpt may interest you.\n\n > > During the Cuban Missile Crisis, I don’t know if you remember that or not, that was the same… that morning I had taken, it was October 22nd, 1962, I had taken my wife to the base hospital for the birth of our first child. I was there when my daughter Adriana was born and I was on leave, supposedly, and I was called back and when I came back to see her, I was in flight suit and she looked at me and I said, ‘my leave is up,’ and that afternoon, for every six hour period, I sat in an airplane at the end of the runway ready to go. At one time they brought the head-shrinker out and the head-shrinker came out and asked me, ‘how do you feel if you have to,’ because we were loaded with nukes, ‘how do you feel if you have to go?’ I says, ‘to be truthful, I don’t want to go. But if I’m ordered to go, I will go.’ He says, ‘you know you’ll kill a bunch of innocent women and children,’ and I said, ‘as long as they’re Cubans and they’re not killing Americans,’ and he says, ‘you’re clear to go.’ I didn’t wanna go, but if I was ordered to go I would’ve went. It’s my duty." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2011/02/an_unsung_hero_of_the_nuclear_age.html" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c734co1", "c735wus", "c7371ly", "c737bdj" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 5, 4 ], "text": [ "Might I recommend the Gazetteer of Markets and fairs in England and Wales to 1516:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt has an introduction which covers a lot of your questions, particularly the royal granting of charters for markets. ", "I assume you're talking about 11th-15th century medieval England? I know plenty about 6th-11th century markets, but these tended to grow organically and any written documents consistently seem to post-date the actual foundation of the markets.", "_URL_0_\n\nThis is a good write up. \n\nThis is the key bit for you interests:\n\n//There were two purposes to a market charter. First, it formalised the market and made it difficult for any rival to set up close by. Second, the charter granted privileges to the town and the traders, such as exemptions from tolls and taxes, which rival markets did not enjoy.\n\nThe charter tax and toll exemptions that could be granted were:\n\nPassage - The right to pass through the town and borough freely and without charge.\n\nPedage - A safe passage toll, granting the entitlement to safe, protected travel through the town.\n\nPontage - A local tax for bridge maintenance.\n\nPayage - A payment allowed by charter where a peasant could pay a day's wages to his lord in lieu of a day's work on the lord's land.\n\nStallage - The cost or rent for stall space at a market, and the right to put up a stall at the market.\n\nTallage - A tax imposed by the king or lords on towns or dwellings on their land or private estate.\n\nTithe or Tythe - A contribution of one tenth, by way of a tax on goods and produce. This could be relieved in a market charter.\n\nA town with a chartered market also benefited from the ability to attract people to the town. This in turn gave the town powers to hold a court, levy fines and create local laws. The area over which the town's powers extended was clearly defined and known as the borough, or burh.//\n\nI'd like to point out that this isn't merely a medieval phenomenon, there are still markets in operation in the U.K today that trace their origins back to the early medieval period and Royal market Charters granted in this period are still in use today, protecting land use for this purpose. One famous example is 'Borough Market' in central London which has been an officially recognised food market since at least the 13th c. ", "*The Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England* catches the atmosphere of the market town particularly well and many of the answers to your questions will no doubt be found in there. It's a book I would highly recommend if you haven't read it already.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/gazweb2.html" ], [], [ "http://www.h2g2.com/approved_entry/A39805879" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chvk7x5" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Their divisional patches (large square at top of arm) identify them as being members of the 50th Northumberland Infantry Division. Unfortunately their units patches (cloth banner above divisional patch) are too indistinct to make out what corps and unit they are from." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.normandythenandnow.com/remembering-old-friends-on-d-day/" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ci8qbwc", "ci8sman", "ci8tr86" ], "score": [ 11, 6, 4 ], "text": [ "The territory that is now Austria has been German speaking ever since there has been a German language. The German language predates any modern polity, it evolved from older Germanic languages during the Great Migration period. Austria was controlled by a tribe known as the Bavarii, who displaced and mingled with Slavic and Rhaeto-Romansch groups in the area, forming a culture that spoke a proto-Germanic language.", "There didn't used to be \"the Germany\". The region around (today's) Germany and Austria consisted of several German-speaking nations who were all Semi-Allies (They were all part of a greater Empire, but they still went to war with each other)\n\nAs time progressed, 2 of these German nations became very dominant: Austria (in the south) and Prussia(in the north). The final war between the two was won by Prussia. Prussia decided that they wanted to shape the fate of Germany themselves, and since Austria was too powerful, they had to leave. So one of their peace conditions was that Austria would go separate ways from then on.\n\nAfter that event, \"The\" Germany (German Kaiserreich) was actually created and the King of Prussia became the Kaiser of the German Kaiserreich, which was the Kaiser (Emperor) of all the German-Nations (except Austria).\n\nThere has always been talks of \"Großdeutschland\" (big Germany) which consists of Germany AND Austria. And the both nations always used to be close allies after that, because they were both German-speaking.", "As daedalus mentioned, Austria was settled by the Bavarii, who also settled the area in Germany we know as Bavaria (in Southern Germany). Austria is derived from the German word \"Osterreich,\" or Eastern (part) of the Empire. This is relating to the Holy Roman Empire that was the primary political entity in Germany at the time. For a long time, the Austrians were just another part of the Germanies, as were the Saxons, North Germans, and so forth. \n\nThe reason why Austria was able to retain political independence was partly due to the Habsburg dynasty, who were able to gain power as the Holy Roman Emperor and subjugated nearby territories, including Hungary, Bohemia, and parts of the Balkans. As a result, when the Holy Roman Empire fell in 1806, Austria had already created a large empire that was independent from the other German states that unified under Prussia. And thus it remained politically independent from the rest of the German Empire." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dbnfug4", "dbnjl5v", "dbnukfs" ], "score": [ 44, 69, 21 ], "text": [ "I take exception to your characterization of Operation Ajax as \"installing\" Muhammad Reza Shah as Shah of Iran. He had been on the throne for over a decade as a fairly powerful monarch in a semi-constitutional monarchy, and his father had ruled for the quarter-century before that. Operation Ajax did help Muhammad Reza convert his state from a constitutional monarchy back to an absolutist one, but he didn't come out of nowhere like you're implying.", "I just want to point out Castro was not openly Communist when he visited NYC. And he was telling everyone Cuba would have free elections and free press. He also installed a president as a puppet after getting power and was not the official leader. The open shift to communism happened a year or 2 later.", "There was certainly a great deal of popular American support of Fidel Castro when he first came to power.\n\nAs others in the thread have already noted, Fidel had yet to become officially Communist, whatever his private thoughts on that matter were. As such, he was seen through the lens of 'popular guerrilla unseats bloody tyrant', not the Cold War lens of Capitalism-Communism.\n\nThere was already a consciousness, particularly among the American Left, of how US policy in the region often backed dictators. Trujillo in the Dominican Republic was one such case. Batista, until he was overthrown by the Cuban Revolution, was another. The US had overthrown democracy in Guatemala in 1954 by arming, training, financing, and giving the orders to a military faction which ousted the government of Jacobo Arbenz. We backed the Somoza dynasty in Nicaragua. The list goes on.\n\nThe counter-culture of the 1960s was focused less on Fidel Castro in and of himself than the tendency of the US to intervene abroad and prop up dictatorships. This is why the slogan wasn't 'Castro is good' but rather 'hands off Cuba'.\n\nCastro had also yet to do many of the worst things he would end up doing. The massive trials and numerous executions via firing squad that occurred at the very beginning of the Revolution were explainable, to a degree. The Cuban government wasn't shooting people randomly; they were trying and executing the worst offenders from the Batista dictatorship, including those involved in murdering and torturing Cuban civilians. Doing so satiated a desire for swift justice, among the populace, and (in a politically expedient sense) cemented the legitimacy of the Revolution. They were showing Cubans that they weren't all talk. Edit: This should also be understood in the context of the aftermath of the 1933 Revolution, where mobs appeared in front of people's homes and individuals accused of complicity with the regime were dragged out and murdered in the streets. The 1959 trials were summary, but at least they were organized.\n\nI haven't investigated the summary trials to the degree that I can tell you how many were shot based on real evidence and how many innocent people were shot due to a rush to justice, or some other reason. \n\nThe forced labor camps known as the UMAP, meant to reeducate political opponents, the religious, and homosexuals, didn't come about until 1965 and persecution of gay Cubans in the early years of the Revolution was dismissed as isolated incidents instead of State policy.\n\nThus it is no surprise that between 1959, when the Revolution took power, and 1961, when Fidel declared the \"socialist nature of the Revolution\", there was a ton of support for him.\n\nOnce he became an outright Communist, support continued and tried to minimize the 'mistakes' of the Revolution. It wasn't until the late 1960s and early 1970s when much of the international Left started slowly backing away as even limited free speech started to be shut down, persecution of LGBT people ramped up, political prisoners became more common, and enough evidence was piled up that those on the international Left could no longer dismiss it as 'right wing propaganda'.\n\nThere are a couple of places to read up on these issues.\n\nOne interesting book is *The Brilliant Disaster: JFK, Castro, and America's Doomed Invasion of Cuba's Bay of Pigs* by Jim Rasenberger is a recent take on the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961 and the period leading up to it. It deals with American popular perception of Castro during this early period, among other things, and I highly recommend it.\n\nAviva Chomsky's *A History of the Cuban Revolution* is also a good summary of the history of the Cuban Revolution which, while on the apologetic side, at least touches on and summarizes the more disturbing parts of Fidel's rule, including the forced work camps. If it were pure apologetic garbage I wouldn't recommend it. While softer than is warranted, in my view, she tries to confront the issues head on.\n\nFor a broader view of US-Cuba relations during the period, I strongly recommend Lars Schoultz' *That Infernal Little Cuban Republic: The United States and the Cuban Revolution*. " ] }

[]

[ "http://mashable.com/2014/12/17/fidel-castro-admirers/" ]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dgf5nnf", "dgfcxg3" ], "score": [ 31, 5 ], "text": [ "Alright I'll take a stab, at least at the first couple elements of your question.\n\nYour assumption regarding 'SPQR Romans' is somewhat flawed. There was no transitionary point between the Western Roman Empire and the creation of the Holy Roman Empire. They were entirely separate entities, with over 300 years between the fall of the former and the rise of the latter.\n\nRoman Soldiers (and im going to assume you are referring to the Western Roman Empire, as the Eastern Empire continued to thrive long after the West broke up) continued to think of themselves as exactly that - Roman Soldiers - up until Western Rome ceased to exist as an independent entity - sometime in the 5th Century AD.\n\nWhile it is commonly noted that non-romans - specifically people of tribes who had migrated to the borders of the Empire - began to make up a larger portion of the Roman military at this time. However, often this would serve as a method of romanisation of said tribes, as much as it was 'barbarizing' the Roman military. All in all Roman military traditions were very hard to break down.\n\nI'm not as familiar on the sword/technological changes, hopefully someone can come along and help out more with that. I do know that after the 2nd Century AD longer swords seem to have become more common, and in general infantry were known to start adapting more wargear from their cavalry counterparts, including helms and oval shields (as opposed to the rectangular scutum that I'm sure you're familiar with). This was a gradual transformation and during this time they would most definitely still have referred to themselves as Roman soldiers, though auxiliary troops (who made up around half of all troops during the height of the Empire) also identified by their home region, such as Batavia or Tungria. \n\nAlso, it should be noted that the \"Roman\" soldiers you're describing, with the equipment you mention, really only existed for a relatively short period of time during the 1st and maybe 2nd century AD. Prior to this Republican armies were far less standardised. The stereotypical Roman legionary that you are describing is exactly that - a stereotype that had been pointed to so much as to make it seem the norm, while it was anything but.\n\nI would recommend reading up on Roman military after the crisis of the 3rd Century, when many of the stereotypes started to break down due to massive external and internal pressure. The armies of Diocletian, Constantine and others were really a far cry from the legionaries of the Pax Romana a century or more before. \n\nSources: \n\nBishop and Coulston, M.C. & J.C.N. (2006). *Roman Military Equipment From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome*\n\nCowan, Ross (2015). *Roman Legionary, AD 284-337: The Age of Diocletian and Constantine the Great*\n\nNicasie, M.J. (1998). *Twilight of Empire: The Roman Army from the Reign of Diocletian until the Battle of Adrianople.*\n\nAdrian Goldsworthy (1998) *The Roman Army at War 100 BC – AD 200* ", " > in what attempts have been made at defining when the Gladius morphed into some intermediate sword type before the Oakeshott Type X sword\n\nIt is still not really defined strictly, but many consider the [Durostorum spatha](_URL_0_) (dated 278 to 313 AD) to be the birth of the migration era sword development that culminated with the type X.\n\n > and for how long (after the Fall of Western Rome to the germanic tribes) soldiers and officers still called themselves SPQR\n\nWell, the usage of the term \"Roman\" obviously continued in various vague terms for centuries, but the Roman senate itself did not.\n\nThe senate continued to exist(and at times even have authority) under \"barbarian\" kings for some time, it did not disappear until pope Gregory the Great, sometime between 593 and 603, the senate ceased to be.\n\nSource;\n\nThe Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages (Routledge Revivals): 476-752 By Jeffrey Richards, page 246" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://i.imgur.com/7Ubrypy.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpk2crv" ], "score": [ 64 ], "text": [ "I hope I might be able to help you with this question.\n\nThe close-knit Israel-US relationship that we know today arises from the Cold War and specifically the Six Day War, from which Israel emerged as a regional power. The United States saw in Israel a country that fulfilled many of the qualities they sought in an ally: it shared Western values, it was militarily powerful, and it existed in a critical region of the world.\n\nAs you may already be familiar with, the Cold War was a struggle between the US and USSR in which both sought to expand their influence in the world. The Korean and Vietnam Wars were fought to keep Soviet influence out of Asia, NATO was formed to keep the Soviets out of Europe, and the US saw Israel as the key to keep the Soviets out of the Middle East. There is a book called [\"The $36 Billion Bargain\"](_URL_2_) that talks about the US decision making process in more details. Basically they can give (post the 1979 Camp David Accords) Israel $3 billion a year to do the same job as NATO which costs the US a lot more. Just by simple math it makes sense. \n\nI might add that unlike other US allies in the region such as Bahrain, Turkey, and Egypt Israel doesn't need to be coaxed or cajoled into being a US ally, they have always been friendly toward the United States because of their shared values. Israel was instrumental in keeping the US ally King Abdullah of Jordan in power [when Syria tried to dethrone him.](_URL_3_)\n\nFast forward to the modern era in which the Cold War is over but the US desire to have influence in the Middle East is more important than ever. US forces use Israel as a staging ground and port, and they share technology and intelligence. \n\n > [''I could not have procured the intelligence . . . with five CIAs,''](_URL_1_) -General George F. Keegan on Israeli assistance regarding Soviet Air capabilities.\n\nUS and Israeli armies and police train together, develop new technologies (such as the Iron Dome and [the Emergency bandage](_URL_0_)) and so forth. This allows the US to operate more effectively against terrorism and project power in the Middle East.\n\nIn summary:\n\n > \"Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security.\"\n-Alexander M. Haig, US Secretary of State" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Bandage", "http://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/09/books/better-than-5-cia-s.html", "http://books.google.com/books/about/The_36_Billion_Bargain.html?id=ZrUgjHcCEKEC", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan#Syrian_intervention_attempt" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c3wo83k" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "If you're Canadian, James Wolfe played a part in the battle before going on to New France. Ironically it was a Highland Charge by a new unit of Scottish soldiers that helped him beat Montcalm. \n\nI imagine you've already found John Prebble's Culloden, which is a very readable and informative account of before, during and after the battle. \n\nCould always base a paper around Butcher Cumberland and the Government forces, especially given the large numbers of Scottish Troops who actually took up arms against the Jacobites.\n\nI'll look for some primary sources later on and edit them in, though it would be good to have more of an idea as to what you're looking for." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ch4ohcu" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Generally. The Nazis earned about 18% of the vote in 1930, making the 2^nd biggest voting bloc in parliament, and in 1932 Hitler came in 2^nd in the presidential race behind von Hindenburg, getting 35%. Following a few more elections that didn't produce a parliamentary majority, Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor over a coalition government.\n\nWhere things get shady is with the election in 1933. First, there's the Reichstag fire, about a week before the election. Historians are still arguing about who set the fire; it might have been Communists, and Hitler just exploited the opportunity, or it may well have been Nazis running a false flag operation. Regardless, following the fire, Hitler persuaded Hindenburg to pass an emergency decree. This gave Hitler the power to order widespread arrests of Communists, and the German Communist party was effectively outlawed in advance of the elections. At the same time, the resources of the government were put into mobilizing support for the Nazis, who achieved about 44% of the vote. While not an absolute majority, they were able to mobilize enough support in Parliament for Hitler to be granted dictatorial powers.\n\nIan Kershaw's two-volume *Hitler* is the standard if you want to learn about the man. His ascent to power is covered in volume 1." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fiz0tfr" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "More writing on this subject is always welcome; in the meantime, you may be interested in [this previous thread on the same matter](_URL_0_), with input from u/amp1212 (who also has more on the topic in another thread linked there) and the now-deleted u/SteakSundae." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/eg5shj/why_did_the_japanese_treatment_of_pows_change_so/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dh51sdi" ], "score": [ 15 ], "text": [ "In this case, \"extra\" refers to a special edition of the newspaper produced particularly to cover breaking news.\n\nIn the 19th and 20th centuries, major metropolitan newspapers would keep a particular publishing schedule. Most would publish a new issue daily, either in the morning or the evening. Smaller towns might publish once per week or several times per week, rather than daily.\n\nWithin their schedule, the largest metropolitan newspapers would publish several editions throughout the day (and this practice continues to some degree in various places). The first edition would be the one bound for locations farthest from the printing press, while a *metro* or *late/final* edition would be intended for audiences closer to the press.\n\n*Extra* can apply to both an edition or an issue. It can be an extra edition published after the final edition, something issued because of late-breaking news, or it can be an extra issue published at, say, midday or (in the case of a weekly newspaper) on a date it would not normally publish." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dkf6ii3", "dkf7vmv", "dkfi6k6" ], "score": [ 26, 23, 22 ], "text": [ "This doesn't seem very accurate to put it lightly. Legalism, embraced by Emperor Qin Shi Huang, with its endorsement of strong, central control under an autocratic authority developed before the wall was built and helped influence him to build it, not vice versa. Confucianism, the guiding philosophy throughout a significant portion of Chinese imperial history developed long before this as well. So the wall did not really result in these fundamental bedrocks of Chinese thinking.\n\nThe idea that China was also in some sort of perpetual stagnant \"dark age\" for some 2,000 years is also incredibly reductive. It went through an immense amount of change and upheaval from the time the wall was initiated to the end of imperial rule in 1911. There were dozens of civil wars, changes in government, periods of rapid technological advancement and urbanization, the introduction of new religions and ideologies, and voyages all the way to the Middle East and East Africa. It is hard to say China was \"kept in the dark ages\" when for large amounts of time it was by far the richest nation on Earth while also being among the most technologically advanced. \n\nI'm sure others with knowledge on more specific aspects of Chinese history could add to this as well. This is not to say that the wall and fortifications in general could not create some measure of complacency among certain rulers at certain times.\n\nApologies if this came off too harshly, but to narrow millennia of complex history to the extent the author is implying strikes me as very reductionist. ", "This is, to put it simply, complete nonsense. They're obviously trying to draw parallels with Trump's wall and other historical walls. The comparison with the Great Wall is particularly hamfisted - and relies upon stereotypical ideas of a stunted and stagnated China - even going so far as to say China was stagnated from the reign of it's first emperor. \n\n > it functioned as a psychological barrier that kept Chinese civilization isolated from foreign influences and the modernizing world. The wall kept China in the dark ages \n\n\nChina was not isolated from foreign influences for it's entire imperial history - which is what this sentence is implying. Trade, the exchange of foreign ideas like Buddhism, the political influence of foreign neighbours like the Koreans, Tibetans or the many peoples of the steppe, etc - all peaked *after* the Great Wall was conceived. \n\nIn fact Classical Chinese civilisation reached many of it's cultural, economic, literary and political high points well after Qin Shi Huang Di. The Tang and Song dyansties are commonly regarded as Golden Ages of Chinese power, prosperity and cultural achievement and they both occured more than a millenia after the Great Wall was first started. \n\nThis is merely someone trotting out archaic stereotypes about Chinese history to somehow fit an anti-Trump narrative.", "Ivy Schweitzer is a professor of English. She is not a historian, she is not a Sinologist. Therefore, everything she writes about Chinese history needs to be taken with a huge boatload of salt, as she is not qualified to write about it in the first place.\n\nTo say that what she wrote is nonsense or inaccurate is being nice to her. She simply doesn't know what she's talking about and it does a great disservice to serious historians since she's propagating this idea of ancient China as this backwards and xenophobic place to people unfamiliar with Chinese history. Shame on her!\n\nIf Chinese emperors wanted to keep Chinese civilization isolated, they would have built walls in the Gansu Corridor to shut down the Silk Road. They would have built seawalls along the coastline to shut down the increasingly lively sea trade from the 10th century onwards. Only the Ming really attempted to shut down private ocean-going trade and control commerce, but its sea ban was as effective as Prohibition was in the United States. Rampant smuggling occurred and was condoned by the local government and the sea ban (instituted partly as a response to Japanese piracy) ironically led to more piracy. The government was forced to admit it was a failure in the 1560s and it was lifted. A similar sea ban was in force from 1647 to 1684 under the Qing, mainly as a military strategy against the Zheng family regime (a Ming loyalist movement) in Taiwan to deny them food and resources. The Qing attempted to control foreign trade as well, but at no point was the government trying to completely cut off contact with the outside world.\n\nTo say that China was in the dark ages, in spite of the fact that throughout the 2,000 years from the time Qin Shihuang first constructed the wall up until the fall of the Qing there had been numerous discoveries and inventions made by the Chinese, Joseph Needham must be rolling in his grave!" ] }

[]

[ "https://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/essays/doesnt-love-wall/" ]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "evha27f" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "As u/otblock57 already mentioned, you will find many dialects in Austria that stem from the Bavarian and Alemannic branches of the German language. However, this is a very technical distinction as, to many people, the \"typical\" Bavarian (mainly spoken in the 'Freistaat Baiern', a region in south-east-Germany) sounds rather different from, say, the common dialects in Steiermark (Styria) or Niederösterreich (lower austria). Alemannic variants are mostly prevalent in the regions of Vorarlberg and some regions in Tyrol.\n\nAll of this is describing most of the dialects here in Austria, while our official language is simply German - our schools and authorities use \"österreichisches Deutsch\" (Austrian German) which is basically a localized variant of standard German. There are some grammatical and vocabulary differences, but speakers from most parts of Germany and Austria will generally understand each other very well.\n\nEDIT: to provide an actual answer as to the national languages of both countries: \n\n* Switzerland has French, Italian, German and Romansh as national languages- The majority of people there grow up with German as their primary language and they often learn one, sometimes two of the other languages. People fluent in all the national languages are rather rare.\n* Austria has German as its national (and official language), while it also recognizes several minority languages, such as Hungarian and Slovenian. The vast majority of people here grow up with German as their primary language. Even those growing up with one of the minority languages as their primary will learn German in school and be somewhat fluent in it as either a second language, or even on the same level as Hungarian, Slovenian etc." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ck6t37l" ], "score": [ 11 ], "text": [ "Knights had no compunction against fighting on foot. They dismounted when necessary, and fought mounted when that was more advantageous. At Tinchebray in 1106 and at the Battle of the Standard in 1138 Anglo-Norman knights largely dismounted to fight on foot, with some remaining mounted and in reserve. At the Battle of Dorylaeum, and in other clashes during the First Crusade, Frankish knights fought on foot, at least partially due to a critical shortage of horses, many of whom had died. Throughout the Hundred Years' War, *most* knights, or to name them properly, men-at-arms (actual knights were fairly rare by the 14th century, being heavily supplemented by less prestigious chaps called variously esquires, armigers, etc, who fulfilled the same role) fought on foot.\n\nFurther, there is no reason to assume that an armored person is necessarily a knight or a horseman. Semi-professional infantry was widely used throughout the Middle Ages, and many of them would have had at least some metal armor. It likely would not have been as modern or as extensive as that used by a warrior aristocrat, but the high school image of medieval armies as being composed of a tiny core of elite knights and a vast levy of half-naked peasants is laughably wrong. Mercenaries, especially after 1100, were hugely popular, and hardly a campaign was waged without some of these bands along." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "caqib9a", "caqol3v" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Coming from a science perspective, people knew and understood what foods had to be cooked or preserved in some way and what didn't. In essence, people of the ancient world understood to some extent food safety, but not to the same standard as today. It is amazing how much knowledge has been lost.", "In medieval Europe the dominant theory of the spread of disease was [Miasma theory](_URL_0_). This model of the spread of disease attributed the cause of disease to bad smells. While not the correct model of the spread of disease, it is effective in many circumstances. Rotting foods, human and animal waste, and many other disease ridden things smell bad (often as a result of bacterial action). \nPeople understood that food spoiled and they had good ways of preventing it from doing so--usually involving large amounts of salt. There were also laws preventing the sale of spoiled foods. This doesn't mean that people didn't get sick from bad food, but they were aware of the problem." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c4mph6w", "c4mqcqf" ], "score": [ 10, 5 ], "text": [ "William remained the Stadtholder of of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Guelders, and Overijssel until his death in 1702. The countries were never joined, largely because the position of Stadtholder was a sort of gray-area, de facto hereditary monarchy—ie, a crown without an actual crown. \n\nFollowing William's death, Holland, Zeeland, and Utrecht declined to appoint a Stadtholder until an emergency late in the game during the War of Austrian Succession (1740–48). ", "Culturally speaking, it was almost as if Britain became significantly more Dutch rather than vice versa. See: Lisa Jardine's *Going Dutch*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ci89b4t" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "Prior to the 1970s, and the establishment of a large professional army, the United States had a strangely bipolar relationship with the military. From the very beginning, the nation has been distrustful of standing armies. Throughout the 1780s and 1790s, the various incarnations of the US government wrestled with the issue of whether to even have a standing army or navy, with Congress generally being extremely reluctant to allocate funding. There was a concept, held by many, that units could be raised for any war, and supplemented heavily by militia, without risking military tyranny. This did not work out well; the US Capitol was burned after a large militia army broke and ran from the advancing British regulars with barely a shot exchanged.\n\nOn a more personal level, the small, standing army was generally viewed as a collection of underemployed wastrels, especially in the 19th century, when the vast majority was composed of either recent immigrants or men who could get no better job. This is perhaps explained by the fact that soldiers were very badly paid during this period, more often than not stationed in tiny posts on the western frontier, and generally lived an austere lifestyle. Furthermore, the idea of serving under strict discipline was unpalatable to the national character. Thus we see, for instance, during the War of 1812, the regular regiments having great difficulty recruiting because militia service was safer, more pleasant, and generally more popular.\n\nOn the other hand, there was a great deal of prestige that came from wartime service, generally in the militia or, later, during the Mexican War and American Civil War, in volunteer regiments raised for the war. This was seen as defending the nation in its time of need, rather than living off the public dole. A reputation and a political career could be built on such a foundation. Any number of American presidents of the 19th century had done military service in one or another such outfit. Washington, Monroe, Jackson, Harrison, Tyler, Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln, Hayes, and McKinley all served as volunteers or militiamen during times of national conflict." ] }

[]

[ "http://reason.com/archives/2014/06/15/we-were-warned-about-the-rise-of-empire/1" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ecdaxus" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "I'll try to answer your question, sorry if it doesn't satisfy you.\n\nLittle is known, but most eventually settled all around Germany. There are accounts of former Ottoman prisoners taking up trades and various professions, but most of them ended up joining courts of nobles. These former prisoners are known as *Beutetürken* (Turkish Prey). Nobles all around Germany took or bought Ottoman prisoners to join their court as footmen for ceremonies or servants, as having a Turkish servants were seen as a status symbol. \n\nMost of them converted because of their environment in the court that supported naturalization and integration to the German society and the patronage system, where Turks who converted had better chance of stable employment by their masters and a lot of former Muslims ended up as tax collectors, priests, and staff in the bureaucracy. Most of them married into the German middle class and nobility too. For example Fatima, a former camp follower in the Ottoman army was baptized and taken as mistress by king Augustus the Strong. Another example was Mehmed, son of governor of Morea was taken prisoner, converted, taken as a valet by George I of Hannover, eventually elevated to the ranks of nobility and was known as Ludwig Maximilian Mehmet von Königstreu.\n\nThose who refused to convert stuck as servants or courtiers. Such is the fate of two Mehmed and Hasan, whose graves can still be seen outside the Neustädter cemetery. Mehmed and Hasan both taken as prisoner after the second siege of Vienna and presumably served as servants in the court of Sophie of the Palatinate. Both of them died in 1691, and was buried in Neustädter, interestingly according to Islamic rites (positioned to face towards Mecca). Mehmed's tombstone contains German and Ottoman Turkish inscription, but Hasan's tombstone is empty for an unknown reason. The German inscription explaind that he was captured in the battle of Parkany, taken by a captain, given to the Herzog and ended up in Sophie's court. The Ottoman inscription suggests that he was a Sipahi, probably from Temeşvar.\n\nBibliography/Further Reading:\n\n\"*Türkische Kriegsgefangene in Deutschland nach den Türkenkriegen*\" by Otto Spies\n\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.max-behrendt.de/osmanen/biographie-hammet.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ekv3a36" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Requesting more information, can we have the date and town / state in which this occurred? To assist in determining if it was related to preventing theft / reducing chances of removing bodies / soil or erosion problems / vampires." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clpqjwd", "clp1r2v" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "There was a news article just this past week about a Romanian princess who was [sentenced for running a cock-fighting ring](_URL_0_).\n", "I would suggest that there are very few European Royal Families who have lost their thrones a few hundred years ago, most were during the last century or so. The Hapsburgs still live in Austria, and, I seem to remember that there is a Hapsburg in the current Austrian government. There are two pretenders to the French throne, the Bourbon, Louis, Duke of Anjou lives in Madrid, the Orleans, Henri, Comte de Paris lives in Paris. There is an interesting list here: _URL_0_ " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/us-usa-princess-cockfighting-idUSKCN0IC2HU20141023" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_pretenders#Europe" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e8tn24y" ], "score": [ 17 ], "text": [ "I've previously written an answer to a similar question, which is reproduced below:\n\nFor some African-American soldiers who participated in the First World War and the subsequent historiography on the topic, the French have a special place. According to this narrative, the French were kind, curious, and far more welcoming than white Americans. In fact, one could go as far as to say that the French population treated African-Americans as equals. In an alternative narrative, African-Americans met with an equal amount of racial prejudice from the French population who avoided them, called them names and held a hostile attitude towards them.\n\nWhich narrative is true? Undoubtedly, both of them are which reveals the complexity of the subject. The question therefore is why? Why did both extremes exist at the same time?\n\nScholars have given many explanations as to the first, positive narrative. Historian Chad L. Williams in his book *Torchbearers of Democracy: African American Soldiers in the World War I Era* writes that \"the glowing accounts of the French stemmed not so much from perceptions that the French lacked racist sentiments but from the fact that white soldiers and officers regularly acted with such hatred.\" As you point out in your question, the French population showed a strong racial prejudice towards colonial troops from French African colonies. This includes a racial perception of, for example, West African soldiers as childlike or savages taking their first step into the \"civilized\" world. The French government made many attempts to try and make West African soldiers \"acceptable\" for the French population by portraying them in a specific racialized way. This image of the French African soldier was contrasted with that of the African American soldier. Suddenly, here was a black man from the *west*, a civilized black man in contrast to the savage Africans, whose long presence on the American continent had civilized them and evolved them (*noire évouée*). This was proof, in French eyes, of the civilizing influence of the west and a justification for their own civilizing mission in Africa. Encountering an African American soldiers was therefore a \"safe\" alternative to the more savage and childlike French African. These more cordial encounters were not without racism, but as Williams points out above, it paled in comparison to the outright hostility from white Americans. \n\nThis, in its essence, is the core of the complex subject. Racism was a present factor in any encounter with French civilian and soldiers, but it expressed itself in different ways than that of white Americans. Without a doubt, the most vile racism that white Americans spouted at African Americans were also shared by some French, in particularly in portraying black men as rapists and \"defilers of white women\". This ties in to racial tensions between French men and men of African descent over white women. Furthermore, there were also labour tensions as white French dockworkers saw their jobs being taken over by black dockworkers for the war effort. How much influence American racist stereotypes had on the French population is hard to say, in particularly in light of how African Americans were seen in comparison to white Americans (the latter being more trouble than the former). Additionally, one final point has to be made: French civilians and soldiers knew that African Americans were only there temporary. They were only passing through and once the war was done and over, they'd go right back home. This meant that a different attitude towards them could be justified. Colonial soldiers were not extended the same treatment." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d3siv2x" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "The level of technology to climb Everest was state of the art. No one climbed Everest without oxygen for decades after Hillary and Norgay, and even now is seldom done. Before it was finally done, many thought it was impossible. The clothing, the ladders, the equipment--all advanced. The Sherpa didn't have expertise in these kinds of things, nor easy access to them, back at that time. Everest ascents are also very expensive.\n\nBesides all of the above obstacles, some Sherpa felt it was disrespectful to the mountain to climb it, too. So there was never a push to think of climbing it as a desirable goal or anything that would be appropriate, or that would be an honor to the mountain." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cajlyry", "cajoj50", "cajse3x", "cajxvg4" ], "score": [ 16, 2, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "The ancient and classical Greeks celebrated the Bacchanalia (or Dionysia), a ceremonial festival in honor of the god [Bacchus](_URL_0_) (a.k.a. Dionysus) that included an extended wine binge and musical entertainment. Western theatre as we know it grew out of this tradition and as it grew in popularity they began to include competitions to determine the best musician, best acrobatics, and best play. Indeed, some of the plays of the period include hymns and prayers to Bacchus in their texts.\n\nBy some accounts they occasionally got quite rowdy indeed and the word Bacchanalia has become synonymous with alcohol/drug/sex-fueled revelries.", "As a performer or as a listener? (serious question)", "In his autobiography *Music is My Mistress*, Duke Ellington reports that, when he was young, he and his bandmates would drink about a pint of whiskey each at any given gig. One assumes the audiences were knocking it back as well.", "In ancient China, musical performances tended to be linked to rites and ritual, with calm, harmonious music being played. Purportedly, this orderly music would be played as a means of entertaining the heavenly ancestral spirits. In addition, as the *Yue Ji* says, \"...the musical tones of a well-ordered age are calm and full of joy about the harmony of its government.\" So naturally, many early musical performances did not involve chaos, disorder, and binge drinking. Consider this example from the *Shi Jing*, describing virtuous music being played:\n\n > They strike the bells, kin, kin,\n\n > They play the se-zither, play the qin-zither,\n\n > The mouth organ and chime stones sound together;\n\n > They sing the Ya and Nan Odes,\n\n > And perform flawlessly upon their flutes.\n\n\nHowever, not every musical performance was so orderly, or treated with such a solemn attitude. Take, for example, this excerpt from the *Chu Ci*:\n\n\n > Before the dainties have left the tables,\n > \n > Girl musicians take up their places.\n > \n > They set up the bells and fasten the drums\n > \n > and sing the latest songs… \n > \n > Bells clash in their swaying frames;\n > \n > The catalpa-wood zithers’ strings are swept…\n > \n > Pipes and zithers rise in wild harmonies\n > \n > The sounding drums thunderously roll;\n > \n > And the courts of the palace quake and tremble\n > \n > As they throw themselves into the Whirling Chu.\n > \n > Then they sing songs of Wu and ballads of Cai\n > \n > And play the Dalv music.\n > \n > Men and women now sit together,\n > \n > Mingling freely without distinction;\n > \n > Hat-strings and fastenings come untied;\n > \n > The revel turns to wild disorder.\n\nThis music, just like the virtuous music mentioned earlier, would be played at court, and yet the scene described here is fairly chaotic and one of debauchery. Men and women mingling freely without distinction? Good heavens!!! Now, while this particular quotation does not specifically mention the excessive consumption of alcohol, it is nevertheless incredibly likely that alcohol was flowing freely on this occasion. In general, musical performances at court could be divided into \"virtuous music,\" for rites and rituals, and \"vice-music,\" for entertainment. At performances of \"vice-music,\" alcohol would definitely be consumed before, during, and often after the performance as well. How much alcohol? Well, I can't tell you exactly how much, but it was apparently enough to make \"fastenings come untied\" and turn revel into \"wild disorder.\" Now, as much as I'm sure that the music had a hand in this as well, I think that excessive alcohol consumption was also quite clearly a major contributor to the chaos." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "dlgx7o7" ], "score": [ 14 ], "text": [ "Because there were so many houses for the government to rebuild, and only so much money, materials and manpower available, they often roughly cleared bomb sites and erected cheap, temporary dwellings called prefabs. The owner was then given a certificate they present later on to demand a proper house be built instead.\n\nHowever, for some reason many people became so attached to their makeshift houses that they continued living in them for decades, with an incredible number of them surviving into the 90s, only to be finally knocked down and replaced by brick houses when the original owners started dying off and property developers bought up all the land.\n\nBecause bombs were dropped in 'sticks', you'd often get a stretch of a terraced road that was levelled, with prefabs put up in their places. This meant developers were very keen to buy the whole row so they could replace all the plots with a single block of flats rather than new houses, making more money. Most original owners refused all offers and pressures (some developers used dirty tricks to try to drive them out, failing to consider they were dealing with a war generation who had taken on the Nazis), remaining in their prefabs even when tall houses and flats went up all around them. As I say, that's why they used to be a very common sight in former target areas like London until the 90s.\n\nIt's amazing to think in an age where people don't hesitate to sue someone because they fell over in the snow, that it used to be very common to lose your house and not bother claiming a new one!\n\nAs far as I know, the certificates never expired, so I wonder what would happen today if a 90 year old living in a prefab tried to cash it in?\n\nYou can search for photos of prefabs on Google Images and Flickr etc.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjcemfo" ], "score": [ 13 ], "text": [ "A fair number. You won't find any solid statistics on the subject because no one really kept tallies of such things but it was reasonably common. \n\n\nEnglish and German have the same source language so it wasn't as though it was exactly difficult for someone who spoke German to pick up English, and visa versa.\n\n\nFurthermore between the US and the British there were plenty of reasons to pick up the languages. Prior to WW1 the Germans maintained very good relations with the United States- the largest minority in the US at the time was German, or at least *Germanic* and trade was common. Additionally, Germany in this era was- depending on who you ask- either the intellectual or *one of* the intellectual hubs of Europe. Germanic regions were some of the first to adopt compulsory education in Europe and much of the modern education system as we see it is the product of Prussians. So it wasn't as though Germany lacked for means or interest to learning the English language.\n\n\nThat being said the environment absolutely did not resemble what you see today where English is a common component of your typical modern education. Though anecdotal, this article does give a bit of context to the era- _URL_0_ - learning to speak English or the language of whatever \"invader\" happened to be on your front had it's advantages. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.historynet.com/german-pows-and-the-art-of-survival.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cl24vvk" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "In Bronze age mesopotamia, after the amorites moved in, many sacrifices were buried under structures. For example, after dedication of a temple, an animal sacrifice would be buried in a pit underneath. Relatedly, bodies were buried essentially in the backyards of their family's houses, which led to very few houses being bought or sold." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e8h3r29", "e8ica2a" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "We have some numismatists here - I know a little about Roman coins for instance - but you might get better luck with help over at /r/numismatics/", "So the picture is of a polish denar dated from 992-1052 (depends on who you ask) minted under bolesław chrobry (bolesław the brave in english)...the avers is a bird for sure (there's no consensus among numismatists whether it's a peacock, an eagle or a dove...while an eagle might be the most logical conclusion for it's role in polish mythology/heraldry imho it just looks like a peacock) and on the obverse is a stylized byzantine cross...it symbolizes christianity, and since polands baptism was just 30 years prior it was a rather big deal" ] }

[]

[ "https://kurierhistoryczny.pl/uploads/editor/Denar\\_rys\\_chrobry1.png", "https://kurierhistoryczny.pl/uploads/editor/Denar_rys_chrobry1.png" ]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "camtubo", "camtvli", "camxsus" ], "score": [ 531, 3, 138 ], "text": [ "Because the New Testament was written in Greek. The Hebrew name was rendered into Greek as *Iēsous*, and the various Latin versions simply transliterated the Greek one to get *Iesus* (later *Jesus*, after the letter J was invented to represent consonantal I). Between them, these two forms accumulated the momentum of a glacier, and no one's bothered to use the Hebrew or Aramaic forms much. It kind of makes sense, too: the Hebrew/Aramaic forms aren't actually attached to him in any extant text, and it wouldn't be appropriate to start re-writing the sources that do survive. In the same way that when people read Herodotos, they read about king Xerxes, not Xshayarsha: it'd be silly to start introducing the Old Persian form into the Greek text.\n\n\"Joshua\", however, hangs around in translations of the Tanakh because they tend to be translated directly from Hebrew.", "_URL_0_\n\nThis is the conversation. Would anyone care to correct my answers if they are wrong? I took many religion classes in my day, so I know a little.", "All of these answers are half right, but they aren't answering the ultimate question. The OP is not only asking why Jesus is \"Jesus\" instead of \"Joshua,\" but also why Joshua is not also \"Jesus,\" and this is a much more interesting question; in other words, why is there a difference?\n\nTo be clear, the New Testament doesn't have an Aramaic form of the name of Jesus, only Greek, Ἰησοῦς, *Iēsous*. This form is identical to the Septuagint version of Joshua (ca. 200-100 BCE) and to Joshua when his name appears in the New Testament in Acts of the Apostles and Hebrews. Rosemary85 is incorrect in saying:\n > \"Joshua\", however, hangs around in translations of the Tanakh because they tend to be translated directly from Hebrew.\n\nSince the distinction between Joshua and Jesus remains in translations of their names in the New Testament which appear identical in Greek. This is the main sticking point. Translating directly from the Hebrew is also an innovation of the Reformation (I'll come back to this). \n\nAs others have noted, the Hebrew of Joshua is יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, *Yehoshuʿa*. And it seems a shortened form was in use beginning in the Second Temple where we find Joshua as יֵשׁוּעַ (Nehemiah 8:17), and often translated as *Jeshua*\n\nOur earliest Aramaic form of Jesus name is via the Syriac (probably from the late second century), ܝܶܫܽܘܥ,*Yeshuʿa* (identical to the Hebrew יְשׁוּעַ). \n\nIn the Latin they are also identical, Iesus.\n\nThe earliest English version available to me, produced by Wycliffe (late 1300s) renders Joshua as \"Joshua\" in the Old Testament, but renders Jesus and Joshua identically, as \"*Jesus*\" in the New Testament; compare eg. Mark 1:1 and Acts 7:45. The original King James Version (1611) is the same, also rendering Joshua as \"Joshua\" in the Old Testament, but rendering Jesus and Joshua identically as \"Jesus\" in the New Testament, compare the same verses above.\n\nThe first time that, even in the New Testament, they are rendered differently seems to be in Luther's German translation, *Josua* in German, for the Greek Ἰησοῦς, *Iēsous*. Why did he render it this way, instead of as Jesus? I can only speculate, but I would hazard to guess it would be for clarity sake. In Luther's attempt to go back to the original Hebrew and Greek he probably would have been more finicky about these sorts of things and feel it necessary to make a distinction.\n\nIn other words, it isn't that Jesus should be Joshua, **but that Joshua should be Jesus** in the New Testament; rendering it as Joshua from the Greek Ἰησοῦς, *Iēsous*, is incorrect. The reason it is done so in modern translations is for clarity sake and permitting Hebrew to take precedence over the Greek and Latin, which only happened beginning with the Reformation.\n\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1gnh0u/it_bothers_me_that_christians_dont_seem_to/camase8?context=3" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cgt3vxz", "cgt3yh9", "cgt4bhb" ], "score": [ 2, 6, 4 ], "text": [ "Have you considered Bede's *Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum* (Ecclesiastical History of the English People) who heavily influenced and was used a secondary source by William of Malmesbury?\n\nAlso just to clarify, do you mean origination myths of the peoples who inhabited the British Isles? If so you you could perhaps use Roman histories of British tribes pre-Roman conquest and maybe even the origin myths of the later Normans who later of course became part of a Anglo-Norman society after the Norman Conquest.", "The *Book of Invasions* might interest you. It's a collection of medieval writings which purports to give the history of the founding of Ireland; basically it's an Irish creation myth. Some of it is relevant to the creation myths of other parts of the British isles, for example the character *Scota*, an Egyptian princess who settled in Ireland, and from whom, as legend has it, the name of Scotland is derived.", "Bede's *Ecclesiastical History* (8th century) is another very important one. Bede's account of the Anglo-Saxon invasions forms the basis (along with the *Anglo-Saxon Chronicle*, which used Bede as one of its sources) of the 19th century narrative (which is still taught in most surveys today) that the Romano-British were driven out of England by invading Germanic armies in the 5th century.\n\nFor some critical discussions of Bede's work (if you're interested, or if your assignment requires any secondary research), see W. Goffart, *The Narrators of Barbarian History*, and G. Halsall, *Worlds of Arthur*." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpsb6s7" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "the colonists continued to view themselves as principally British during the American revolution. There continued to be November 5th celebrations that included the burning of either Guy Fawkes or the pope. George Washington condemned the celebrations by his troops, because he was attempting to win French-Canadian Catholic support for the revolution. \n\n[Source](_URL_0_) \n\n\n\n\n\nOther sources indicate that the 5th of November was linked to the revolutions protest of parliamentary taxes. It's an example, amoung many, of American anti-authoritiarianism. \n\n[source](_URL_1_::)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/washington-condemns-guy-fawkes-festivities", "http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?rbpebib:1:./temp/~ammem_kqpD" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8u0zya", "c8u40ex" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Neither was in a position to even tickle China proper. The journey would have to take place over the steppe, and through the desert. Once through, the armies would have to deal with the ascendent Tang - a formidable military machine. It would have been suicide of the level of Napoleon in Russia, perhaps even worse. \nThe mongols were able to conquer in the other direction because their horses were uniquely suited to the cold of the vast steppelands that make up today's 'stans'.\nI don't know about India, but China is several levels removed from what would have been possible for the Arab conquerers. ", "The Muslim armies would first have to cross either through Tibet (probably not possible) or through the steppes (also probably not possible). After this, they would have to arrive fresh enough to fight a battle with an organized, disciplined and prepared Chinese army on their own ground. China was much more remote from the center of the Rashidun or Umayyad caliphate than something like Persia, and thus much harder to even attempt a conquest." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d02u8ps", "d036sa9" ], "score": [ 21, 6 ], "text": [ "Not really. I don't know a place where Foucault is directly refuted, but I'd have to say that (in my rather unscientific mental survey) most discussions of the subject revolve around gnostic influences and the mind body dualism inherited from neo-Platonism. These ideas both fed and were reinforced by Galenic theory, which defined women as failed men. And there was a definite aversion to sexual contact from the letters of Paul onward, made clearly manifest in the lives of the ascetic desert fathers, neither of which are classified as \"medieval\". Nor is \"guilt\" quite the right word to define medieval attitudes towards sexuality. Procreation was, of course, natural, and there is a great deal of material evidence for a rather more blasé medieval attitude towards sex than we would otherwise think. My favorite is still a [pilgrim's badge](_URL_0_) depicting penises carrying the Holy Vagina (i.e. Christ's side wound) in solemn procession. \n\nWhen reading Foucault, it's kind of important to always remember that he's not a trained historian, nor is he interested in being one. Moreover, his project is much more concerned with modernity than it is with creating an objectively accurate representation of historical reality. He is generally very prone to \"reading back\" ideas.\n\nI would look at Peter Brown's *The Body and Society,* Maureen Miller's article\"Masculinity, Reform, and Clerical Culture: Narratives of Episcopal Holiness in the Gregorian Reform Era,\" in Church History (2003), and pretty much anything Carolyn Walker Bynum has ever written.", "I've always viewed Foucault (including his famous Chinese Encyclopedia quote that never existed) as not a historian, but a philosopher who theorizes with what's possible on the basis of what we believe now, rather than what the precedents were in the past.\n\nWhich is of course, the defense of how some of his historically inaccurate ideas could still be useful. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://i.imgur.com/rje6IWT.jpg" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dg1j89y" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The land deed isn't just a description of land boundaries. It includes the owner's name, and usually includes the name of the person from whom the land was bought, unless it was bought from the crown/government, in which case it would usually indicate that instead.\n\nSo you couldn't just steal the land deed and try to claim that the land was yours, because the deed was going to have the rightful owner's name on it.\n\nThese aren't from Europe but [here](_URL_2_) is a book of translated land deeds from 1600s New York. And [here](_URL_0_) is a collection of scans of original deeds that those translations are based on. \n\nAs one example in the above linked book (Petrus Stuyvesant was the director of the \"New Netherland\" colony):\n\n > \"Petrus Stuyvesant, on behalf of their High Mightinesses, etc... has given and granted to Jan Picolet a parcel of land lying on the South River of New Netherland south of Fort Casamier near the Brickmaker's Hook, between the plantations of Philip Jansz and Jacob Crabbe; running from the aforesaid Jansz' land west along the shore to the land of Jacob Crabbe 28 rods; along the land of the aforesaid Crabbe northwest 60 rods to the public highway; then along the aforesaid highway to the land of Philip Jansz west 30 rods; and then to the place of departure southeast by south 64 rods; making altogether 3 morgens and 85 rods, with the express conditions, etc,..\n > \n > \"Done at Amsterdam in New Netherland, 1 September 1656.\"\n\nProbably more what your looking for is [this](_URL_1_) publication which contains several land deeds in the county of Wiltshire, England, in the 1200s. You see records such as this:\n\n > \"Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells, grants to God and the Church of St. Mary of the Nuns, and to Claricia Prioress, in free alms, one acre of land in Kington St. Michael in the East Field, in the ploughed ground called 'Goldshawe,' between the land of the Prioress on the East, and land of Richard Carpenter on the West, with the Advowson of the Church.\"\n\n[This series of books](_URL_3_) of transcribed public records in England may also interest you. The books contain a variety of public records, only some of which are land deeds, so it will give you a taste of what these land deeds were like. \n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov/index.php/Detail/Collection/Show/collection_id/5498", "https://books.google.com/books?id=PQ05AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA70", "https://www.newnetherlandinstitute.org/files/1314/0284/1244/Volumes_GG_HH__II_-_Land_Papers.pdf", "https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/011983739" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8hs60g", "c8hsu7b" ], "score": [ 31, 22 ], "text": [ "Just a quick non-historical point: The question isn't that much one of \"previous\" civilizations, but \"others\". Here in Germany I have never heard of a \"Tooth Fairy\" (or \"Zahnfee\") apart from american movies. Teeth falling out are generally introduced and welcomed as a sign of a kid becoming an adult, sometimes put in a little box and preserved, but without a mythology behind it.", "Ways of disposing of teeth vary a lot across cultures. In Spanish speaking cultures a mouse called either 'Ratoncito Perez' or 'el Ratón de los Dientes' comes and takes the baby tooth, a tradition dating back to a late 19th century story written for 8 year-old King Alfonso XIII by Luis Colomo. In Denmark they have a tooth fairy (tandfeen) the same as in the Anglosphere. In France 'La Petite Souris' or a fairy does the job, and sometimes a small present rather than money is given. This stuff is replicated across the world, with other animals including rabbits and magpies. It possibly started as a way to comfort children, especially after the loss of the first tooth. It is possible that the custom of burying teeth evolved into burying it under a pillow and 'growing' into money (speculation, not fact).\n\nIn Japan and Korea the custom is to throw lower milk teeth onto the roof and upper baby teeth into to the space between the ground and the floorboards (the en). In Vietnam the custom is to throw both sets of teeth onto the roof. This custom is common worldwide, occurring in India, Brazil and all over Africa as well. In Mongolia it is fed to a dog, who is a sort of guardian angel. In some Central American cultures the teeth are made into jewellery for the child.\n\nHundreds of years ago baby teeth used to be disposed of in such a way so that witches couldn't use them to curse you (as were nails). Methods included burning (England), burying (in the hope of a permanent new tooth), eating crushed up in food (weird much) or feeding to an animal (there was a folk tradition that feeding a tooth to a mice would ensure the permanent teeth would grow strong, sharp teeth). Vikings used to give a 'tooth fee' for the first tooth to fall out, and it is possible they used teeth in jewellery.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cilya40" ], "score": [ 13 ], "text": [ "The name \"Romania\" (România) was first brought to Paris by young Romanian intellectuals in the 1840s, where it was spelled \"Roumanie\" in order to differentiate Romanians from Romans. The French spelling version (Roumanie) spread to other countries.\n\nIn English, the name of the country was originally borrowed from French \"Roumania\" ( < \"Roumanie\"), then evolved into \"Rumania\", but was eventually replaced after World War II by the name used officially: \"Romania\". Most other countries still spell it with a \"u\". \n\nAs to why English uses an \"o\", \"ru\" is a more unusual sound in English than \"ro\". Basically, we Anglicized it. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cabzfrj", "cac02wq", "cac05qc", "cac07iy", "cac0bzr" ], "score": [ 2, 10, 42, 5, 6 ], "text": [ "Not all buildings were like that in the past, and the iconic building that are going to last as long as those old ones are quite ornate.", "In the early 1900s, architects like [Mies van der Rohe](_URL_1_) and [Le Corbusier](_URL_0_) pioneered modern architecture. This form of architecture was based on the idea that \"form follows function\" and \"less is more\" - that beauty stems from good proportions and an expression of the function of a building (hence why you can see a lot of the structural pieces in many of their buildings). Although there has been some backlash in subsequent decades (Robert Venturi, a famous architect currently working, has responded that \"less is a bore\"), modern architecture has maintained an influence that affects aesthetics moving forward. It's also, as you mentioned, cheaper to have less decoration, but you'll note that architects like Frank Gehry make wildly expensive buildings - the difference is that the visual interest is part of the structure, rather than a subsequent addition.", "I don't have much time to give you a comprehensive answer now, but as a student of architectural history I can give some useful source books:\n\n* William J. R. Curtis' *Modern Architecture since 1900*\n* Kenneth Frampton's *Modern Architecture: A critical history*\n* Le Corbusier's *Towards a New Architecture*\n* Leland M. Roth's *Understanding Architecture*\n* Peter Collins' *Changing ideals in Modern Architecture: 1750-1950*\n* Adolf Loos' *Ornament and crime* (The title is self-explanatory)\n\nI could give a very long and detailed answer, but a short (and necessarily oversimplified) summary would be: by the end of the 19th century most architects saw traditionalist architecture styles as tired and unable to keep with the new demands of an industrial society. In centuries past, ornament was valuable because it was expensive and it required the work of skillful artisans. In an era where industrial reproduction allowed the mass production of cheap ornament, it began go be seen as cheap, fake and unnecessary, and many architects began to search for aesthetics that were, so to speak, more honest (hence the famous slogans of *Form follows function*, *Less is more*, etc) Today's architecture seems unornate because instead of resorting to ornate details, it extracts its aesthetical qualities from shape, space, materials, etcetera. There are beautiful modern buildings such as the Sydney Opera House, Ville Savoie, Mies Van der Rohe's Barcelona Pavilion, the Fallingwater house, etc. \n\nThe aforementioned Peter Collins' book, while it has some issues, is quite provocative, as it shows that modern architecture wasn't a complete breakup with the past, but rather an evolution of 19th century trends where architects would search for a completely modern architecture that owed nothing to past styles or to ornament, only to be thwarted by technological limitations: it is not a coincidence that modern, unadorned architecture came to be at the same time cheap construction in concrete, glass and steel became widely available. ", "The simple answer is that aesthetics change, and architects respond to that change.\n\nWhat you interpret as \"ornate\" is not really a style, per se. There are dozens of different architectural styles, each slightly different than the last, ornate in a new way, ornamented in a different style, or simplified in another. Romanesque, [Gothic](_URL_0_), [Neoclassical](_URL_2_).. [Art Nouveau](_URL_3_), [Art Deco](_URL_1_).. Much of it is building off of the previous style and reinterpreting it, or reacting to the architectural past and throwing away things that they don't like anymore.\n\nIt's just a natural progression. There are movements in architecture, just like there are movements in the more \"fine\" arts of painting and sculpture. Right now we're in the angular glass box phase. In another hundred years we might be right back to ornamentation, or using a completely different material, style, or technique. \n\nAdditionally, some of the techniques architects are using today can be considered ornate. Gehry and Zaha Hadid are not a bad examples.", "It started before that. In the early 1900s. Mainly after the 1920s. \nIt is called Modernism. Things did fundamentally change indeed.\n\nIn this period many architects decided that buildings should be simpler. \nLess or no typical ornaments and details. Simpler lines.\n\nThey wanted the form of a building to follow the function of the building. A factory should not look like a temple, with high greek columns for example.\n\nThey wanted the building to be honest in it's appearance. If you build a steel building, you should not cover it with a stone facade and pretend the building is made out of stone as they did during the 1800s.\n\nNew technology such as reinforced concrete made it possible to make buildings lighter and walls thinner. You could have large rooms without the support of columns. And large glass-covered walls without the building collapsing. Even glass windows in corners of buildings.\n\nYou should check out architects such as Le Corbusier, Mies Van der Rohe and Walter Gropius who are very important during modernism.\n\nAfter the 1970s architecture have actually started to change back in a way. Ornaments have once again become popular during what is called the Post-modern era. Robert Venturi is important.\n\nA popular current post-modern style is deconstructivism. Where the whole building is sort of ornamental and chaotic as opposed to the order of modernism. Check out Hadid, Kolhaas, Gehry, Liebskind.\n\nAnd some architects still prefer the modernistic ethos.\n\nI for one do not find modern buildings boring. I mean some are boring of course. But that is mainly due to bad architecture. Not the wrong style of architecture. \nI really like the simplicity. As do many architects.\n\nThink about it this way.\n\nOlder cars are nice. The T-ford for example, or the old rolls royces. Or the 1967 Mustang.\nSo why don't we continue to make cars that look like that?\nOr art. Why don't every artist paint like Michelangelo? Or Rembrandt? Or Van Gogh? Or Picasso? Or Warhol?\nWhy doesn't Ikea make lamps like Tiffany? Or the lamps that Louis XIV had?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Mies_van_der_Rohe" ], [], [ "http://smarthistory.edublogs.org/files/2013/03/Awesome-Gothic-Architecture-Characteristics-t9ewie.jpg", "http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HwE-79wq9C0/UYJi7drKw1I/AAAAAAAAAXc/MkMFnKiJA0A/s1600/ch1.jpg", "http://0.tqn.com/d/architecture/1/0/a/q/SupremeCourtSO000736.jpg", "http://theredlist.fr/media/database/graphisme/History/logos_partie_1/hector_guimard/006_hector_guimard_theredlist.jpg" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "co0izbg", "co0j0do" ], "score": [ 9, 31 ], "text": [ "Corn (aka Maize) is a New World crop. In British English the word \"corn\" can mean any cereal grain (I believe this is actually the standard definition outside of the US). \"Corn dole\" in this case refers to a grain ration, though I can't speak to what type of grain. Maybe a Roman historian could speak more to the specifics of the Roman dole.", "It's a difference between North American and British English. In North American English, corn = maize or Indian corn. In British English, corn = grain. In this case, wheat, barley, or rye." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f7yuv16", "f7yv0fp", "f7yvcws", "f7yvqgc", "f7z18cr", "f7z1ogk", "f7z8vn2", "f7z8yfe", "f7zat3y", "f7zdj6l", "f7zh55b", "f7zojco", "f7zwpey", "f806929" ], "score": [ 7, 27, 17, 5, 9, 8, 7, 6, 16, 10, 5, 5, 15, 3 ], "text": [ "Hey this looks like a real cool topic. What kind of challenges did you have adapting this?", "Thanks for doing this AMA! I learned a whole bunch from your book! \n\nWhile talking with a teacher friend about your framing, she raised the tension of children’s egocentrism, especially for white kids raised with family histories tied to immigration and expansion. I’m curious what your advice is for teachers supporting students through some of the harder parts of your book. That is, if a child is aware their family history includes settlers and colonizers, they may struggle to get their head around what your book is offering. Any advice for teachers?", "Hello! Thanks for doing this.\n\nComing from a country with a history of settler-colonialism, I know how contentious it can be to introduce children to indigenous history. What is the current landscape like in the US? What do children tend to get taught in school about indigenous peoples?", "Settler colonists were frequently brutally violent toward indigenous communities in the course of colonization. Particularly with younger learners, do you have any suggests for how to talk about these things in a way that is both age appropriate and avoids whitewashing?", "Thank you for joining us! That sounds like an amazing project. \n\nAs someone studying native history (the Nahua from central Mexico) I'm always impressed by the deep cultural heritage, including e.g. oral histories and cosmologies. Does showing the richness of indigenous culture(s) play a role in your project? And have you had challenges or positive experiences in adapting these highly complex worldviews (of a multitude of groups) for children, who may not be familiar with them? Thanks in advance.", "Question, because I've seen Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz mentioned: have you found any similar tensions in your work to those that she wrote about in her Indigenous People's History? I ask because she seemed to come down very strongly against, in her words \"trendy postmodernist studies\" (by which she indicates things like viewing Indigenous-white frontiers as a \"zone of interaction\", or talking about \"encounter\" and \"dialogue\"). \n\nIt seems like a tough line to walk because on the one hand, as she (correctly) notes, \"settler colonialism is genocide\", and it's important not to whitewash that, but on the other hand it seems it could flatten the story, so it potentially makes the story *just* about what those settler colonial institutions did and how they were fought. Is it hard to move past framing of the settler narrative in the subject, even if the settler narrative is being challenged?", "This sounds like an amazing and very timely project - thank you for the work you're doing!\n\nSince the book seems meant to some extent to \"re-educate\" young Americans, I guess my question would be: how do you envision an updated school history narrative that respects indigenous perspectives? I don't mean to make you write another book, but could you give some sense of what that reframing would look like?", "Thank you for hosting this AMA!\n\n(a) You mention the wonderful way you empathized with younger readers in terms of their emotional relationship with their history and potential bad experiences in the classroom. Did you also consider the weighting of historical topics that children and adolescent readers might connect with on a personal/present level--family relationships, impact on children, children's culture in general?\n\n(b) The blurb describes Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz as a human rights advocate. How do you think that affected the story you adapted, and does it affect how you see your own role?\n\n(If your answer to the second question would be very close to /u/Kochevnik81's question, please feel free to simply say so!)", "Thank you greatly for this AMA. This is a topic very close to my heart, especially as a teacher of fairly young students. \n\nAs you mentioned in a comment above, this is also a very emotional topic and one that can be quite dark when trying to teach people. Were there moments working on this that really brought you joy instead? Or perhaps history moments that you included that really had a spark of hope, as opposed to the darkness?\n\nSecondly, were you able to use oral history as part of the education process? I've talked about oral history before with younger kids at Scout camps, and its something that has always fascinated them. I'm very interested to see if you were able to adapt, or bring such an important factor forward.", "Thank you for doing this AMA!\n\nReflecting on how I was taught about Native history in middle and high school (in the early 2000s), the narrative largely focused on the period up to 1890 (or perhaps a brief mention of the boarding schools), and then Native people re-enter the story with the American Indian Movement in the 1960s. I have a few questions:\n\n1) Does your book cover this period of early-20th century Native history? Should there be more attention paid to that period more broadly?\n\n2) Relatedly, that period saw federal policies like the Indian Citizenship Act, Indian Reorganization Act, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs' termination policy. If you cover those policies, was it difficult to explain those policies for a young audience?", "Thank you for adapting this work and doing this AMA - just learned about your book here.\n\nIt must have been difficult to adapt a work for a younger audience - was there anything that you had to take out or significantly change in adapting it? Or is it pretty much a 1:1 recreation but for a different audience?\n\nI see you partially answered this in another answer though.", "Thanks so much for doing the AMA!\n\nAs you adapted the book, were you able to highlight any particular examples of the resistance and resilience of young people in the age range of your expected audience?", "ta’c haláx̣p. íin wen'íikise Kyle Pittman. íin nimíipuu. (Good afternoon. My name is Kyle Pittman. I am Nez Perce).\n\nThank you for joining us here and thank you for the work you do. I am grateful for the answers you both have expressed so far and they speak to me as an Indigenous Person and an Indigenous educator. If you don't mind, I have several questions I would like to ask that are open to both of you:\n\n* How do you envision this work being received by Native students in the classroom and how do you feel like it would fit into the curriculum used by educators in a more Tribal School setting?\n\n* Are there other works you might want to adapt for other types of audiences?\n\n* Opinion(s) on blood quantum?\n\n* Favorite food(s)?\n\nqe'ci'yew'yew for your time and consideration.", "I haven't gotten a chance to read the books yet but thanks for doing the ama. Two questions if that's ok, 1 quicky.\n\nThe main books I've read that covered some native history was 1491, I'm curious how that's viewed by academically by you.\n\n\nThe second question is a little more delicate but has to do with the other side of natives myths and stereotypes. I remember the history I learned in schools and public culture was very forward with the inhumane actions and history in regards to imperialistic policy towards natives. Reading academic sources I wasn't initially prepared for some of the darker realities surrounding the native side. Slave ownership by natives, inter native atrocities , and the darkside of some particular pop history tidbits like European women \"staying\" with a native group that is often portrayed only as a testament to native culture. In the thread there is some talk of white children being made uncomfortable with their history, is there a similar situation with any native people being made uncomfortable with native history?\n\n\nIt must be difficult to address several contradicting myths that are all popular one-way it another. Obviously some more harmful and problematic than others but I imagine the Pocahontas \"noble savage\" type myths and other more violent myths to both be a serious problem in appreciating the breadth of native culture and history.\n\n\nEdit: I'm canadian, I hope native is an appropriate term when talking about this topic. Indian is more of a slur here than in the US and native is the most used term along with indigenous." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "daia2m1" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "Octavian was adopted by Caesar in his will, hence he legally became Caesar's son and was held to inherit by virtue of this fact. The adoption was not without some opposition, however, as Antony held it the will to be a forgery--largely because of his rather unexpectedly minor place in it. \n\n > would the Egyptian people have accepted Caesarion as their rightful king, despite his bastard status?\n\nI'm a little confused here. Caesarion *did* become king of Egypt, sharing the throne with his mother. As part of the Donations of Alexandria Caesarion was also declared Caesar's legitimate heir, in defiance of Octavian's continued existence. This, however, was purely a political declaration and could have had no legal impact, as by Roman law Caesarion, a non-citizen and foreigner (worse yet a foreign king), could not legally inherit. If you're asking about whether he could have been recognized as Caesar's heir according to Roman law, the answer is a resounding \"no.\" By Roman law the only way non-citizens could inherit was if they were the slaves of the testator, and only if they were freed in the same will that inherited them. During Caesar's lifetime citizen women couldn't even inherit from the first centuriate class, according to the stipulations of the *Lex Voconia*. \n\nThere are two separate legal principles going on here, completely unrelated to each other. The situation becomes somewhat clearer when it's pointed out, as I have already, that Octavian inherited by virtue of adoption--his distant blood relation to Caesar had nothing to do with anything" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9qh0sl", "c9qj059", "c9qykpx" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Examining tribal and non-state societies, wars of extermination were fairly common. While the bulk of inter-tribal conflicts was a constant background buzz of night raids and picking off rivals one man at a time whenever the opportunity presented itself, blood feuds could quickly and unpredictably escalate into one side entirely extinguishing the other - often by focusing on the women and children and leaving the men to die a lingering death or dissolve into other tribes. For example, this account by Robert Cleveland relates the dissolution of two tribes of the nominally peaceful Inuit as recently as the 1960s:\n\n* \"The next morning the Noataker raiders attacked the camp and killed all the women and children remaining in the Kobuk camp. [Goes on to describe mutilating the corpses and gang-raping the sole survivor before leaving her to die of exposure]. Some weeks later, the Kobuk caribou hunters returned home to find the rotting remains of their wives and children and vowed revenge, heading north to the upper Noatak to seek it. One morning the men in the Nuataagmiut camp spotted a large band of caribou and went off in pursuit. While they were gone, the Kobuk raiders killed every woman in the camp. They then cut off their vulvas, strung them on a line, and headed back to their now-empty home.\"\n\nTwo tribes mutually annihilating the other through wars of extermination.\n\nColonists could be equally as vicious. The extermination of the Herero by German settlers in southwest Africa, or the eradication of innumerable tribes by the Belgians in the Congo Free State, for example. Neither example is \"internal\" in any sense - the two sides are entirely different ethnic and social groups. Dismissing the contest as not being a war because one side was vastly advantaged over the other seems kind of arbitrary, to me. *Most* wars see one side with an advantage - if they didn't think they had one, they'd be less likely to go to war in the first place.", "From Wikipedia: [War Before Civilization:](_URL_0_)\n\n > \"The Yellowknives tribe in Canada was effectively obliterated by massacres committed by Dogrib Indians, and disappeared from history shortly thereafter. Similar massacres occurred among the Eskimos, the Crow Indians, and countless others. These mass killings occurred well before any contact with the West.\"\n\n > [...]\n\n > For example, at Crow Creek in South Dakota, archaeologists found a mass grave containing the remains of more than 500 men, women, and children who had been slaughtered, scalped, and mutilated during an attack on their village a century and a half before Columbus's arrival (ca. A.D. 1325). The Crow Creek massacre seems to have occurred just when the village's fortifications were being rebuilt. All the houses were burned, and most of the inhabitants were murdered. This death toll represented more than 60% of the village's population, estimated from the number of houses to have been about 800. The survivors appear to have been primarily young women, as their skeletons are underrepresented among the bones; if so, they were probably taken away as captives. Certainly, the site was deserted for some time after the attack because the bodies evidently remained exposed to scavenging animals for a few weeks before burial. In other words, this whole village was annihilated in a single attack and never reoccupied.\n", "Everybody is forgetting *the* largest war for extermination there has ever been (and, fingers crossed, there will ever be). The Second World War. Nazi Germany was undeniably fighting to advance a racist policy which argued that Jews and Slavs (among other \"undesirables\") had to be eliminated from society. In the Soviet Union and Poland, this did in fact take the shape of extermination. The obvious example is, of course, the concentration camps which sought to destroy the entire Jewish population. But further, the German Einsatzgruppen, SS, and other groups would routinely travel around Poland and Russia exterminating any Slav, \"Jew\", or \"Bolshevik\" they found. On the Eastern European front, the war was 100% a war which sought to destroy the Russian people and the Slavic race. The only thing which prevent the Germans from realizing their program was the dire need to actually fight the war. \n\nAnd in the Pacific, the Japanese often engaged in a racial conflict against the other Asian nationalities (or races, as the Japanese would argue) which consumed millions of lives. I would argue that the Japanese program of eliminating the other Asians utilized ever aspect of the Nazi Holocaust and elimination methods, aside from the Nazi's industrialized murder. The crimes of the Japanese commit in the Pacific are truly shocking, one example is their treatment of the Vietnamese. Needing their rice, the Japanese took almost the entire 1944 harvest from Vietnam and shipped it back to the home islands (where the US promptly torpedoed most of the shipment). Between '44 and '45, the *Vietnam* lost between 1 and 2 million people, in a country whose population numbered maybe 10-12 million. \n\nAs a general maxim, I would think that most wars between different races, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries, devolve quickly into wars of racial extermination. I would further argue that one needs to look not only as successful wars, but in attempts at extermination. While the Nazis were unable to destroy the Jewish race, we can credit them for giving it a good shot, and the intent was there even if the attempt failed. " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cksiuw3" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "It's from when he visited the nuclear plant at Hanford, Washington. [The address he gave is online](_URL_0_). The guy over his left shoulder looks like Senator Henry \"Scoop\" Jackson. The other guy, in glasses, might be Senator Warren Magnusson. " ] }

[]

[ "http://imgur.com/a/fi1v3" ]

[ [ "http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9436" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ctvvoj1", "ctvy7ep", "ctw07ed", "ctw15hf", "ctw56nv", "ctw8goa", "ctw8yy6" ], "score": [ 163, 83, 665, 14, 44, 2, 27 ], "text": [ "For clarification: are you asking about what battle strategies/tactics were like, or are you asking if we know pre-Colombian American war history (what battles were fought between whom, when, etc.)?", "I tried to post this as a reply to another user, but his comment was deleted, so here goes.\n\nThe Aztecs (er...Mexica is the more correct term) and Inca were powerful, sophisticated empires with detailed recorded histories at the time of conquest. For example, there are pretty good records of the rise of the Inca empire in the 1400s. The Mexica erased many of their old records at one point and re-wrote their histories, but we still have records of most of what happened from that point until 1519. In fact, there are more writings in the ancient Nahuatl language than in Ancient Greek! (source 1491 by Charles Mann...as is most of this) The tribes of North America didn't have the sophisticated writing and recording systems (that's not to say that they weren't sophisticated societies however.) We do know a few details, such as the story of how the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) confederation came together under the Great Law of Peace. Also, there would not have been large scale battles since most of the tribal groups were relatively small. We do know that some tribes warred in Pre-European America. For example, Tisquantum (Squanto of Pilgrim fame) found his village destroyed by the Wampanoag prior to meeting the Pilgrims, but not before encountering Europeans.", "We have several lines of evidence that allow us some insight into large-scale Native American conflict before contact. Ethnohistory and oral tradition, as well as archaeological and bioarchaeological information together can help us understand some aspects of the role of warfare in Native North American populations.\n\nFor example, historians and archaeologists compiled Haudenosaunee oral tradition with Owasco archaeological evidence in the form of village defense style and weapons, to determine that small scale raiding was likely the most common form of warfare in the Eastern Great Lakes before the formation of the Iroquois League. \n\n > Typically, 10-100 men would cautiously approach an enemy village, either attacking it directly or, more commonly, ambushing its residents as they left on their daily business. The raiders typically killed as many men as they could, took scalps and captive women, and fled homeward until they were sure they were not being chased. –Snow (1996)\n\nTypically these raids were conducted against non-Iroquoian nations (external warfare), but there is evidence of warfare between distinct Oswaco groups as well (internal warfare). Haudenosaunee oral tradition supports this perspective, saying Deganawida/The Great Peacemaker grew tired of the endemic raiding and bloodshed. He had a vision of a united Haudenosaunee League and called together the leaders of the Onondaga, Oneida, Mohawk, Cayuga, and Seneca in hopes of uniting the nations together.\n\nMore often we lack the direct oral tradition link to the history of a site, and we are limited to archaeological and bioarchaeological analysis. The best evidence for large-scale conflict is the case at Crow Creek. The Crow Creek Massacre is one of the largest pre-Columbian skeletal assemblages attributed to a violent encounter in North America. Sometime around 900 CE the ancestors of the Mandans built several earthen structures in the south central portion of modern-day South Dakota. Eventually the Caddoan-speaking ancestors of the Arikaras replaced the Mandans (no indication the replacement was by force) and increased the settlement to a decent-sized community of roughly fifty-five earthen lodges.\n\nFor unknown reasons, in roughly 1325 CE, at least 486 individuals at Crow Creek were violently killed. Evidence of the massacre was discovered in 1978 when skeletal remains eroded out of a fortification ditch. Analysis of the remains indicated extreme violence during the attack, and parts of the victims appear to have been taken as trophies by the attackers. The village appears to have been sacked and burned. Based on analysis of the skeletal remains we suspects many of the victims were malnourished, suggesting the conflict might have occurred due to scarcity of resources (Calloway, 2003).\n\nThe state of the remains indicates they were exposed for a period of time and subject to the typical animal scavenging expected on the Northern Plains. Sometime later the remains were gathered together, placed in a communal burial, and covered with a thin layer of clay from the nearby river. We don't know if survivors of the attack, their kin, or someone altogether different were responsible for cleaning up the battlefield.\n\nThe archaeology of warfare in North America is not my primary focus, I tend to read more of the bioarchaeology literature, but check the sources below if you are interested in learning more.\n\nSources\n\nAndrushko et al., (2005) Bioarchaeological Evidence for Trophy-Taking in Prehistoric Central California\n\nCalloway (2003) *One Vast Winter Count*\n\nLambert (2002) The Archaeology of War: A North American Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research.\n\nMilner (1999) Warfare in Prehistoric and Early Historic Eastern North America. Journal of Archaeological Research\n\nSmith (2003) Beyond Palisades: The Nature and Frequency of Late Prehistoric Deliberate Violent Trauma in the Chickamauga Reservoir of East Tennessee. American Journal of Physical Anthropology.\n\nSnow (1996) *The Iroquois*\n\nWilley and Emerson (1993) The Osteology and Archaeology of the Crow Creek Massacre. Plains Anthropologist", "So out of curiosity was there any large scale native american battles where both sides fielded large armies(say, in the thousands)?", "\nAlso known as the Iroquois Confederacy, the Haudenosaunee developed as a method of ensuring peace between the Five Nations (Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, and Mohawk) which had until that point been caught in a cycle of retaliatory warfare. This period of Iroquoian warfare and its ultimate resolution is perhaps the most famous episode in the oral history of Pre-Columbian America, but it’s not the only instance of warfare in the Iroquoian oral record. \n\nAnother talks abouts about a long period of warfare between the Alligewi (sometimes Talligewi) on one side and the Iroquois (prior to the formation of the Haudenosaunee) and the Lenape on the other. The exact identity of the Alligewi is currently unknown, but at the time they inhabited the Ohio Valley. After generations of war, the Iroquois-Lenape alliance drove the Alligewi south (a prominent idea of who the Alligewi might be identifies them as the ancestors of the Cherokee who are known to have migrated south along a similar route). The victory over the Alligewi is attributed to the Iroquois’ use of bows, which the Alligewi didn’t have or weren’t as skilled with. With that in mind, this narrative’s archaeological counterpart may be the Late Woodland period in Ohio Valley archaeology, beginning around 500 CE, when new populations armed with bows began moving into the area from the north and east.\n\nAnother notable incident of warfare in the oral tradition occurs during the time of the ninth Adoraroh (the Adoraroh is the chairman of the Haudenosaunee Grand (Men’s) Council, a position he occupies for life). At the time the Haudenosaunee were at war with the Mississauga (currently an autonomous branch of the Ojibwe, but whether that applied at the time is unclear - the written form of this account, from 1825, might be a bit anachronistic with its terminology). The Jigonsaseh, the equivalent of the Adoraroh on the Women’s Council, attempted to negotiate peace between the Haudenosaunee and the Mississauga and hosted a Mississauga delegation in her home for that purpose. During the negotiations, the leader of the Mississauga delegation was killed by two Seneca men. To maintain the current cease-fire in the war, Jigonsaseh turned the two men over Mississauga for punishment and immediate traveled to Onondaga to consult with the Grand Council there. While the tradition does not specify what occurred during this meeting, it does allude that a political rival reached the Grand Council first and poisoned them against Jigonsaseh. Regardless, she returned home soon after and called upon her local war chief to begin reaching out to non-Haudenosaunee allies. Jigonsaseh, the western population of Seneca to which she belonged, and her allies fought against the the rest of the Haudenosaunee. A recent interpretation of this episode describes it as a civil war over whether the Jigonsaseh, in her role as principal peace-keeper, is permitted to extradite citizens of the Haudenosaunee in order to maintain peace. In the 1825 version I’ve been focusing on here, this civil war ends in draw and a return to the status quo. In other version, written down in 1881, this incident is wrapped up with others that the 1825 includes as separate events and ultimate leds to the expulsion of the western Seneca from the rest of the Haudenosaunee who form their own confederacy (the Erie). The 1881 version also uses this incident to explain why the position of Jigonsaseh was abolished for many years. \n\nAs far as what these wars might have looked like, before the introduction of firearms, Iroquoian warriors went into battle wearign rod- and slat-[armor](_URL_0_). That particular image is based on a Wendat (Huron) warrior, but similar armor has been described for the Haudenosaunee as well. Common weapons included bows, thursting spears, and the [ball-headed club](_URL_2_). A large army could number into the low thousands. I’ll give some early historic examples since the oral traditions generally don’t keep track of this sort of thing. During the war against the Erie in the 1650s, all five of the Haudenosaunee nations contributed forces. The Mohawk were the least involved and contributed 700 warriors; the Onondaga contributed 1200; we don’t know the numbers for the other three, though the Seneca likely contributed as much as the Onondaga at the very least. On the other side, the Erie were fielding at least 2000 warriors. \n\nVillages, particularly those on the periphery, were defended by strong palisade walls which later European forces often found challenging to confront. The Iroquoian methods of siege warfare involved firing flaming arrows over the walls. When a village could be approached from the water, Iroquoian canoes allowed for swift attacks, then could be drawn from the water to provide cover as the warriors approached, and finally, propped against the palisade as a siege ladder. Once the warriors had closed the distance to the wall, they could use the same loopholes the defenders employed to fire into the village or set fires on the outside to lure the defenders out. However, the palisades usually included walkways along the top, from which the defenders could fire down on the attackers or rain stones down on them. \n\nSometimes, especially before Europeans arrived, formal battles would occur well outside of a village, with opposing forces lining up against each other before charging into combat. \n\nIdeally, captives were taken alive - which greatly heightened the prestige of the warrior who performed the capture. Once the warriors returned home, all the captives were divided out among the participating nations then to participating families within those nations, though typically on the most prominent families received a share of captives. Women and children were usually adopted into the new families. Men often were as well, but not always. Rather infamously, captive men might be executed by torture. While the capturing warriors might be able to make recommendations regarding a captive’s fate, the ultimate decision rested in the hands of the women receiving the captive. If they had recently lost a family member, the captive would more often be executed to avenge the prior death; if the family’s grief had passed, the captive would more often be adopted and assume the role, to varying degrees, of the deceased. \n\nAs a final note, unrelated to the Haudensaunee, you might be interested in [this post](_URL_1_) concerning the river fleet of Quigualtam, along the Mississippi.", "Almost along the same lines but how often was lacrosse used as an alternative to war?", "I'm a bit late to the party here, but let me talk about warfare and combat in Alaska. All Alaska Native groups experienced some level of local or regional conflict. The quantity and degree of these conflicts varied from place to place. As Ernest Burch Jr. [wrote in 1991](_URL_0_):\n\n > \"... the precontact population of Alaska was divided into a large number of nations, or countries. These nations were tiny ones in terms of population, but they were nonetheless just as distinct from one another as Israel and Syria, or as Germany and Austria, are today. ...\n\n > The tiny nations of Native Alaska had their great leaders and their villains, and their triumphs and tragedies, just as the great nations of Europe and Asia had theirs. The citizens of these tiny nations could and did engage in international intrigue and in war. They engaged in international diplomacy; they created international alliances and regional power blocks; and they participated in international trade.\"\n\nBurch in 1974 wrote one of the classic papers on Alaska Native warfare, \"Eskimo Warfare in Northwest Alaska,\" and his work has been carried a bit by subsequent scholars. In general ─ and that's a term that's tough to use with a territory as large as Alaska ─ combat was a matter of surprise attacks by raiding parties carried long distances by small boats. Many groups had fortresses or refuge areas ─ referred to as \"refuge rocks,\" these could be as simple as an easily defended point of land ─ to take refuge from these raids.\n\nLaminar armor was used almost universally in Alaska, with vertical slats of wood across the chest and back. Helmets of varying construction were employed, as were shields. Spears, bows, clubs, knives, axes and other hand weapons provided offense. Coastal whalers are known to have poisoned their weapons, and it is possible these poisons were used in warfare as well.\n\nIn southwestern Alaska, the Unangan people of the Aleutians (commonly called the Aleut), fought with the Alutiiq/Sugpiaq of the Kodiak archipelago, the Chugach of Prince William Sound and the people of the Alaska Peninsula. As Steve Langdon writes in *The Native People of Alaska*, \"Hostilities often took the form of raids in which small groups of men, usually less than 10, attacked another village to avenge some insult or theft or to obtain women as slaves. Men who participated did so generally by choice rather than by order.\"\n\nThere's a story called \"How the Men of Qilangalik avenged their wives,\" told by Makari Chimovitski in 1933 in *Tales of the Chugach*, that illustrates this practice. One summer, the men of Qilangalik, a Chugach village, went seal hunting and left their wives at the refuge rock at Johnstone Point on Hinchinbrook Island.\n\nAt the same time, an Alutiiq war party arrived and found the women at the rock. The women attempted to fool the Kodiak warriors into thinking the men were still there by making mustaches of bear fur and brandishing spears, but the ruse was exposed when one woman's mustache fell off. Some women resisted and were killed; others were taken as slaves or wives.\n\nThat winter, the Qilangalik men retaliated by traveling to Kodiak. During a snowstorm, they attacked and recovered their wives as the Alutiiq raiders were eating dinner. Some of the men didn't want their wives back and instead took Alutiiq girls back to Chugach territory.\n\nAlong the Bering Strait, the Yu'pik of St. Lawrence Island and the Inupiat of Seward Peninsula found themselves frequently in contact and conflict with the Chukchi of what is now far eastern Russia. Raids and counter-raids are described in Dorothy Jean Ray's *The Eskimos of Bering Strait*.\n\nCoastal trade was a significant thing in the pre-Contact era, with long-distance journeys conveying copper, whale products, dentalium shells and furs. Violating a trade deal or insulting another group could bring reprisals. The Chugach of Prince William Sound frequently fought with the Eyak (in the vicinity of modern Cordova), because the latter had an influential position as the intermediary between the Chugach and Tlingit trade of Southeast Alaska.\n\nThe Tlingit, meanwhile, were one of the best-organized Native groups in Alaska, but they too were under stress in the years immediately before Contact. Two hundred or so years before, what is now southern Southeast Alaska was invaded by the Kaigani Haida from what is now British Columbia.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [ "http://i.imgur.com/vQ5QMyS.jpg", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ldhjw/to_what_extent_were_precolumbian_native_american/", "http://i.imgur.com/lAc8VS5.jpg" ], [], [ "http://www.alaskool.org/projects/traditionalife/oralhistory/skeptic_to_believer.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "defbp7u" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "When a member volunteers their resignation it usually is to protest a policy. The most memorable resignation was when President Carter's Secretary of State Cyrus Vance resigned because he disagreed with the plans for Operation Eagle Claw (the failed rescue mission for the hostages in Iran). The Carter administration did not announce the resignation until days after the mission failure to make it seem unrelated. It later came out Vance vehemently disagreed with the planned operation and thought that it would only endanger the lives of the hostages." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "crhn67t", "crhqqr9" ], "score": [ 66, 62 ], "text": [ "Yes. No. Maybe. I don't think this question has a single definitive answer. I'm not sure if we have a single definition of today's beauty standards. I'm also pretty sure that \"beauty is in the eye of the beholder\" holds true today as in the past. \n\n\"Beauty, like supreme dominion. Is but supported by opinion\" - Benjamin Franklin 1741\n\nSince we don't have any men/women from the middle ages to show pictures to. How about I show you pictures from the middle ages. Then you can decide if you find the people in them attractive. If you do I think there's a good case that beauty hasn't changed. If you don't we will make the opposite case. \n\n\n**WARNING NSFW**\n\n[Raphael Died 1520](_URL_0_)\n\n[Cranach died 1553](_URL_1_)\n\n[Peter Paul Rubens died 1640](_URL_2_)\n\nI'm afraid I can't guarantee that what was painted was always the ideal of beauty. Descriptions of beauty from literature of the period are often insulting of fat gluttonous etc. although words like plump and phrases describing large breasts are often used to describe desirability in a woman. Other words with meanings such as petite, skinny, lithe are often used to describe attractive women. Once again we are left with a vague description of ideal beauty. But I think we can safely assume that the basic characteristics of what most people consider attractive hasn't strayed enough that beauty from the 15th century can't be recognized today.\n\nedit: fixed incorrect link \n", "It's impossible to say exactly what any historical person would think about any development today. Your question might be reworded to \"What were the beauty ideals in Europe during the middle ages, and how do they compare to those today?\", and I can answer that. (At least about the later middle ages - tough to generalize about the entire period.)\n\nContrary to popular assumption, the ideal female figure for all cultures before the 20th century wasn't plump and voluptuous. A \"long and slender body with small breasts but a protruding belly\" was the conventional beautiful form throughout later medieval English art and literature; the ideal woman was in her late teens and had fair skin and hair, red lips, and dark eyebrows. While the \"perfect age of man\" was in his 30s or 40s - having strength, wisdom, power, and maturity at that point - the beauty of a young man in late adolescence was also celebrated, with many of the same attributes that were seen as pleasing in women of the same age: long fair hair, pale skin, slenderness, etc. (*Medieval Maidens: Young Women and Gender in England 1270-1540*, Kim Phillips 2003; \"Beauty\", *Women and Gender in Medieval Europe: An Encyclopedia*, Margaret Schaus; \"Young, Rich, and Beautiful: the Visualization of Male Beauty in the Late Middle Ages\", Gerhard Jaritz, in *The Man of Many Devices, Who Wandered Full Many Ways* 1999) This standard of beauty is highly on display in extant art. Turning to just about any page in the [Roman de la Rose](_URL_2_) will show idealized, slender young people; [paintings](_URL_1_), [tapestries](_URL_3_), and [statues](_URL_0_) are the same.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.google.com/search?q=raphael+paintings&amp;espv=2&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=923&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=T21fVYjpPIXOsAWIhoDAAg&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ", "https://www.google.com/search?q=cranach+paintings&amp;espv=2&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=923&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=SZNfVcmqFomWNpSJgeAC&amp;ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ", "https://www.google.com/search?q=peter+paul+rubens&amp;espv=2&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=923&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=pmpfVbTTM8XFgwTds4GQAg&amp;ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&amp;dpr=1" ], [ "http://metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/464294", "http://metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/437059", "http://romandelarose.org/#home", "http://metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/467654" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d0or58w" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "At best it's not very reliable, at worst it's completely batshit insane. You'd be hard-pressed to find a bigger fan of Robert Graves than me (he's in Poet's Corner, for Christ's sake!), but that's not for his scholarship. Graves' \"scholarship\" is generally dismissed as fantasy, and it is. After the war Graves became obsessed with the idea of the \"White Goddess,\" some sort of pan-European, pre-Indo-European mother/moon deity that persisted through the Indo-European traditions and whose rites were the basis of all poetry. It's pretty loony (Graves associates the White Goddess, for example, with all women and argues that all poetry is hymnal praise of the female sex) and just about all scholars simply ignore it as a piece of very petty prose. His adaptations in *The Greek Myths* and the commentary therein are both based on his belief in the existence of this White Goddess, and he has some...bizarre stuff in his commentary. His distinction between \"true myth\" and stories is pretty ridiculous and more or less arbitrary, and it's full of false etymologies, questionable connections and generally cranky stuff. In addition, though Graves was a trained philologist, he had been out of touch with classical scholarship since at least the end of the war, and it very much shows--Graves seems to think in his commentary that there has been no serious compilation of reference works since Smith's *Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology* (1844!) and he's apparently totally unaware of the existence of the OCD and other reference works that already had editions published by the time of the publication of *The Greek Myths*. That's maybe not *too* surprising for Graves--he had lived pretty much totally cut off from the rest of the world for some time already--but it's not a good endorsement for his scholarship. Read it for its beautiful prose and the rather nice \"adaptations\" of the stories (many of which are pretty seriously twisted or basically invented by Graves) that are in our texts, not for Graves' scholarship" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ddny9k2" ], "score": [ 21 ], "text": [ "The top part is German:\n\nPrisoner of War\nSoldier Richard Hempel?\nRegiment No. 193 Company No. 6\n\nThe rest is in French but I think it is where he was kept as a prisoner. " ] }

[]

[ "http://i.imgur.com/NsSzKAy.jpg" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cc2o8q2" ], "score": [ 31 ], "text": [ "Hitler was known for setting his subordinates against one another. My sense is this was another example of this tendency. \n\nSorry this amswer is a little short. I am on a smartphone. I'll be happy to elaborate if anyone would like. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ckozd2g", "ckp0m6g", "ckpal6u" ], "score": [ 5, 2, 5 ], "text": [ "So somebody did ask a sort of similar question [here] (_URL_0_), but it doesn't really quite answer your question, and honestly doesn't answer the original question on that thread either. I've heard similar claims too and would love a better answer.\n\nEdit: Perhaps more related to your question: _URL_1_", "I'll leave someone to talk about beer, but fyi, you'll find a bit on water in the FAQ\n\n[Drinking water](_URL_0_)", "Its pretty much a compete myth. To start with, any historical claim needs to have some sort of evidentiary basis. The claim that humans systematically struggled to find clean water has no basis in either the written or archeological record. What there is record of is lots of people drinking water. There are even written accounts of people in urban areas recognizing that their water is polluted, but instead of turning to beer as a savior they would simply build huge engineering projects to bring fresh water to them.\n\nUndoubtedly, there would have been more water borne diseases in early times than there would be in current times via state of the art water treatment systems, but there is zero evidence of a widespread health emergency due to poor water that turned people towards beer. \n\nSystemic bad water is mostly a (relatively) modern problem driven by overpopulation.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1oumew/i_watched_how_beer_saved_the_world_and_most_of_it/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18bpb5/ive_always_heard_that_in_the_middle_ages_people/" ], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/health#wiki_drinking_water" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "emfwlza" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Sabotage was always a risk when using forced/conscripted labour in war production factories. The threat of brutal punishment (up to and includind death) could serve as a deterrent, but it was never 100 percent effective. \n\nI don't know exactly if or how the Germans went about trying to combat sabotage by forced labourers, or even how aware they were of it, but I can provide two examples of this type of sabotage that went undetected and were discovered later.\n\nThe first comes from Chapter 20 of \"The Guns of Normandy\" by George Blackburn (Blackburn was a Junior Officer serving in a Canadian Field Artillery Regiment). On a gun position north of Caen in 1944, it was observed that many of the artillery shells fired by German guns were not detonating. Several of these shells were dug out of the deep (over 9' in one case) holes they drilled into the earth. Upon examination, it was discovered that the impact fuses had been deliberately tampered with at the factory so that the shells wouldn't detonate. As Mr.Blackburn notes, this courageous act of resistance by workers at a Czech munitions factory likely saved the lives of hundreds (if not thousands) of allied troop's lives, and had a serious negative impact on the effectiveness of German artillery fire during the fighting in Normandy.\n\nThe second case involves a rocket-propelled Me-163 Interceptor. In the mid 1970s, the Canadian Aviation and Space Museum restored one of the two Me-163s in their collection. During the extensive restoration process, restorers discovered that two critical systems had been sabotaged, either of which could have resulted in the destruction of the aircraft had it been flown: \n\n1) The glue used to bind the skin to the frame on the wings had been tampered with so that it didn't adhere properly. Museum staff theorized that soap had been mixed into the glue to stop it from curing correctly.\n\n2) A small rock was found wedged between the fuel tank and its support frame. Had the tank been filled and pressurized, the rock would puncture the tank. Due to the highly volatile fuel/oxidizer mix used to power the rocket motor, this would've resulted in some impressive (and highly destructive) fireworks.\nThe museum's website has some more details and photos: _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://ingeniumcanada.org/aviation/collection-research/research-messerschmitt-me-163.php" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f6syc4f" ], "score": [ 1044 ], "text": [ "Short Answer:\n\nA timely question, as in 2013 UNESCO put native Japanese cuisine, *washoku,* on a list of cultural heritages, leading to scholarly inquiry into the question of just how much of the cuisine is foreign influenced. While there's a great appeal to a hard distinction between *washoku* and *yōshoku* (the Japanese term for western cuisine), in practice the two are much more mixed than is often acknowledged. Perry's \"opening of Japan\" didn't change much as an event, but the subsequent changes during the Meiji Restoration did.\n\nDiscussion:\n\nJapan has always been a nation of foreign influences, refashioned into distinctive local products, and this is true of cuisine. China and Korea are obvious long standing influences, but in terms of Western cuisines, it's the Portuguese who have the most dramatic legacy.\n\nBoth tempura and sukiyaki are derived from frying techniques learned from the Portuguese at the trading port of Nagasaki; long before Perry.\n\nIt's not so much Perry and his limited and unwelcome \"opening of Japan\" that transforms Japanese culture in the second half of the 19th century, it's the Japanese response to it, the Meiji Restoration. The Japanese send missions around the world to learn foreign technologies, bring in foreign experts to teach science, technology, medicine, and many other aspects of modernity. They enthusiastically adopt both as policy and culture\n\nIt's in this process that you get new culinary and distilling technologies in Japan-- today, for example, Japanese whisky fetches some of the highest prices in the world; the first Japanese whisky was distilled in 1870. While Japan had somewhat similar drink shōchū, whisky is distinct, and was learned from the example of Scotch whisky. Shōchū itself seems to have arrived centuries earlier, from Asia.\n\nThe 1870s and Meiji bring in Western influences on elite dining, but on the popular level you find *yōshokuya* \\- small restaurants serving western cuisine.\n\nserving\n\n > an inexpensive, Western-style cafeteria that provided the Japanese public with domesticated versions of selected Western-style dishes, such as roast beef, roast chicken, beef steak, veal cutlet, croquette, curry on rice, omelette and stew (Maenobō 2000: 97). The reliance on Anglo-Saxon cooking rather than French cuisine was determined by two factors. First of all, it was representative of British and American supremacy in the life of the Western communities in the treaty ports. Because the cafeterias were being set up and run by former employees of Western households or restaurants that were patronized by the overwhelmingly British and American community in Japan, they featured food that had been prevalent there. The second reason was the fact that English and American dishes were much less complex and therefore easier to prepare\n\nAs anyone whose traveled or studied in Japan has likely experienced, the Japanese typically process foreign innovations into their own distinctively Japanese forms. Karē-raisu the ubiquitous \"curry rice\" is a distinctly Japanese take on Anglo-Indian cuisine, distinctive from anything either Indians or British eat.\n\nSimilarly the Japanese adopted Worcestershire sauce as a ubiquitous condiment in a way that it isn't in the West, in Japan it became a sort of \"European soy sauce\", used far more than in Western cuisine.\n\nInterestingly there are often cues in Japanese orthography to foreign food origins, -- Japanese typically use katakana to spell out foreign words; and that habit allows us one measure of \"how Japanese Japanese think it is\". So, for example, you typically see ビーフステーキ -- \"beefsteak\" -- on a menu written in katakana, same with karē-raisu, ( カレーライス ) .\n\nTempura is an interesting case, sources have it that the word \"tempura\" derives from *quatuor anni tempora* \\-- the times when Catholics don't eat meat or may fast, \"Ember Days\" (though I've yet to see a primary source for this, there's a risk of a just so story here). Whatever the etymology, \"tempura\" walks the line of acculturation: you will see it written in katakana as テンプラ; but it also gets transformed into its own Japanese character and hiragana, or even all Japanese characters, as 天ぷら or 天麩羅. Notice that the first character \"天\" -- read \"ten\" is the character for \"heaven\" and also the first character in the Emperor (Tenno)'s Japanese orthography (天皇); an orthographic evidence that Japanese treat this as \"their own\". Not fully *washoku,* perhaps, but getting there.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nSources:\n\n\\[Katarzyna Cwiertka, Chair of Modern Japanese Studies at University of Leiden, has made European influences on Japanese food and dining styles a speciality and written extensively on the topic\\] [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\nCWIERTKA, KATARZYNA J. “EATING THE WORLD: RESTAURANT CULTURE IN EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY JAPAN.” *European Journal of East Asian Studies*, vol. 2, no. 1, 2003, pp. 89–116.\n\nCwiertka, Katarzyna J. “Serving the Nation: The Myth of Washoku.” *Consuming Life in Post-Bubble Japan: A Transdisciplinary Perspective*, edited by Katarzyna J. Cwiertka and Ewa Machotka, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2018, pp. 89–106.\n\nCwiertka, Katarzyna J. (2006) Modern Japanese Cuisine: Food, Power and National Identity, London: Reaktion\n\nIshige, Naomichi (2001) The History and Culture of Japanese Food, London: Kegan Paul.\n\nRath, Eric C. and Assmann, Stephanie (eds) (2015) Japanese Foodways, Past and Present, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.\n\nCwiertka, Katarzyna J. (2018) \"Washoku, heritage and national identity\" in Routledge Handbook of Modern Japanese History, Routledge.\n\nMary Redfern (2014) Getting to Grips with Knives, Forks and Spoons: Guides to Western-Style Dining for Japanese Audiences, c.1800–1875, Food and Foodways, 22:3, 143-174," ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c88ryyi", "c88zuvm" ], "score": [ 661, 9 ], "text": [ "I have touched on this subject several times, and my reply has a bottom line, which is \"poorly\".\n\nAs opposed to Austria, Prussia and France, the United States lacked a large military establishment in the mid-1800s. While there was a martial tradition, especially in the south where the state militias were held in high regard, the US lacked both the higher officers with experience (in staff work, field command, larger unit manouvres and logistics) - the largest experience anyone had was Scott's expedition in Mexico 1848, and it was a force that never exceeded 9 000 men.\n\nMany of the US officers were amateurs, who became officers because they knew someone rasing a regiment, or raising one themselves. Many of the soldiers were amateurs as well. Both sides in the civil war lacked a military establishment to provide them with light and heavy cavalry in force (note that cavalry on both sides were more raiding and recoinnasance forces than a battlefield force). The south had an advantage in having more men experienced with life on horseback, but neither side were for the duration of the war capable of producing cavalry that could charge home against infantry or even performe the primary duty of cavalry - pursuit of a fleeing enemy.\n\nThis was one of the main reasons the Europeans viewed - in von Moltke the elder's words, the US civil war as 'two armed mobs chasing each other around the country, from which nothing could be learned.' In European wars of the time, battles were usually decisive. The losing side was mercilessly pursued and destroyed by reserves and cavalry, and only if they could hole up in a fort did wars last longer than a season (this is why the Europeans thought ww1 would be over by christmas, and why they were in such a rush to mobilise an dgo to war - the side that mobilised slower had less men at the decisive battle). In the US civil war, the winning side was usually as exhausted as the losing side, and no real pursuit happened after any battle - which allowed the defeated side to rebuild and be back to fight another day.\n\nThe Europeans had experienced mass movement by rail at Solferino 1859, rifled muskets and minie balls used en masse, ironclads, sea mines, new infantry tactics, modern siege warfare and trench warfare and advanced logistics at Crimea 1853-56.\n\nCompared to many European armies, who had a core if they were not completely professional, the US civil war armies had a reluctancy to charge home. Even in the famous Pickett's charge, only about 200 men charged home, the rest stopped and started to exchange fire, which was, in European eyes, complete folly, as they would be in the killing zone of the defenders and at a serious disadvantage. Grossman, in his book \"On killing\" speaks about the inability of the US and CSA armies to properly condition their troops to kill. It is a modern invention, sure, but the European armies seem to have through a long tradition of military establishment been able to condition many more men than the US and CSA managed to do. About 2% of bullets hit - which fits with Grossman's note that about 2% of humans are natural killers - in the US civil war. The French troops in the Crimea managed to score one hit in seven shots fired - or about 14%.\n\nUS and CSA artillery was also a collection of different calibers, smoothbores and rifled guns, sometimes even mixed batteries. Between the Battle of Solferino (1859) and the Battle of Königgrätz (1866), the Austrian artillery went from all smoothbore and quite mediocre against the French at Solferino to being all standard rifled guns and quite superior to the Prussian artillery at Königgrätz.\n\nEuropean armies had switched to the \"rifle chain\" formation for infantry, a thin line focused on fire, see for example the thin red line at Balaklava in the Crimean War, while the US and CSA armies still used a tightly packed battalion as a manouvre unit, a Napoleonic war formation and tactic.\n\nBy 1865, the US army had learned a lot, had weeded out incompetents and dimwits among the officers, had acquired natural conditioning through war experience, had built up a competent (although cumbersome and slow) logistics service, had increased discipline and rear area services taking care of skulkers and those who fled individually. The cavalry had started to best their opponents and could dominate the field around the battlefield (although not the battlefield itself) and had built an impressive artillery in training and numbers (ut not in standardisation of calibers and types of guns). It was a good army, and no army in the world would be able to defeat it on its home turf. But if you placed it in France to defend against the Prussians 1870, I still think it would be defeated.\n\nEdit: I found my [old post](_URL_1_) on the subject, should anyone be interested. The discussion below it has a lot of quality content with excellent contributors weighing in.\n\nEdit 2: I found my [other old post](_URL_0_) on the subject.", "There is a book that directly answers your question: [The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the Civil War by Brent Nosworthy](_URL_0_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15sx12/how_did_the_unionconfederate_army_compare_to_the/c7prfj4", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/yvfvh/what_did_europeans_think_of_the_military/c5z8e0d" ], [ "http://www.amazon.com/The-Bloody-Crucible-Courage-Experience/dp/0786715634" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdmn0mk", "cdmvpxl" ], "score": [ 6, 3 ], "text": [ "If I can jump onto this and ask how did navy's in history find each other, were there prearranged meeting points? Or did they float around hoping to find one another?", "I was curious as well, and took a quick look through wikipedia (not the best source; take with grain of salt):\n\nThe first dateable recorded sea battle occurred about 1210 BC: Suppiluliuma II, king of the Hittites, defeated a fleet from Cyprus, and burned their ships at sea.\n\nIt goes on to say that there were various naval skirmishes here and there throughout, until the Persian Wars, which is the first \"real\" use of navy. \n\nAlternatively, in Ancient China, ships for battle have been in use since the Warring states period (481-221BCE) - these ships supposedly relied on ramming, and then a grapple-and-hook type mechanism to board the enemy. \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dc1aavg", "dc21rvf" ], "score": [ 174, 2 ], "text": [ "There were several reasons for the longevity of these buildings. The most important is that they are targets of little military value. The aim of the Blitz was primarily to target British industry and infrastructure. The first targets to be hit in London were the aircraft factories scattered around the south and west of the conurbation. These were followed by raids on the industrial areas in the north and east of the city, as well as strikes on the Docklands along the eastern part of the Thames. For example, the first big daylight raid on the 7th of September 1940 dropped bombs mainly on the city's docks, damaging Commercial and Millwall Docks, as well as the subsidiary ports of Tilbury and Thameshaven outside the city. Night raids were also aimed primarily at the docks and warehouses, but the difficulty of navigating at dark meant bombs fell all over the city. The massive night raid on London on the 29th December 1940 was aimed at the warehouses of the City of London and Tower Hamlets. Whitehall and Westminster were thus saved partly by their distance from the main centres of industry. \n\nA second reason is that British firefighters made serious efforts to save buildings of cultural significance. When St Pauls was threatened by the firestorm of the 29th December, (an event immortalised in the image St Paul's Survives by Herbert Mason) the building's firewatch made a heroic effort to extinguish any incendiaries near the building. Similarly, when the Palace of Westminster was bombed on the 10th-11th May 1941, firefighters managed to save Westminster Hall, albeit at the expense of the Commons Chamber. \n\nOne must also not neglect the inaccuracy of bombing raids from this period. Bomber formations were capable of targeting little more than a city - and even then weren't great at it. In 1941, the Butt Report found that only a third of RAF bombers were making it to within 5 km of their target. The Germans did have slightly better navigation, using radio aids such as X-Gerat, but they were still inaccurate. Bombing raids targeted at the docks on the Isle of Dogs scattered bombs from Biggin Hill to Tottenham, with a few bombs dropping as far from the centre as Borehamwood.\n\nA final point I wish to make is that many significant buildings didn't survive the bombing (or didn't survive it in their original form). As mentioned above, the Commons Chamber was burned out on the 10th-11th May 1941 - it would take nine years for it to be rebuilt to its present form. Most of the churches of the City of London were destroyed by fire, including seven originally designed by Christopher Wren. A further nine Wren churches were destroyed or heavily damaged by the bombing, but were rebuilt over time. Many halls of the London Livery Companies were destroyed, along with the Inner Temple Library, and Holland House. ", "From a local perspective very few of Liverpool's best known buildings survived without some damage but plenty only saw minor damage, a lot was pure luck since enough bombs fell near to the Pierhead for example to suggest there was no plan to avoid hitting certain high profile targets (assuming that the bombing could be that accurate once over the target). \n\nTo name a few major buildings, The Custom House was all but destroyed and had to be demolished, the Liver Buildings and Cunard buildings suffered minor damage, the Port of Liverpool building was badly damaged by a parachute mine, the Town Hall badly damaged and the White Star Line Building badly burnt out. The set of civic buildings (main library, museum etc) on William Brown street were severely damaged but St George's Hall survived largely unharmed. India buildings was burnt out, but Martins bank opposite got away without serious damage. The head post office was burnt out and Government Buildings destroyed, but the Municipal Annexe (which the latter backed onto) was hardly touched. \n\nQuite a lot of major buildings appear up have survived without damage because the damage inflicted on them was by fire rather than high explosive, so if the external structure survived, the interior would be rebuilt and it would be hard to tell, especially since the most buildings we see today have had their old interiors replaced long ago by he march of progress" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d1021ny" ], "score": [ 97 ], "text": [ "The Red Army in fact went through several helmets during the war so it's a myth that they didn't equip their troops with helmets. Indeed a google search of \"Red Army WW2 helmets\" will return dozens of results.\n\nThat said I have noticed soft caps in many Red Army photos, so I understand your question. And the simple answer as to why is the fact that many of these photos were posed shots and not actual combat shots - often of officers or commissars." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dah8hta" ], "score": [ 13 ], "text": [ "Well, they had seat belts and various forms of harnesses to keep them in the cockpit. Although it was still risky, the belts were rudimentary and not designed with the best ergonomics. It was only by the mid-war that more purpose design seat belts like the Sutton Harness, which covered the shoulders, became regular equipment. Some aircraft still operated with a degree of risk, like the [later models of the FE2](_URL_0_) in which the front gunner had to unbuckle his lap-belt to use the rear gun. In this case, coordination between pilot and gunner was necessary to keep the gunner from falling out the aircraft. WWI flying was dirty and very dangerous work, and seat belts only eliminated one risk. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Royal_Aircraft_Factory_FE2d_gunner.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ch79eju" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "I'm sure examples of casual clothing abound throughout history, but my favorite is that of Thomas Jefferson. When Senator William Plumer arrived to meet Jefferson at the President's House in Washington, D.C. on 1802, the president was \"dressed, or rather undressed, with an old brown coat, red waist-coat, old corduroy small clothes, much soiled, wooled hose and slippers without heels.\" Imagine the uproar in contemporary media if a president conducted business dressed this way. \n \nSource: \n1. Cliff Sloan and David McKean, The Great Decision Jefferson, Adams, Marshall, and the Battle for the Supreme Court (New York: Public Affairs, 2009)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cstiogv" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I was looking through some old posts and saw this one, looks like you never got an answer. I am actually an ancient coin collector myself so I can say that you're in luck, I know of at least one monetary system similar to the one you're discussing: the Roman monetary system. Throughout the history of Rome there were many types of currency, but a few quick examples that you would see during the empire were the bronze \"as\", the silver, then later brass and eventually just bronze \"sestertius\", the silver \"denarius\" and the gold \"aureus\". \n\nOriginally, a denarius was valued at 10 asses or 4 sestertii(making them worth 2.5 asses). This was later retariffed and a denarius was worth sixteen asses, but still just 4 sestertii. The golden aureus however was the highest denomination and after this retariff worth 25 denarii, 100 sestertii or 400 asses.\n\nThere are all kinds of interesting topics when you research the Roman monetary system and how they debased various coins over time as well as how the imagery on their coins was virtually always some kind of propaganda. Check out the following links for a bit more information:\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_2_\n\nThere are also occasionally some interesting discussions about various topics related to currency over at /r/AncientCoins and people are always posting all kinds of beautiful ancients if you're into that kind of thing." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_(Roman_coin)", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sestertius", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aureus", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denarius" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c63jt18", "c63kww2", "c63ldxz", "c63mgt3", "c63ml2h", "c63o228", "c63rji8" ], "score": [ 8, 2, 6, 8, 2, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "This is just a case of cultural myopia. Egypt occupies a special place in western historical narratives. Additionally, the Sahara divides Africa into two quite distinct cultural spheres.", "Egypt is the cultural epi-center for the Arab language. In terms of television and movie production, it is the Bollywood or Hollywood of the Arab speaking world. Like ripsmileyculture points out, Egypt is culturaly more of a Middle Eastern Arab nation than an African nation, despite the fact Egypt is technicaly, for geographic reasons, an African nation. ", "[For those wondering what flanderization means](_URL_0_).\n\n**WARNING!!!! TV TROPES LINK!**", "Essentially: Egypt has a famous, distinct, and well known culture, and as a nation, it fell under the sphere of classical European dominion in one of the most important and well documented stages of European history. It stands to reason that they'd be at least as well known as any other Roman province, but all the much more for having such a uniqueness to them. \n\nSub-Saharan Africa was almost completely inaccessible to Europeans before the synthesis of Quinine, so its actual history hasn't had much time to work itself into our books so to speak.", "I can only speak from an American perspective. Looking back at my own elementary through high school education, in addition to exposure to television, I was exposed to numerous educational programs that talked about the construction of the pyramids, or Pharaoh Tutankhamun's treasures, or the Rosetta Stone and the translation of hieroglyphics. In the history curriculum, ancient Egypt was given almost as much attention as Greek or Roman culture. \n\nHad I not paid any attention to this at all, my only idea of Egypt would probably derive from Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, which also romanticizes the exotic charm and archaeological value of Egypt.\n\nNow, my history education of the rest of Africa begins with the \"triangle trade\" and the slave trade. The next thing covered was 19th century division of Africa among colonial powers, and finally a very light examination of decolonization (mostly because my sophomore year history teacher was very interested in/had been to Africa) and Apartheid/Nelson Mandela.\n\nFurthermore, I think that the reporting of the Rwandan genocide played an enormous role in creating a mental picture of Africa as a continent riven with violence and tribalism, at least for my generation.", "A few things. You description of Africa is confined to Sub-Saharan Africa, where European contact with the region is relatively recent, and punctuated with both colonization and decolonization (and the effects therein). Since the historical contact between the West and sub-Saharan Africa is so brief, it makes sense that recent reporting of the region would dominate our perception of it. So considering that issues affecting the region (with regards to American domestic discourse) \n\nEgypt, on the other hand, has had a much larger connection with Europe and a much longer and established history. Others here have mentioned the storied history of Pharaonic and Hellenistic/Roman Egypt, so I won't rehash it here. I will say that Western perception of a given region is shaped heavily by Biblical and Classical writings of the region. And for Egypt, both the Bible and Classical texts have plenty to say. So it's not hard to imagine that Europeans and Americans, already familiar with the testimonies of the Pyramids; with the story of Moses leading the Hebrews out of Egypt; with the heroics of Alexander and his journey to Siwa; with Caesar (and Mark Anthony) consorting with Cleopatra; with the stories of Jesus's childhood in Egypt; that all these stories would give a further context for Western perceptions that simply did not exist in the case of sub-Saharan Africa.\n\nIn addition, the recent history of Western-Egyptian relations has been colored by Egypt's pharaonic past; it's role under Napoleon's (brief) occupation; the rapid conquests of Mehmed Ali; the building of the Suez Canal; the importance of Egypt under the British Empire; and the role Nasser had in Cold War politics; it's easy to see why the perception of Egypt would be different than that of sub-Sahara Africa..\n\nIf nothing else, as Americans are thought a World History that begins with the emergence of civilization in Mesopotamia - and that civilization moves westwards to Egypt - it's easy to see Egypt as a civilization that bridges the beginnings of civilization with the emergence of civilization in Europe. The history is much more complicated than this, but again, we're talking about your standard high school history textbook.\n\nMedia portrayals of Mummies, Pyramids, Pharaohs, and exoticism - all based on long-established tropes found in classical and biblical writings - have had an influence that differentiates Egypt from the rest of Africa. \n\nOf course, there are other considerations. As Jared Diamond notes, Egypt (and the rest of North Africa) are better understood as being part of Eurasian civilization than with the rest of Africa, in terms of culture, language, religion, farming, urbanism, and history. In addition, as Egypt is by far the most populous Arabic speaking country and a large Muslim country, there is some differentiation with the stereotypical images of pagan (or Christian) sub-Saharan Africa. Yes, there's the famed Swahili coast and the West African Islamic Empires. But as the question is about Western perceptions of the region, these regional histories are often overlooked by the common tropes of a famished, war-torn region.\n\n", "Because people usually mean Sub-Saharan African when they mention \"Africa\". \n\nPeople aren't thinking of Morocco when they're talking about rebel soldiers, child soldiers, famines, and AIDS in Africa." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flanderization" ], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cgeqx8m" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "As for the Secret Service specifically it was to combat a very serious problem with a focused approach. The Secret Service was not originally founded to protect the president. Their purpose was to protect the value of US currency by targeting counterfeiters. They were quite effective.\n\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/kids/inside/html/spring98-2.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e2gd4lp" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "I did some digging on this a few [years ago](_URL_0_), and was unable to turn up any evidence of the practice. Whilst slavery was an incredibly violent and dehumanising institution, this particularly abuse seems to have been one needlessly invented to create additional suffering where there was already far, far too much for us to talk about." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/477t0o/were_black_children_actually_used_as_alligator/d0b4dfg/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d137atv" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "Most? Very doubtful. A significant number? Absolutely. We of course don't census numbers on such things, but we do have accounts of Jewish tribes in various parts of Arabia as well of the Himyarite Jewish Kingdom of Yemen (although as I understand it the extent to which they were straightforwardly Jewish as opposed to merely monotheistic is a matter of dispute). That conversion of the kings of Himyar was in the 4th century AD, which is around the time when northern Arabia starts to look increasingly Christian as well.\n\nIn terms of pre-Christian Arabic Jewry, we're probably talking about a much smaller although quite ancient community in northern Arabia. So we have an inscription dated to 42 AD in [Hegra](_URL_0_) (modern north-west KSA) of a tomb where the writer describes himself as a Jew. There were Jews in Southern Arabia prior to the conversion of the Himyarite kings themselves though it's my understanding that we don't know quite how old that community is.\n\nSource wise and for further reading see Robert Hoyland's *Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam*." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mada%27in_Saleh" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdjkvdz", "cdjrlbj", "cdjx6uq" ], "score": [ 54, 3, 6 ], "text": [ "Not really.\n\nNative American nations had a long history of diplomacy and warfare, extending centuries before European contact. The idea that separate nations with separate leaders would engage in combat or politics to gain land or crush an enemy was an idea that Native Americans were familiar with, and could easily be applied to the colonists.\n\nMany Native American nations were adept at diplomacy, and could easily outclass Europeans when it came to political manipulation. By the eighteenth century, many nations were dependent on European trade goods, but were losing land to the colonists. This required them to strike a balance between deference and resistance. It's an incredibly difficult line to walk, but historians are largely in agreement that several nations were successful in playing the French and English off against each other in order to gain material or diplomatic advantage. Such diplomatic feats couldn't have been accomplished had they been confused about imperial conflicts.\n\nFor more information on how Native Americans were able to survive between two belligerent imperial powers, and why this advantage eventually fell apart, read Alan Taylor's *Divided Ground: Indians, Settlers, and the Northern Borderlands of the American Revolution.* Another great one, that I recommend here often, is Joseph Glatthaar and James Kirby Martin's *Forgotten Allies: The Oneida Indians and the American Revolution*.", "I'm reading a book right now called stolen continents by Ronald Wright on the history of North and South America from the perspective of the major native groups that existed at the time of European conquest. the book has a lot to say about native reactions to European politics and strategies of war and for the most part, these groups were well acquainted with most of the concepts. one of the main exceptions would probably be religious intolerance. basically every native society had multiple variations of a higher power which could coexist with others without issue. a quote from the chapter on the Aztecs:\n\n > unlike christianity, mesoamerican religion was not absolutist. it thrived on diversity; it held that different people had - and needed - different forms of thought and worship (p 145)\n\nwhich is a distinctly un european sentiment which was swiftly and ruthlessly stamped out by the invading christians. total conversion or death were the standard options", "/u/LordKettering already covered the basics, so I'll tackle some specific examples of how a few Native American leaders and diplomats viewed the political landscape of colonial North America.\n\nFollowing King George's War (1744–1748), what is now northern New England was disputed territory. In 1752, the Governor of Massachusetts sent Phineas Stevens to negotiate with [the Wabanaki Confederacy](_URL_0_) at a meeting hosted by the governor of Montreal. At this meeting, the Wabanaki representative, Atiwaneto, refused to sell any more land to the British.\n\n > Brother, you are therefore masters of the peace that we are to have with you. On condition that you will not encroach on those lands we will be at peace, as the King of France is with the King of Great Britain.\n\n > By a Belt.\n\n > I repeat to you, Brothers, by this belt, that it depends on yourselves to be at peace with the Abenakis^1. Our Father^2 who is here present has nothing to do with what we say to you; we speak to you of our own accord, and in the name of all our allies^1. We regard our Father, in this instance, only as a witness to our words.\n\n[...]\n\n > We are entirely free. We are allies of the King of France, from whom we received the Faith and all sorts of assistance in our necessities. We love that monarch, and we are strongly attached to his interests.\n\n1. The Abenaki are one of the members of the Wabanaki Confederacy, and specifically the ones from whom the British wished to purchase land. Atiwenato was Abenaki. When he refers to 'our allies' later, he means the Wabanaki Confederacy as a whole.\n\n2. \"Our Father\" refers to the governor or Montreal.\n\nDuring the French and Indian War, Pennsylvanian ambassador Christian Frederick Post went to negotiate peace with the Lenape living in the Ohio Country. After meeting with Shingas (whom the Pennsylvanians erroneous deemed king of the Lenape) and other Lenape leaders, Post received this reply:\n\n > The land is ours, and not theirs; therefore, we say, if you will have peace with us, we will send the French home. It is you that have started this war, and it is necessary that you hold fast, and be not discouraged, in the work of peace. We love you more than you love us; for when we taken any prisoners from you, we treat them as our own children. [...] By this you may see that our hearts our better than yours. It is plain that you white people are the cause of this war; why do not you and the French fight in the old country, and on the sea? Why do you come to fight in our land? This makes every body believe, you want to take the land from us by force, and settle it....\n\n > Look now, my brother, the white people think we have no brains in our heads; but that they are great and big, and that makes them make war with us: we are but a little handful to what you are; but remember when you look for a wild turkey, you cannot always find it, it is so little it hides itself under the bushes; and when you hunt for a rattlesnake, you cannot find it, and perhaps it will bite you before you see it. However, since you are so great and big, and we so little, do you use your greatness and strength in completing this work of peace. This is the first time that we saw or heard of you, since this war begun, and we have great reason to think about it, since such a great body of you comes into our lands. It is told us, that you and the French contrive the war, to waste the Indians between you: and that you and the French intend to divide the land between yo: this was told us by the chief of the Indian traders; and they said further, brothers, this is the last time we shall come among you; for the French and the English intend to kill all the Indians and then divide the land among themselves... Brother, I suppose you known something about it; or has the Governor stopped your mouth, that you cannot tell us?\n\nSide note: the Lenape have some of the snarkiest diplomats of the colonial era. Also some of the most Properly Paranoid diplomats. During the American Revolution, Hopocan makes a speech to the British, after performing the bare minimum required of him by a dubious treaty he disagreed with, and accurately predicts that the British would make a separate peace with the rebels and abandon their Indian allies.\n\nAfter the bulk of the fighting in the French and Indian War was over, and the British victorious over the French, Alexander Henry, an British trader, traveled to Michilimackinac, the political hub of the Three Fires Confederacy (the Ojibwe, the Odawa, and the Potawatomi). There met with Minavavana, an Ojibwe leader, who gave his own perspective on the new political situation. As with Atiwaneto and the Wabanaki, Minavavana emphasizes that the Ojibwe are independent allies of the French:\n\n > Englishman, although you have conquered the French, you have not yet conquered us! We are not your slaves. [...] Englishman, our father, the King of France, employed our young men to make war upon your nation. In this warfare many of them have been killed, and it is our custom to retaliate until such time as the spirits of the slain are satisfied. But the spirits of the slain are to be satisfied in either of two ways; the first is by the spilling of the blood of the nation by which they fell; the other is by *covering the bodies of the dead*, and thus allaying the resentment of their relations. This is done by making presents.\n\n > Englishman, your king has never sent us any presents, nor entered into any treaty with us, wherefore he and we are still at war, and until he does these things we must consider that we have no other father, nor friend among the white men than the King of France.\n\nDespite Minavavana's declaration that a state of war persists between the Ojibwe and the British, he assured Henry that, since he came in peace under the misapprehension that the war was over, he would be permitted to conduct his busy among them as he had planned. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://www.brownhistory.org/images/Maps/Native%20American%20Maps/Wabanaki%20Country%20pre-18th%20Century%20Map.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "crvz7xe" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "In Virginia there were ways for Blacks to register themselves as free either by virtue of their birth or emancipation. \n\nThese registers would have included paperwork for the person to carry. \n\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box/2013/03/27/history-restored-free-negro-registers-conserved/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eichbyy" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "Do you know who was the first king that left for his kingdom in Latin West as a ruling king (thus King Baldwin of Jerusalem was excluded) and visit the Holy Land, after Pope Urban II’s call for the Crusade in 1095? It was indeed King Sigurd of Norway (r. 1103-30). He sailed through the Gibraltar Strait into the Mediterranean, arrived in the Holy Land in 1110 with his more than 50 Norwegian fleets, and even helped King Baldwin of Jerusalem to capture the city of Sidon. From this expedition, or ‘crusade’, King Sigurd gained his famous byname,*Jórsalafari* (the man who travelled to the Holy Land). Scandinavian, non-Scandinavian like William of Malmesbury, and even some Arabic sources alike record his activity of the Holy Land.\n\n & nbsp; \n\nThough fairly unstable, the relationship between the Roman Church and new Christian Nordic three kingdoms (Denmark, Sweden, Norway) became much closer in course of the late 11th and early 12th century. The contributing factor was the relationship between the Pope and Archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen who had tried to monopolize the ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole Scandinavia as well as the North Atlantic Norse colonies in the 11th century, Many 11th centuries Scandinavian rulers were wary of this claim of Hamburg-Bremen, and even some of them were openly hostile to German churchmen (and labelled as ‘bad Christians’ by the spokesman author of Hamburg-Bremen, Adam of Bremen (ca. 1075). \n\n & nbsp;\n\nThe problem was the very close relationship between archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen and Salian kings/ emperors of Germany, especially during the reign of Archbishop Liemar (r. 1072-1101). He and his colleagues prioritized the king over the papal legate, and got suspended by Pope Gregory VII (r. 1073-85) due to their neglect of the papal (legate’s) authority. In turn, they resorted to King Henry IV of Germany (r. 1056-1106) to resign Gregory. He in fact was one of the chief players that caused the famous conflict between the Pope and the king/ emperor of Germany, known as ‘Investiture Contest’. \n\n & nbsp; \n\nKing Svend Estridsen of Denmark (d, 1076?) foresaw this possible rupture between the Pope and Archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen, and wished to get direct contact with the pope in Rome (i.e. without Hamburg-Bremen as intermediate archbishop) as well as the papal legate Hildebrand, later Gregory VII before his ascension to the pope. King Svend of Denmark was indeed listed as one of the five notable persons in Latin West who Hildebrand-Gregory announced his election to the Pope in 1073 (Reg. Greg. I-4). It was also to him at first that Gregory exposed a possible proto-type concept of the crusaders, *milites Sancti Petri*, the military activity under the papal command (or the military alliance among the princes under the leadership of the Pope) (Reg. Greg. II-51). \n\n & nbsp;\n\nAfter the breach with Archbishop in Hamburg-Bremen in 1074, Gregory VII also wrote some letters to King of Norway (Reg. Greg. VI-13) and those who of [some SW parts of] Sweden (Reg. Greg. IX-14), in addition to Harald Hein (r. 1076?-80), son of late King Svend of Denmark. In short, Gregory tried to put the principle ‘The enemy of his own enemy are his friend’ into practice, to reduce the influence of the important ally of his arch-enemy, Henry IV. Pope Gregory VII, however, was in fact one of the first Pope that had a strong sense of responsibility all over the ‘Latin Christendom’: He advised pastoral matters to these kings in his letters, and also asked them to send some promising young men to be studied in Rome. The tone of the letter is also very warm and friendly compared with those addressed to the receivers in Germany. Thus, Pope Gregory VII build the groundwork for integrating the Scandinavian church with the Roman Papacy or emerging ‘Latin Christendom’, the Christian community under the spiritual-administrative leadership of the Pope. \n\n & nbsp; \n\nDenmark remained close to the Pope in ca. 1100. King Svend Estridsen’s namesake son [Svend] was said to take part in the First Crusade and killed near Antioch in 1098, and King Erik Ejegod (r. 1095-1103), another son of King Svend, succeeded in negotiating with Pope Urban II to establish Scandinavian archbishopric, now independent of Hamburg-Bremen, in 1104 in Lund, capital of medieval Denmark. Papal legates had visited in Denmark not once during the reign of King Erik. King Erik also left his country and went pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1103/04, but he was died on his way in Cyprus and buried there. If he could arrive in Jerusalem alive, it was not King Sigurd of Norway, but King Erik Ejegod of Denmark who would have been the first Christian ruler visiting Jerusalem during the crusader period. On the other hand, it took a while, but in course of the middle of the 12th century, Norway (1152/53) and Sweden (1164) also got their own archbishopric/ church province, centered respectively in Trondheim and in [Old] Uppsala. The armed pilgrimage or crusade of King Sigurd of Norway (it was difficult to confirm the exact involvement of the Pope in his journey to the Holy Land), mentioned above, was also just one step of this long-term integration of medieval Scandinavian kingdoms into ‘Europe’. \n\n & nbsp;\n\n[Added]: I cannot say it's historically accurate, but the Scandinavian film 'Arn the Knight Templar' (trailer is [here](_URL_0_)) at least conveys some of such atmosphere of the 12th century Scandinavia. \n\n\n & nbsp;\n\nReferences: \n\n* Emerton, Ephraim (trans.). *The Correspondence of Pope Gregory VII: Selected Letters from the Registrum,* New York: Columbia Up, 1932. \n\n+++\n\n* Berend, Nora (ed.). *Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy; Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus’ c. 900-1200*. Cambridge; Cambridge UP, 2007.\n* Jensen, Janus M. ‘The Second Crusade and the Significance of Crusading in Scandinavia and the North Atlantic Region’. In: *The Second Crusade: Holy War on the Periphery of Latin Christendom*, ed. Jason T. Roche & Janus M. Jensen, pp. 155-81. Turnhout: Brepols, 2015.\n* Robinson, Ian S. *The Papacy 1073-1198: Continuity and Innovation*. Cambridge; Cambridge UP, 1990. \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EAqu28Dd-M" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d75ubyl" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "You are correct to be wary of these depictions. Of course, remember that when we talk to historical actors, or read biographies, we are often hearing what they remember or want to remember. Not necessarily what happened. In Vietnam this is difficult because of the totalizing way the government and party enforce an interpretation of the war that reinforces the legitimacy of the communist party to retain sole control of the state. Even portraying suffering of the NVA troops was forbidden for a long time!\n\nNow, the problem is that research on the DRV during this time is very difficult. Press access was highly restricted then, and today the archives are tightly controlled. So often we are left with anecdotal evidence. But some scholars have found interesting clues. For example, [Pierre Asselin notes finding documents](_URL_0_) related to anti-war (and anti-Le Duan) activities in North Vietnam. In Lien-Hang Nguyen's book, *Hanoi's War*, she cites documents from Soviet bloc diplomats, reporting from Hanoi, that part of the reason Le Duan escalated support for the insurgency in South Vietnam was to quell domestic problems in North Vietnam -- using the war and propaganda to overcome unfair land practices, food shortages, etc. The South Vietnamese government also tried to exploit the fear or reluctance of North Vietnamese soldiers to go into the south, as you can [see here](_URL_2_).\n\nOne of my favorite examples to show the difference between the propaganda films (which show Vietnamese as passive to the DRV and party, always obedient) is the documentary *Chuyện Tử Tế*. Watch [how the farmer reacts](_URL_1_) to the presence of government film makers in his village. This is a stark contrast from the official propaganda films produced by Hanoi.\n\nMy own research relates to the era before, to the First Indochina War. But the themes are the same, and because of better access to documentation, can provide better examples. Like Saigon in 1975, Dien Bien Phu is when all the Vietnamese people are said to have defiantly faced the French and willed their victory. Yet most soldiers defending Dien Bien Phu were Vietnamese! They were soldiers in the Bao Dai government's national army (Quốc gia Việt Nam). And in fact, significant numbers of the DRV troops deserted before the fall of Dien Bien Phu, because the conditions in the DRV army were so bad. As a result, as Christopher Goscha notes in his book *Un État né de la Guerre*, Vo Nguyen Giap resorted to executing some deserters or soldiers that, out of fear, refused to follow orders. Understandably, they were afraid to die. \n\nBut today, [as Liam Kelley noted recently](_URL_3_), Vietnamese history remains imbued with a strong element of 'Vietnamese Exceptionalism', whether it's Dien Bien Phu or the 'giải phóng' of Saigon. And therefore to acknowledge that North Vietnam is a complicated subject, not unique, but like other states and other armies has not been possible. It's soldiers were people too, some eager to go fight (whether out of patriotism, ego, or some other motivation) and others were afraid or even opposed to the war, if not openly.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiylMm0xzNI", "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG4eZRUalMI&amp;t=5m45s", "http://www.psywarrior.com/vietnam3.jpg", "http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vQPyc1KzLvIJ:www.damau.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Da-maus-interview-of-LMK-English-version-05-10-161.docx+&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ck0j7gd", "ck0kpdw" ], "score": [ 2, 54 ], "text": [ "Hi there! While it's not about sitting bull, it is important to note that horses are native to the Americas, and were brought over the land bridge to Asia before becoming extinct in the pleistocene. \n\nThe organization \"The Cloud\" is quite dedicated to horses, and they have an interesting article on their reintroduction to the Americas _URL_0_\n\nHorses were reintroduced in 1513, centuries before Sitting Bull. In that time they became ingrained in American culture and flourished in the great plain that had developed in their absence. They were key to warfare and mobile lifestyle for many people traversing the expanse that is the heart of America.", "Sitting Bull and Red Cloud were both Lakota, which makes this very convenient. The Lakota word for \"horse\" is *šuŋkawakȟáŋ*. For comparison, \"gun / rifle\" is *mázawakȟáŋ*, and \"alcohol / liquor\" is mníwakȟáŋ\". *Šuŋka*, *máza*, and *mní* mean \"dog,\" \"metal / iron,\" and \"water\" respectively. *Wakȟáŋ*, the common element in all three, means \"mystery / mysterious.\" It's most famously used in a religious context, where it can refer to spiritual power or in the phrase *Wakȟáŋ Tȟáŋka*, the Great Mystery (sometimes rendered as The Great Spirit in English). In the context of horses, guns, and alcohol (along with a few other words), *wakȟáŋ* takes on slightly different meaning. They're still mysterious, but not because of some special supernatural power, but because they were, at one time, new and not yet fully understood. *Wakȟáŋ* became an element in words referring to things brought by Europeans, as did *máza*, which, based on its name alone, makes *mázawakȟáŋ* the most iconic European import.\n\nSitting Bull and Red Cloud could not have spoken of horses without being reminded that the animal, like guns and liquor, had come from Europeans originally." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.thecloudfoundation.org/reading-room-faq-s-articles/wh-returned-native/140-new-evidence-rewrites-time-for-american-horse-extinction" ], [] ]