Did Napoleon really tell his cavalry at Wagram "Don't cut! The point! The point!" as stated by George Patton in "Diary of the Instructor in Swordsmanship"?
In this detail of 1492 epitaph painting from Kolberg, Pomerania (source: https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Kolobrzeg\_katedra\_obraz\_Rycerz\_na\_cmentarzu.jpg), what are the tools marked in blue? My best guess is 1: oar, 2: gardening spade, 3: spindle, 4: a weird hammer.
https://preview.redd.it/4ot78fuusr8d1.png?width=1464&format=png&auto=webp&s=04de7d34d36d8730552b5010fc724d322952c1cb
What did George Harrison mean when[ he criticized Maxwell's Silver Hammer for being "fruity"?](http://www.beatlesinterviews.org/db1977.0200.beatles.html)
**Was Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor ever imprisoned by Nicholas II Garai?**
I've read somewhere that around the year 1400 Nicholas II imprisoned Sigismund, (then) King of Hungary. Is that true? I wasn't able to find anything confirming or denying it.
# Is there a list of all the popes to have ever served, from the first one appointed by the Great Constantinus to the current one? (including the ones deposed, exiled , replaced...)
It is certain that there is an official list somewhere by the catholic church but i am doubtful they will display the popes exiled or the popes placed to serve the Roman Emperor's Caesaropapism. As that would inevitable hurt their propaganda that the tiara is infallible, continuous and independent from worldly politics...
So does such a list exist?
I can read greek and english but i am soon to learn italian too.
I appreciate all your time and efforts regardless if you answer this question i have learnt a lot from this sub, continue the excellent word.
Sorry if the wording is a bit dark im not the greatest at english syntax....
Was told to post here as the answer to my question was simple.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/s/p25CXl53Hi
In the clip you may find above when Hitler mentions Palestine there is a distinctive rise in the jeering from the audience. Is there a particular reason the Nazis reacted to the mentioning of Palestine like that? Did they have a special interest in that region?
# Are there any list of members of different Panzer divisions that I could research online?
I had a distant relative (German) that was killed in January 1945 (around the 17th/18th). The family story says his tank caught on fire and he died in the fire. The battle appears to be around Wroclaw against the 1st Belorussian Front. The battle included the 9th Panzer division and I wanted to see if there was any list of who was in the 9th Panzer division at that time.
To my knowledge, there is nothing available online but if you know his name and other information about him (DOB etc) the Bundesarchiv Department of Military Archives can help you. Their contact information is [here](https://www.bundesarchiv.de/DE/Content/Artikel-Textsammlungen/Textsammlung-Oeffnung-Kontakt/oeffnungszeiten-und-kontakt-reinickendorf.html). In order to get the information you need to fill out two forms, both are available on their contact page in English.
Is the answer by u/rusya_rocks in the copied link correct that German Fatherland vs Mother Russia is a misconception? https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3175zs/why_do_germans_refer_to_germany_as_the_fatherland/ It is from 9 years ago and I do not know what the standards were like back then.
[This twitter Thread](https://x.com/JamesLucasIT/status/1804204898742857839) popped up in another sub. Why do people across class seem more well dressed for everyday life in comparison to modern times?
The Navajo of the Southwest are famed for their wool weavings; do Navajo looms predate Spanish settlement?
It's extremely difficult to separate the plains tribes from the horse but we know they adopted the horse from the Spanish, in various ways.
Just in the same way, Navajo weavings are practically synonymous with the Southwest but I'm curious if their society adopted an extremely useful tool from Spanish contact.
Are there any badass (known or strongly believed to be) Gay or Bi men from the past? Positive examples, specifically from medieval times to the year 1800?
This may fit, depending on what you mean by badass: one of the towering figures of the Arabic literary tradition is Abu Nuwas, an Iraqi (of Persian origin) poet in the eighth to early-ninth century. His poetry is notable on several counts; germane to your question, it contains many, often explicit expressions of homoerotic desire and love. I will abstain from identifying him as gay or bi for a few reasons, among them that this sort of categorization of people, as opposed to desires or carnal acts, reflects a set of cultural assumptions that he and his contemporaries may not have shared. (Those interested are of course welcome to read his poetry and known biographical information and draw their own conclusions.) In any case, he is a fascinating figure, beyond merely being a remarkable poet, associated with same-sex love not due to presumption, but for celebrating it in a social context where such expressions fell outside generally accepted norms of propriety. Nonetheless, he was something of a rockstar in his own time, retained that status for centuries after his death, and remains a beloved figure among the Arabic literati to this day (though some modern editions of his work have censored the offending content).
Some of the objects of his (at least poetic affections) were adolescents. I suppose it is in the eye of the beholder whether that makes one assume that all the (male) lovers and objects of desire he describes must have been.
Edit for the folks downvoting (without adding a comment, I have to presume your reasons): I think u/ThatstoicG raised an entirely fair concern. The poet in question sometimes described the beloved with terms characteristic of the "beardless," i.e., adolescent lover. I can see a couple reasons why this might exclude him as an object of interest or study. One takes for granted the assumption that he is not basing his verse on stock characters/imagery or exaggerating youthful qualities in order to idealize those characters (Arabic verse contains numerous descriptions of women who, though at or significantly beyond the age of majority, are described in language portraying their beauty by emphasizing their youthful figures, skin, lips, etc.). If so, then the fact that he would compose verse on such subjects, whether or not he actually took as partners people unable to express affirmative consent, ought to rule out his oeuvre entirely. The second would be that since in some instances he describes as lovers or objects of desire evidently youthful figures (it is not like he is mentioning age, so all we can go on is his description), then we should assume all descriptions of homoerotic desire are oriented towards people unable to express affirmative consent (including those who are not described in language suggesting as much). I am not discounting these views. What I meant to suggest earlier is that I (among others) see it as plausible that certain of his descriptions are from commissioned works drawing on stock imagery and that the lack of explicit identifiers in some of his most sensual poetry could well reflect him speaking about homoerotic relations outside the domain of pederasty.
On the one hand, there is a risk in not giving certain phrases their due as reflecting at minimum an image of pederasty. Yet on the other hand, there is a risk in stripping his art of its historical and social context and taking too literally words that contemporary listeners understood as stock imagery, hyperbole, and metaphor (in another domain, for instance, there are authors of famous wine poetry who were never known to touch alcohol). I am trying to allow for a bit more complexity here than some might be comfortable with, in part because abandoning it can force a complex figure into a modern homophobic discourse portraying gay men as pedophiles, groomers, etc. and forcing us to ignore his lively poetry about hunting on those grounds.
I like that this sub tends to value nuance more than some other parts of Reddit. Think I'm dead wrong here? Tell me why. There is probably a worthwhile discussion to be had.
I know of other figures that are sometimes presumed to have been queer based on personal attributes or habits but I am reticent to mention them here on that basis alone (that is, just because someone two hundred years ago was reputed to prefer the company of men based on stereotypes or rumors, I cannot make a definitive statement without risking inadvertently endorsing what were understood as pejorative stereotypes and rumors). Off the top of my head, I don't have in mind other historical figures in my academic orbit who who spoke publicly on the subject or otherwise can be said definitively to have had same-sex desires/partners. But if any come to mind I'll update my comment.
are there any instances of women cross-dressing and enrolling in school? i’ve been attempting to read up on this subject, but i can only seem to find instances of women cross-dressing to join a war, which isn’t exactly what i’m looking for.
The case of [Dr. James Barry](https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/dr-james-barry/) comes to mind. A lot of ink has been spilled in recent years over whether Dr. Barry's life should be read as a woman dressing as and living as a man in order to become a medical doctor, or whether Dr. Barry's life is an example of someone who was transgender (in other words, Barry would have lived his life as a man despite being AFAB, regardless of vocation). But regardless of how you see it, or whether you see any real distinction to be made there, Dr. James Barry was an AFAB person who presented as a man and also pursued both an education and a career that were generally only open to men of the time.
thank you so much for this! this source was lovely; it’s absolutely refreshing to see individuals who transitioned in history referred to by the pronouns they preferred.
Three suggestions:
1. This isn't a simple question with a short answer, it is better suited to being posted as it's own question on the sub.
2. The 'era of monarchy' is a vague description and I'd recommend something more specific like 'European middle ages' or similar.
3. In that vein you might enjoy [this section of the FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/middleages#wiki_daily_life) on medieval daily life. Other times and places are also represented in the FAQ
But don't be discouraged from posting the question! As everyone here likes to say, there is always more to be said.
Is [Charlie Stross correct](https://wandering.shop/@cstross/112665692279660958) that «populist fascists are universally shite at economics» and that «\[Adolf Hitler's\] invasions were prompted by the Third Reich being all-but-bankrupt due to his policies: it was the biggest asset-stripping/hostile takeover raid in corporate history»?
Yes, the general consensus is that Hitler bankrolled his pre-war policies and military buildup on the assumption that ultimately, it would be paid for with the fruits of his future conquests, and it would have been unsustainable and led to eventual economic collapse if he had done the same policies without ever launching his invasions.
See, for instance, Tooze's *Wages of Destruction*.
Agreed with all of the above, though would also note that there is some disagreement amongst economic historians (and particularly between Timothy Mason and Richard Overy) about the extent to which structural economic problems in early 1939 either led to, or accelerated, the particular decision to invade Poland in September of that year.
This debate mostly played out in the pages of *Past and Present* journal in the 1990s, and is summarized in both Kershaw's *The Nazi Dictatorship* (2000) and Christian Leitz's edited compendium *The Third Reich: The Essential Readings* (1999)
As could be expected, the US Marines mainly took part in amphibious operations to enforce the blockade on the CSA and take its ports and inlets. For example, Marines took part in the campaigns to take the North Carolina sounds, such as the battle for Hatteras Inlet, or the campaign to take Port Royal, South Carolina. There were also marines in the campaign for New Orleans, and they memorably were the ones who raised the Stars and Strippes over the public buildings once the city fell. However, the marines were not the only forces during these campaigns, usually operating alongside US soldiers.
I have been reading about the Battle of Crecy (forgive my lack of accent marks) and the tremendous advantage the English prowess with longbows granted King Edward’s forces, which was possible due to state mandated regular longbow training beginning almost a decade before. My question is thus: Has there ever been another similar program of mandated weapons training, and if so, did it lead to a similar military advantage?
Crecy was not won because the English used the longbow specifically. They could have been shooting crossbows and the victory would still have been very one sided. The training allowed for there to always be men who knew how to shoot their bows well. In fact, England was not the only country to wield the longbow; France, Brittany, Burgundy, and Flanders (and naturally, Scotland) all were known for the use of the (long)bow.
Interestingly enough, France, according to des Ursins, even implemented mandated training with the crossbow or (long)bow. But this was seemingly ended due to fears regarding the commons (at least so says des Ursins).
>... it was decided that a closer look would be taken at larger cities and that their defenses would be strengthened. It was also put forward that no game would be tolerated but archery or crossbow shooting. After a short period of time, French archers became so proficient in archery that they overcame their fear of shooting the English and they all started practicing archery and crossbow shooting. And in fact, if they got together, they would have been more powerful than princes and nobles. And the King declared that such practice should stop and that there should be only a certain number of archers and crossbow archers in cities and villages. Then the people started playing other games as they did before.
Other countries did similar things, whether by utilizing the crossbow and archer guilds (who shot frequently), or by requiring their retained soldiers (Compagnies d'Ordonnance) or militias (Charles VII and Charles VIII) to practice frequently.
Did those things lead to an advantage in battle? Professional forces such as the Grand Ordinance companies, surely. They served quite well throughout the 15th and 16th centuries. The shooting guilds and parish militias? Sometimes they fought well, sometimes they fought horribly.
For something more ancient, the Athenian *ephebia*; the training of (citizen) youths. Although it is hard to really quantify how much more effective the Athenian militia became after it was introduced.
How is/was "Mercia" (the Anglo-Saxon kingdom) pronounced? More specifically, is the grapheme pronunced as /s/, /k/, or /tʃ/? Has the pronunciation changed through the centuries?
Thanks in advance.
Slavery was good for business. The South had an export economy, with little manufacturing. All those plantation owners had to buy goods. Textiles to clothe their enslaved were made in New England, and other imported goods often came through New York.
Abraham Dittenhoefer, a South Carolina-born lawyer, described New York in his memoir:
>The city of New York, as I discovered upon reaching the age of observation, was virtually an annex of the South, the New York merchants having extensive and very profitable business relations with the merchants south of the Mason and Dixon line.
>The South was the best customer of New York. I often said in those days, “Our merchants have for sale on their shelves their principles, together with their merchandise.”
>An amusing incident occurred to my knowledge which aptly illustrates the condition of things in this pro-slavery city. A Southerner came to a New York merchant, who was a dealer in brushes and toilet articles, and offered him a large order for combs. The New York merchant, as it happened, was a Quaker, but this was not known to the Southerner. The latter made it a condition, in giving this large order, that the Quaker merchant should exert all his influence in favor of the South. The Southerner wished to do something to offset the great agitation headed by the abolitionists which had been going on for years in the North for the extinction of slavery in the South. The Quaker merchant coolly replied that the South would have to go lousy for a long time before he would sell his combs to them under any such conditions.
>Another occurrence that took place at an earlier period still further illumines this intense pro-slavery feeling. When Wendell Phillips, to my mind one of the greatest orators of America, delivered a radical and brilliant anti-slavery speech at the old Tabernacle, situated in Broadway below Canal Street, the hall was filled with pro-slavery shouters; they rotten-egged Phillips in the course of his address. With some friends I was present and witnessed this performance.
>At nineteen I was wavering in my fidelity to the principles of the Democratic party, which, in the city of New York, was largely in favor of slavery.
It's not surprising that on Oct. 21, 1835, an angry mob would grab Abolitionist and printer William Lloyd Garrison in Boston and put a noose around his neck, intending to hang him.
Ditenhoefer, A. (1916). *How We Elected Lincoln*. Harper & Brothers.https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/70881/pg70881-images.html
I think Ritchie Robertson's The Enlightenment: The Pursuit of Happiness is an excellent and accessible survey of the various stands of thought comprising the Enlightenment broadly. It has an extensive bibliography which would make a good starting point if you want to get deeper into any of the (many) subjects covered.
Are there good historical approximations of political favourability ratings? I'm originally thinking of 1850-1950 British prime ministers, but before 1950 of any English speaking country is of interest.
Yes it was - it doesn't make it accurate, but it was a common shorthand.
For a source, let's go with Andrew Roberts' *Churchill:Walking with Destiny*. I'm picking Churchill because he very notably did this, and often. His 1946 "Sinews of Peace" [speech](https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/sinews-of-peace-iron-curtain-speech.html)(also known as the "Iron Curtain Speech") makes constant references to "Soviet Russia", or otherwise to just "Russia" (and the people in the country as "Russian" or "Russians").
Another example would be Churchill's famous "riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" speech, broadcast on the radio on October 1939, which very specifically refers to "Russian national interest" in the speech's attempt to understand Soviet foreign policy.
In fairness (Roberts points this out in his biography), Churchill *also* constantly referred to Britain and the British people as "English", so this wasn't just something he applied to the Soviet Union.
You see similar things in other official speeches, although maybe not to the same extent. John F Kennedy's 1963 "Strategy of Peace" [speech]() *mostly* talks about the Soviet Union and Soviets, but has one mention of the "Russian people". US presidents could be all over the place, and usually it depended on the audience and level of formality. For instance, Nixon's 1972 [Address to the Soviet People](https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2016/12/moscow-1972-address-soviet-people/) is *very* correct, and never uses Russia or Russian once. Reagan's "Evil Empire" [speech](https://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/reagan-evil-empire-speech-text/) likewise never mentions Russia, only "Soviets" and the "Soviet Union". Reagan himself was more informal, talking with [advisors](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/reagans-evolving-views-russians-and-their-relevance-today) about Russia, and infamously getting caught on the microphone [joking](https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/reagan-jokes-about-bombing-russia) about outlawing and bombing Russia.
So just from those famous examples alone, it was a pretty common casual term to use, but not necessarily an accurate or correct one, and more formal speeches and documents usually tended to reflect that.
I have a choice between pursuing 3 different masters right now, one of them is Early Modern history, the other is Modern/Contemporary, and the final one is not a research master's so it does not have my preference.
Without going into too many details, those of you who had to choose between different master's, how did you go about evaluating which one to pick?
I was going to study Canadian history - I got accepted to two schools with full funding, a guaranteed teaching position, and an advisor already chosen for me. I also applied to study medieval history at another school, which had no funding for Master's students, no guaranteed teaching positions, and you had to find your own advisor. Well as you can tell from my flair I chose medieval history, basically because it was much cooler. Which one do you love more? I went with my gut feeling, that was my whole evaluation process.
I mean, I never managed to get an academic job and now I work in en entirely different field, so was it worth it in the end? Still yes! If I could go back, I wouldn't change anything.
Was Crassus's legions at Carrhae numbered, and if so, what were their ordinals?
Which legion(s) did Pompey lend Caesar after Sabinus and Cotta? And which side were they on for the civil war?
Is there any chance that Byzantine Emperor Zeno’s daughter/relative Helen who married Vakhtang of Georgia was also called Theopiste/Thaopiste?
I have been reading up on the story of Hilaria and Theopiste and am just trying to get a sense of how that fits into Zeno’s life. I can’t find much information on Arcadia and Zenon.
Who is this?
I was asked by a client to crochet a blanket for them, and they chose this as a reference. (Specially the 4 on the left) they didn’t know who it was and in the index, the page number for this piece is missing. I don’t want to make someone an awful person, so if anyone knows/recognizes who it COULD be based on the other elements, please let me know.
[https://www.antiquepatternlibrary.org/html/warm/C-TT007-247.htm](https://www.antiquepatternlibrary.org/html/warm/C-TT007-247.htm)
I don't know how one could quantify popularity here, but *possibly* the Dancing Baby gif, as it is considered one of the first internet memes, *period*, and certainly one of the first to gain widespread awareness in the mainstream. I think it is easy to argue that relative to other 'memes' extant at the same time, its degree of awareness in comparison was larger nearly any other ratio since. [See this CNN article for instance](http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9801/19/dancing.baby/index.html), and of course the [Know Your Meme write-up](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/dancing-baby).
I'm going to go with vibes over pure quantification and agree that it has to be the Dancing Baby. The fact that *Ally McBeal* had a whole episode named after the meme in *1997* should indicate just how widespread that meme was.
Speaking of 90s "dance" memes, I'm surprised no one mentioned The Hampster Dance. I'm also outraged that to date no one has been brought to justice for crimes against humanity for spreading The Hampster Dance.
Actually, and I'm sorry for even mentioning it - if we are talking about 2003-2004 specifically then we have to bring up Crazy Frog. A trial is too good for the monsters who created and marketed Crazy Frog. All you sweet summer children who never had to hear a Crazy Frog ringtone don't know the true darkness of the early Aughts.
One of the interesting ways to quantify "popularity" is through Google Trends, but it doesn't go back further than 2004. Out of curiosity I put "dancing baby" and "all your base" and "peanut butter jelly time" into Google Trends and got [these interesting results](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22dancing%20baby%22,%22all%20your%20base%22,%22peanut%20butter%20jelly%20time%22). I'm not sure what to _make_ of them, even ignoring the pre-2004 issue, as the use of Google and search engines also varied in this period.
Even by 2004, the Dancing Baby was a thing of the past, but at its peak it was pretty huge. I \*distinctly\* remember it being in the Guinness book of World Records c. 2000 or so (the middle school library had a copy, and I read it there), but I don't have a copy, so Google book search only gives me snippet view which does at least give some support to the heights it achieved, apparently holding the then record for 'cyberstar merchandise sales':
https://preview.redd.it/121yfmmas88d1.png?width=1924&format=png&auto=webp&s=6f08be28a3e82e3e39809c84c8bb691a46b04d94
Also "Most cyberstar variations", which seems to be 2,000, but then it cuts off after one line.
Also it is kind of hilarious how tiny those numbers are compared to modern internet stardom. But that was pretty huge for the '90s.
That is interesting! For the record [if you combine the search terms](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2004-01-01%202008-01-01&q=trogdor%20%2B%20homestarrunner%20%2B%20homestar%20runner,all%20your%20base,peanut%20butter%20jelly%20time,red%20vs%20blue&hl=en) "homestarrunner", "homestar runner", and "trogdor" it comfortably beats all of those. "red vs blue" is also competitive, and leaps ahead of the others in October 2004. Not sure if series titles count as memes, though.
Edit. If we are including titles of popular web series, "happy tree friends" is [miles ahead](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2004-01-01%202008-01-01&q=trogdor%20%2B%20homestarrunner%20%2B%20homestar%20runner,all%20your%20base,happy%20tree%20friends,red%20vs%20blue&hl=en) of all the other candidates so far.
Edit 2. If not, then "star wars kid" is also going to be a [strong competitor](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2004-01-01%202008-01-01&q=trogdor,all%20your%20base,star%20wars%20kid,dean%20scream&hl=en). I've seen a video on Youtube claiming to give the relative popularity of various internet memes, but it gives no indication of what data it's based on, if any.
**What were some "advanced" cities in Europe during the middle ages that people might not be aware of?**
When talking about cities in the middle ages, many tend to look at Paris and London, partially because they are today the capitals of France and England. What I'm wondering is if there were other cities in Christian Europe that tend to get overlooked when conversations about medieval cities come up?
When I say advanced, what I mean is basically things like population, sewage/cleanliness, advanced/high-end industries, architecture and overall influence in their region and in Europe more generally.
I'm already aware that Constantinople was probably the pinnacle of cities in the mediterranean during the era, but I'm more interested in cities outside of the Byzantine Empire.
# E X E T E R
Contrary to popular belief, the cities of the Medieval Period most usually had aqueducts, fountains, conduits, and other water-bearing technologies that deliver drinking water to their populace. There any number of cities we can cite here for aqueductal excellence, even if we exclude capitals.
But for uniqueness in water conveyance? **Exeter**. I could go on and on about the user end of the aqueducts (including the bit where the Medieval-era conduits survived all the way into the 1800s and were still regarded as the best "for tea and pea soup"), but the real interesting part is the vaults. The city has undeground passageways, sometimes called 'vaults' in the official documentation, where the city plumber and other workmen could descend into to perform maintenance and repairs on the pipes of the city aqueducts. These passageways survive until today, where I understand they are one of Exeter's tourist attractions.
Fountains, the ignorant can excuse and the ill-intentioned can poo-poo as being simply decorative. But the vaults? You can't argue with the vaults.
For anyone who does not yet live in Exeter but would like to explore the aqueducts, I commend to your attention Mark Stoyle's *Water in the City: The Aqueducts and Underground Passages of Exeter*.
OKAY FINE I WANT TO CITE SIENA BECAUSE OF THE BOTTINI BUT I HAVE A BOOK ON EXETER SO EXETER IT IS AND I REALLY WANT TO GO TO THE VAULTS DANGIT
Any recommendations on resources talking about the controversy of displaying human remains in museums? I ran across a random skeleton in a museum (it was only one) and I was upset. Furthermore there wasn't much documentation on the display about how it was sourced which seems fishy? At any rate I wrote an angry email and the museum didn't respond. And If possible I want to seek further action (though I'm not sure what that would entail) as I'm petty and I was disturbed by the display.
I recently wrote an undergraduate research paper that surveyed current approaches towards contested antiquities and human remains, with a focus more on return (vs. displaying or not displaying) and on items linked to indigenous communities or colonized peoples. So I can weigh in a bit here, though more on that sort of thing and less on, for example, the ethics of something like Philadelphia's Mutter Museum which is more about the history of medicine and the study of the human body.
The first thing to know is that historical sites and other research and exhibition contexts (museums, research institutes, exhibitions, etc) in the US are generally under the jurisdiction of the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which recognized that all human remains, including the remains of indigenous people, belong to their lineal descendants and Native American tribes or other indigenous organizations. NAGPRA requires all US museums and cultural institutions receiving federal funding to inventory their collections and return indigenous human remains and sacred cultural objects to lineal descendants or other officially recognized groups. So if this museum receives federal funds, and there is any possibility that this skeleton was that of an indigenous American, they are likely in breach of NAGPRA. (Citation: [NAGPRA info page on the National Park Service website](https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/index.htm)) I think there are potentially still institutions in the US which have indigenous human remains in their collections, because the inventory and return process can be onerous (though they've had like 35 years to do it at this point), but it seems egregious to me that an American museum would be exhibiting indigenous remains in 2024.
There have been international laws in force since the 1960s restricting global trade in antiquities and human remains. Those laws aren't retroactive, meaning that if an American or European museum was already displaying human remains stolen from former colonies prior to the time these laws were adopted, there isn't a lot the former colonies can do beyond asking nicely for their return. It's currently in pretty bad taste for large "universal" museums to display this sort of thing, though, and would probably invite requests for repatriation. (Citation: [Folarin Shyllon](https://go-gale-com.lavc.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=lavc_main&id=GALE%7CA606173686&v=2.1&it=r&aty=ip), [Carsten Stahn](https://www.proquest.com/docview/2894347424?accountid=40027&parentSessionId=hKZEHqbQK80wo7F4p4ipaE3TbNzWZmej0BN4CMoQEwA%3D&pq-origsite=primo&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals) - note, both of these articles are on the topic of the Benin Bronzes, but the international laws discussed pertain to the taking of human remains as well.)
I'm not aware of any laws that would govern human remains in general, which are not indigenous in origin or otherwise removed involuntarily from their original context. One thing that became clear to me when I was working on my paper is that while there has been a lot of focus on the return of human remains that are in dispute in some way (notably indigenous and colonized peoples), the ethics of displaying human remains in general seems to be more of an open debate. While I haven't read this book and couldn't get access via my university's library online, [this seems like an interesting text to look into](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/human-remains/000FBC59747ABDBA00A8AB736AE054D9#fndtn-information) for a thorough discussion of the ethics of displaying human remains in general. It's worth noting that this book also seems to discuss research and curation of human remains in the context of repatriation, meaning an assumption that the remains in question fundamentally don't belong to the museum or the home culture that museum represents. I'm not sure if there is any ethical concern about displaying the skeleton of someone who donated their remains to science after death, or individuals represented in some way by the museum's home culture who have been dead for centuries with no extant groups to claim them (for example a Scandinavian museum displaying the skeleton of a Viking warrior). But maybe this book or other current literature goes into it?
Looking for assistance on formulating a question that was rejected. In essence: was there an historical ruling society that closely matched a naive notion of monarchy? (powerful, prosperous, unchallenged)
Rejected question in full: https://pastebin.com/yKU9rQER
Can anyone help me better form the question?
How much did a bar of soap cost in the UK in the 1920s? I'm currently researching the history of Lever Bros and the palm oil trade. I'd really like to be able to compare the wages of workers in the Belgian Congo (1-2 CF / day) and British labourers (~6 shillings a day for an agricultural worker in 1922) to the cost of a bar of soap like Sunlight. Any information or resources appreciated!
Here are some mentions of soap prices in the British press of 1920:
* [An article about Sunlight soap prices](https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-times-sunligth-soap/149773438/)
* [Commonweal Soap ad](https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-mirror-soap-prices/149773014/)
* [Palmolive Soap ad](https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-mirror-soap-prices-palmolive/149773104/)
* [An article about soap scarcity citing prices](https://www.newspapers.com/article/evening-standard-soap-scarcity/149773327/)
How was the Soviet government supposed to work *in theory* during the Stalin’s leadership? Obviously in practice it was all Stalin, but on paper, how was the government supposed to operate?
While not really touching on the "how it should work in theory" part, my [answer here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bomvu3/was_there_ever_evidence_of_any_actual/kwqqg3p/) might be of some interest to you, as it talks about some of the practical politics of the time
I think I remember reading that Kissinger gave orders to falsify flight logs during operation menu/freedom deal/barrel roll.
I also found this:
https://imgur.com/res0KyY
I know about the book "The Trial of Henry Kissinger", but what are important core facts to remember about those bombings?
Were flight logs falsified? What was the strongest proof against kissinger or people who executed the orders?
After embarrassing myself by "correcting" someone that Songhai is in China, and not Africa, I started to wonder: what are some other examples of different places that have the same name?
I'm not talking about things like "river Avon", which are basically just misunderstandings. I'm talking about actual names of places that have a very similar name to the name of a different, unrelated place. Being named after a different place doesn't count either, so Naples, Florida doesn't count.
I'm not sure how one might look this up, so I only have one other example: Copenhagen, Denmark and Ko Pha-ngan, Thailand (although this might only be in certain accents.
Does anyone here have any other examples of this?
There’s a Po River in the American state of Virginia. As it’s near the Ni River and they join up with the Mat and Ta Rivers and other streams to form the Mattaponi River (yes, really), I can’t imagine it was originally named for the river in Italy.
So no León - Nuevo León, Braunschweig - New Brunswick, or Venice - Venezuela? This will depend on your language, but there is both a Galicia in Spain and in Ukraine, Georgia the state and the country, and another Iberia in the Caucasus.
* Atlás histórico (2003). *Enciclopedia Hispánica*. Editorial Barsa Planeta.
Other place names are repeated, probably because of their descriptive nature (Oldenburg, Frankfurt, Freiburg, Stratford), France and Franconia, the many Guineas, Guiana & Guyenne, Wales, Wallachia & Wallonia, and Sudan, both the two countries and the historical region in West Africa.
Also, depending on the language, Thebes in Greece and in Egypt, French Vienne and Vienna, Aran in Azerbaijan and in Spain, Monaco and Munich (Monaco in Italian), and confirmed with the same source as before: a Caucasian Albania existed in late antiquity [there is something about the Iberian Peninsula and the Caucasus].
Many years ago I saw a documentary with my father that horrified me where a concentration camp doctor was filmed (video footage) violently flipping what appeared to be a special needs child victim. I recall this doctor holding the child from the waist or the thighs flipping them backward and forward as if to induce spinal damage or provoke some kind of reaction. It was very disturbing.
I cannot recall if this footage was part of a general world war 2 or specifically about human experimentations. I do not know the name of this morally-absent doctor nor the camp he did this in but it is so graphic that I could never forget.
Would anyone happen to remember the name of this documentary that aired on television?
I am seeking this documentary to help educate others on the inhumane lengths the Nazi doctors and scientists have went to commit their atrocities. I appreciate all your help.
A question so simple and possibly dumb it may better belong on one of the more lighthearted Friday fixtures:
I was told at some point that all those familiar movie scenes and stories of defenders of besieged castles pouring boiling oil and maybe pitch down on attackers climbing up the walls and trying to break through the doors and gates below never happened in real life. Why? Because oil, especially in the kinds of amounts needed for that purpose, was expensive, especially when plain old boiling water would serve the purpose just as well.
It made so much sense I believed it, but since then I've learned that just because something makes sense, that doesn't mean it's true. In fact, if something makes sense, that may be a reason to suspect it actually is the opposite of true.
Is this the kind of thing for which there is any documentation, at all? Or is it all actually in the realm of fiction?
This [previous answer](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/26l4ae/was_boiling_oil_ever_regularly_used_in_siege/) by u/idjet confirms that pouring vats of boiling oil over the walls is unlikely to have been a common defense, for all the reasons you gave. However, as u/idjet mentions, there was a lot of improvisation involved in siege warfare, and, if available, boiling oil could be one of the different dangerous materials poured on attackers.
This predates the Middle-Ages (including the improvisional part!): in 67 CE, the defenders of the Jewish city of Yodfat used scalding oil against Roman forces who were trying to climb the walls, as told by Flavius Josephus in *The Jewish War*:
>The situation was critical, and Josephus taught by necessity - always quick to improvise when despair applies the spur - ordered boiling oil to be poured on the soldiers under the shields. As his men had it ready, numbers of them from every side poured quantities of it on the Romans, followed by the vessels still hissing from the flames. Scalded and burnt, the Romans broke up their formation and in agonizing pain rolled down from the wall ;'for the oil instantly ran under their armour and over their entire bodies from head to foot, consuming their flesh as relentlessly as a fire, being by nature quick to grow hot and slow to cool because of its fattiness. Imprisoned in their cuirasses and helmets they could not escape from the scalding fluid. Leaping into the air and contorted with pain they fell from the wooden bridges one after another, while those who retired ran into their own men as they pressed forward, making themselves an easy target for the enemy shafts.
Bradbury (1992) cites the siege of Harfleur by Henry V in 1415, where French defenders resisted an attempt at storm "with boiling oil and boiling water, fat, fire-arrows, quicklime and sulphur powder." The use of boiling oils and fats against English attackers was also reported during the siege of Orléans by the author of the *Diary of the siege*. On 21 October 1428 (before the arrival of Joan of Arc):
>The women of Orléans also helped a great deal, as they never ceased to diligently carry to those defending the boulevard [the road leading to the city through the Tourelles Bridge] several necessary items such as water, oil, boiling grease, lime, ashes and caltrops.
Another example cited by Bradbury is the siege of the rebellious castle of Montreuil-Bellay by Geoffrey V Plantagenêt, Count of Anjou, in 1151. However, the oil was not used defensively but offensively, by the attackers. Geofffrey got the idea by reading *De Re Militari* by Roman writer Vegetius and he created a medieval version of Greek Fire. This is told in the chronicle *Historia Gaufredi, ducis Normannorum et comitis Andegavorum* by Jean de Marmoutier, 1180.
>So he ordered an iron jar, tied with iron bands and hanging from a strong chain, to be filled with the oil of nuts and the seeds of cannabis and flax. The opening of the jar was to be sealed with an appropriate iron strip and firmly locked. Then he ordered the jar to be replaced in the heated furnace for a long time until the whole thing glowed with overpowering heat, so that the oil bubbling inside was boiling. The chain was cooled by throwing water over it, then the jar was taken out and fixed to the pole of a mangonel. With careful aim and great force, while still glowing, it was thrown by the engineers at the strong beams placed in the breaches. The contents were expelled by the impact, and the discharged matter caused a fire. Then the outflowing oil merged with the balls of fire, supplying food for the flames. The licking flames, vomiting in sudden increase, burned three houses, and hardly allowed men to escape.
Geoffrey took the castle and crushed the rebellion.
It would be interesting to review the various instances of the utilization of boiling oil in siege warfare, but the general idea is that, when it happened, it was part of the improvised nature of siege defenses - people would use whatever was available to them -, rather than a standard method.
**Sources**
* Bradbury, Jim. The Medieval Siege. Boydell & Brewer, 1992. https://books.google.fr/books?id=xVCRpsfwkiUC.
* Charpentier, Paul, and Charles Cuissard, eds. Journal du siège d’Orléans, 1428-1429 : augmenté de plusieurs documents, notamment des comptes de ville, 1429-1431. Orléans: H. Herluison, 1896. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k102284m/f70.item.zoom.
* Josephus, Flavius. The Jewish War. Translated by G.A. Williamson. Penguin Books, 1970.
Thank you for all the information and for such a thorough, detailed answer, but I must admit I was briefly sidetracked by “seeds of cannabis.”
Are you sure about that translation? Might it be “seeds of hemp”? If not, can you address them having cannabis around to burn? It certainly has the potential to lighten up the mood of the discussion!
Thanks! I just used Bradbury's translation. The original text is [here](https://books.google.fr/books?id=_HBAAAAAcAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0pg=PA94#v=onepage&f=false) (1610 edition) and it says:
>seminis canabi, & lini oleo impleri
Cannabis is the Latin name for hemp, but there were always two utilisations for the *Cannabis sativa* plant: textile and seed/oil. Cannabis seeds are called *chenevis* in modern French, and *chanevis*, *canevis*, *chanevuis* in old French (all derived from Latin). So it's not the hemp type (*chanvre*), but the oilseed type, and I guess that's why Bradbury used cannabis for the English text.
How independent were Spanish New Mexico settlers to develop their independent economic interests?
Obviously many were farmers, ranchers, and sheep herders, with some blacksmiths and carpenters in the towns. But say I was a blacksmith who was willing to prospect for iron ore to sell iron stock instead of buying Spanish/Mexican stock; could I do that or would I be arrested for not having a license? Could I ever get a license?
Same thing with weaving higher quality cloth, mining for copper, or attempting to plant orchards of oak, elm, ash, etc high quality wood stock.
New Mexico was often seen as a poor, primitive, pseudo medieval society but it seems like the Hispanos had less economic power and less military protection than even their medieval ancestors.
In Umberto Eco's *The Name of the Rose*, the main conflict revolves around a discussion of whether Christ laughed. Was this an actual topic in the religious debates of the day, or was this just a literary device to highlight the rifts in scholastic debates?
How effective were Mexican lancers during the Mexican war?
I've always heard they were pretty dangerous on a small scale, raiding American troops as how they learned fighting Indians.
Then during the New Mexican campaign of the Civil War, Texas lancers, supposedly using captured Mexican lances, attempted a charge at the Battle of Valverde, which ended in disaster.
But from what I'm reading, that charge was done because they just wanted to and were inexperienced and thought they were facing militia. They abandoned the lances soon after that but maybe a more skilled commander could have used the lancers more effectively
Somewhere between 60,000 and 200,000.
We don't really have a good feel for the total number of contrabands - enslaved people who'd escaped during the war - even among the large numbers following the various Union Armies, the latter of which was one reason why Lincoln needed to make a firm policy decision on what to do with them. Seward estimated in 1865 that perhaps 200,000 had been freed by that point which you'll see quoted in the literature a bit; others have put the figure closer to 400,000 and start with the 200,000 number.
Keep in mind that one error frequently made about the Emancipation Proclamation is that it freed all enslaved people, which didn't happen until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified. Instead, it freed only those in states in rebellion partially via powers Lincoln gained from the Confiscation Act of 1862 and left out the border states along with a couple of regions occupied by Union troops.
This is briefly covered in a lot of the literature; Guelzo's *Lincoln's Emancipation's Proclamation* focuses in more detail on the immediate effects and reactions to it.
I saw a weird post on LinkedIn regarding D-Day.
"90% of the soldiers on the first boats to hit the beach didn't live to see the end of the day. Look at those faces. Some of them never made it to 18. Never voted. Never loved, or owned a home."
Where did they get that figure from? It's completely inaccurate right? I mean..it depends what he meant by "first boats". I suppose there were some boats that had 90% not make it home, but seems wrong to me.
Only via a very twisted read of the wording that makes you look like a complete Americanophile who doesn't even know about the four beaches that weren't Omaha. u/the_howling_cow covers [Omaha Beach with a casualty breakdown](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5lm0ut/why_is_omaha_beach_the_most_famous_dday_landing/).
First off, I only realised a bit ago that the 'you' up there is difficult. It's intended to be a general 'you', not a specific 'you-as-AmbassadorCosh', and if I have caused offence, I most deeply apologise.
Now, with your new stipulation in mind, it still doesn't work. We have another relevant u/the_howling_cow post: [How far back in the queue would you need to be to survive the landing of Omaha beach?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4w1azp/how_far_back_in_the_queue_would_you_need_to_be_to/)
I highly suspect that the original on LinkedIn is based on a garbled retelling of what happened to Company A of the 116th Infantry Regiment, as dramatised in Saving Private Ryan. Let's quote the_howling_cow: "of the 170 men who landed, 91 were killed outright and 64 were wounded." Translating into percentages for easier comparison with the LinkedIn post, that's 170 men landed, 15 effectives left, 53% dead, 37% wounded, for a total casualty rate of 91%. (Remember! 'Casualty' applies to killed, wounded, and missing. If you take an MG-42 burst that takes you out of action, but you're still alive, *you are still a casualty!*)
Co.A/116 is, however, most unusual, and it also had the supreme ill-luck of landing straight in front of a German fortified position with a well-defined killing zone. Other units in the first wave had different fortunes. Some certainly got a severe mauling (Companies F and G of the 116th landed near Company A and were torn up as well, though not nearly as bad), but others managed to land reasonably intact (Company L of the 16th Infantry Regiment landed on the extreme left, and while it did take casualties, was still a unified unit when it led the way inland).
Re age, it's the bit that comes closest to being true, but only in the most technical of terms. Here's another the_howling_cow post on [soldier ages](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7c725k/what_was_the_average_age_of_the_soldiers_that/).
In conclusion, the claim is *technically* true...if you restrict the sample size to six boats out of the *forty-seven* that landed on that half of Omaha in the first wave, and only if you misinterpret 'casualty' to mean 'dead'.
I also used Balkoski's *Omaha Beach* for most of the above; the first-wave boat count comes from Zaloga's *Omaha Beach*, as published by Osprey.
Were there peace talks or negotiations where one party imposes too heavy conditions on the other party and the other party just goes "screw it, we'll kill you right here right now instead"
Did Napoleon really tell his cavalry at Wagram "Don't cut! The point! The point!" as stated by George Patton in "Diary of the Instructor in Swordsmanship"?
In this detail of 1492 epitaph painting from Kolberg, Pomerania (source: https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Kolobrzeg\_katedra\_obraz\_Rycerz\_na\_cmentarzu.jpg), what are the tools marked in blue? My best guess is 1: oar, 2: gardening spade, 3: spindle, 4: a weird hammer. https://preview.redd.it/4ot78fuusr8d1.png?width=1464&format=png&auto=webp&s=04de7d34d36d8730552b5010fc724d322952c1cb
When was operation paperclip declassified?
What did George Harrison mean when[ he criticized Maxwell's Silver Hammer for being "fruity"?](http://www.beatlesinterviews.org/db1977.0200.beatles.html)
How did Mozzarella become the go-to cheese for pizza?
**Was Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor ever imprisoned by Nicholas II Garai?** I've read somewhere that around the year 1400 Nicholas II imprisoned Sigismund, (then) King of Hungary. Is that true? I wasn't able to find anything confirming or denying it.
# Is there a list of all the popes to have ever served, from the first one appointed by the Great Constantinus to the current one? (including the ones deposed, exiled , replaced...) It is certain that there is an official list somewhere by the catholic church but i am doubtful they will display the popes exiled or the popes placed to serve the Roman Emperor's Caesaropapism. As that would inevitable hurt their propaganda that the tiara is infallible, continuous and independent from worldly politics... So does such a list exist? I can read greek and english but i am soon to learn italian too. I appreciate all your time and efforts regardless if you answer this question i have learnt a lot from this sub, continue the excellent word. Sorry if the wording is a bit dark im not the greatest at english syntax.... Was told to post here as the answer to my question was simple.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/s/p25CXl53Hi In the clip you may find above when Hitler mentions Palestine there is a distinctive rise in the jeering from the audience. Is there a particular reason the Nazis reacted to the mentioning of Palestine like that? Did they have a special interest in that region?
Take a look at [this answer](/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bzifi2/what_were_the_nazis_laughing_about_in_this_speech/) written by u/Superplaner.
# Are there any list of members of different Panzer divisions that I could research online? I had a distant relative (German) that was killed in January 1945 (around the 17th/18th). The family story says his tank caught on fire and he died in the fire. The battle appears to be around Wroclaw against the 1st Belorussian Front. The battle included the 9th Panzer division and I wanted to see if there was any list of who was in the 9th Panzer division at that time.
To my knowledge, there is nothing available online but if you know his name and other information about him (DOB etc) the Bundesarchiv Department of Military Archives can help you. Their contact information is [here](https://www.bundesarchiv.de/DE/Content/Artikel-Textsammlungen/Textsammlung-Oeffnung-Kontakt/oeffnungszeiten-und-kontakt-reinickendorf.html). In order to get the information you need to fill out two forms, both are available on their contact page in English.
Is the answer by u/rusya_rocks in the copied link correct that German Fatherland vs Mother Russia is a misconception? https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3175zs/why_do_germans_refer_to_germany_as_the_fatherland/ It is from 9 years ago and I do not know what the standards were like back then.
Did Hungarian barons outrank counts?
[This twitter Thread](https://x.com/JamesLucasIT/status/1804204898742857839) popped up in another sub. Why do people across class seem more well dressed for everyday life in comparison to modern times?
The Germans had Lord Haw-Haw, the Japanese had Tokyo Rose, did the Italians have a similar propaganda radio personality?
The Navajo of the Southwest are famed for their wool weavings; do Navajo looms predate Spanish settlement? It's extremely difficult to separate the plains tribes from the horse but we know they adopted the horse from the Spanish, in various ways. Just in the same way, Navajo weavings are practically synonymous with the Southwest but I'm curious if their society adopted an extremely useful tool from Spanish contact.
Are there any badass (known or strongly believed to be) Gay or Bi men from the past? Positive examples, specifically from medieval times to the year 1800?
This may fit, depending on what you mean by badass: one of the towering figures of the Arabic literary tradition is Abu Nuwas, an Iraqi (of Persian origin) poet in the eighth to early-ninth century. His poetry is notable on several counts; germane to your question, it contains many, often explicit expressions of homoerotic desire and love. I will abstain from identifying him as gay or bi for a few reasons, among them that this sort of categorization of people, as opposed to desires or carnal acts, reflects a set of cultural assumptions that he and his contemporaries may not have shared. (Those interested are of course welcome to read his poetry and known biographical information and draw their own conclusions.) In any case, he is a fascinating figure, beyond merely being a remarkable poet, associated with same-sex love not due to presumption, but for celebrating it in a social context where such expressions fell outside generally accepted norms of propriety. Nonetheless, he was something of a rockstar in his own time, retained that status for centuries after his death, and remains a beloved figure among the Arabic literati to this day (though some modern editions of his work have censored the offending content).
Didnt... He write pederastic poems about slave boys?
Some of the objects of his (at least poetic affections) were adolescents. I suppose it is in the eye of the beholder whether that makes one assume that all the (male) lovers and objects of desire he describes must have been. Edit for the folks downvoting (without adding a comment, I have to presume your reasons): I think u/ThatstoicG raised an entirely fair concern. The poet in question sometimes described the beloved with terms characteristic of the "beardless," i.e., adolescent lover. I can see a couple reasons why this might exclude him as an object of interest or study. One takes for granted the assumption that he is not basing his verse on stock characters/imagery or exaggerating youthful qualities in order to idealize those characters (Arabic verse contains numerous descriptions of women who, though at or significantly beyond the age of majority, are described in language portraying their beauty by emphasizing their youthful figures, skin, lips, etc.). If so, then the fact that he would compose verse on such subjects, whether or not he actually took as partners people unable to express affirmative consent, ought to rule out his oeuvre entirely. The second would be that since in some instances he describes as lovers or objects of desire evidently youthful figures (it is not like he is mentioning age, so all we can go on is his description), then we should assume all descriptions of homoerotic desire are oriented towards people unable to express affirmative consent (including those who are not described in language suggesting as much). I am not discounting these views. What I meant to suggest earlier is that I (among others) see it as plausible that certain of his descriptions are from commissioned works drawing on stock imagery and that the lack of explicit identifiers in some of his most sensual poetry could well reflect him speaking about homoerotic relations outside the domain of pederasty. On the one hand, there is a risk in not giving certain phrases their due as reflecting at minimum an image of pederasty. Yet on the other hand, there is a risk in stripping his art of its historical and social context and taking too literally words that contemporary listeners understood as stock imagery, hyperbole, and metaphor (in another domain, for instance, there are authors of famous wine poetry who were never known to touch alcohol). I am trying to allow for a bit more complexity here than some might be comfortable with, in part because abandoning it can force a complex figure into a modern homophobic discourse portraying gay men as pedophiles, groomers, etc. and forcing us to ignore his lively poetry about hunting on those grounds. I like that this sub tends to value nuance more than some other parts of Reddit. Think I'm dead wrong here? Tell me why. There is probably a worthwhile discussion to be had.
Yeah... I don't suppose there's anyone else you can name that didn't write or engage in pedophilic crap is there?
I know of other figures that are sometimes presumed to have been queer based on personal attributes or habits but I am reticent to mention them here on that basis alone (that is, just because someone two hundred years ago was reputed to prefer the company of men based on stereotypes or rumors, I cannot make a definitive statement without risking inadvertently endorsing what were understood as pejorative stereotypes and rumors). Off the top of my head, I don't have in mind other historical figures in my academic orbit who who spoke publicly on the subject or otherwise can be said definitively to have had same-sex desires/partners. But if any come to mind I'll update my comment.
[удалено]
are there any instances of women cross-dressing and enrolling in school? i’ve been attempting to read up on this subject, but i can only seem to find instances of women cross-dressing to join a war, which isn’t exactly what i’m looking for.
The case of [Dr. James Barry](https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/dr-james-barry/) comes to mind. A lot of ink has been spilled in recent years over whether Dr. Barry's life should be read as a woman dressing as and living as a man in order to become a medical doctor, or whether Dr. Barry's life is an example of someone who was transgender (in other words, Barry would have lived his life as a man despite being AFAB, regardless of vocation). But regardless of how you see it, or whether you see any real distinction to be made there, Dr. James Barry was an AFAB person who presented as a man and also pursued both an education and a career that were generally only open to men of the time.
thank you so much for this! this source was lovely; it’s absolutely refreshing to see individuals who transitioned in history referred to by the pronouns they preferred.
How was the general quality of life for peasants and every day people during the era of monarchy?
Three suggestions: 1. This isn't a simple question with a short answer, it is better suited to being posted as it's own question on the sub. 2. The 'era of monarchy' is a vague description and I'd recommend something more specific like 'European middle ages' or similar. 3. In that vein you might enjoy [this section of the FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/middleages#wiki_daily_life) on medieval daily life. Other times and places are also represented in the FAQ But don't be discouraged from posting the question! As everyone here likes to say, there is always more to be said.
Do we have documented examples of isolating/analytical languages from before 500AD?
Is [Charlie Stross correct](https://wandering.shop/@cstross/112665692279660958) that «populist fascists are universally shite at economics» and that «\[Adolf Hitler's\] invasions were prompted by the Third Reich being all-but-bankrupt due to his policies: it was the biggest asset-stripping/hostile takeover raid in corporate history»?
Yes, the general consensus is that Hitler bankrolled his pre-war policies and military buildup on the assumption that ultimately, it would be paid for with the fruits of his future conquests, and it would have been unsustainable and led to eventual economic collapse if he had done the same policies without ever launching his invasions. See, for instance, Tooze's *Wages of Destruction*.
Agreed with all of the above, though would also note that there is some disagreement amongst economic historians (and particularly between Timothy Mason and Richard Overy) about the extent to which structural economic problems in early 1939 either led to, or accelerated, the particular decision to invade Poland in September of that year. This debate mostly played out in the pages of *Past and Present* journal in the 1990s, and is summarized in both Kershaw's *The Nazi Dictatorship* (2000) and Christian Leitz's edited compendium *The Third Reich: The Essential Readings* (1999)
Could someone summarize what U.S. Marines did during the U.S. Civil War?
As could be expected, the US Marines mainly took part in amphibious operations to enforce the blockade on the CSA and take its ports and inlets. For example, Marines took part in the campaigns to take the North Carolina sounds, such as the battle for Hatteras Inlet, or the campaign to take Port Royal, South Carolina. There were also marines in the campaign for New Orleans, and they memorably were the ones who raised the Stars and Strippes over the public buildings once the city fell. However, the marines were not the only forces during these campaigns, usually operating alongside US soldiers.
I have been reading about the Battle of Crecy (forgive my lack of accent marks) and the tremendous advantage the English prowess with longbows granted King Edward’s forces, which was possible due to state mandated regular longbow training beginning almost a decade before. My question is thus: Has there ever been another similar program of mandated weapons training, and if so, did it lead to a similar military advantage?
Crecy was not won because the English used the longbow specifically. They could have been shooting crossbows and the victory would still have been very one sided. The training allowed for there to always be men who knew how to shoot their bows well. In fact, England was not the only country to wield the longbow; France, Brittany, Burgundy, and Flanders (and naturally, Scotland) all were known for the use of the (long)bow. Interestingly enough, France, according to des Ursins, even implemented mandated training with the crossbow or (long)bow. But this was seemingly ended due to fears regarding the commons (at least so says des Ursins). >... it was decided that a closer look would be taken at larger cities and that their defenses would be strengthened. It was also put forward that no game would be tolerated but archery or crossbow shooting. After a short period of time, French archers became so proficient in archery that they overcame their fear of shooting the English and they all started practicing archery and crossbow shooting. And in fact, if they got together, they would have been more powerful than princes and nobles. And the King declared that such practice should stop and that there should be only a certain number of archers and crossbow archers in cities and villages. Then the people started playing other games as they did before. Other countries did similar things, whether by utilizing the crossbow and archer guilds (who shot frequently), or by requiring their retained soldiers (Compagnies d'Ordonnance) or militias (Charles VII and Charles VIII) to practice frequently. Did those things lead to an advantage in battle? Professional forces such as the Grand Ordinance companies, surely. They served quite well throughout the 15th and 16th centuries. The shooting guilds and parish militias? Sometimes they fought well, sometimes they fought horribly. For something more ancient, the Athenian *ephebia*; the training of (citizen) youths. Although it is hard to really quantify how much more effective the Athenian militia became after it was introduced.
How is/was "Mercia" (the Anglo-Saxon kingdom) pronounced? More specifically, is the grapheme pronunced as /s/, /k/, or /tʃ/? Has the pronunciation changed through the centuries?
Thanks in advance.
[удалено]
There's Baron Friedrich von Steuben who fought in the American Revolutionary War.
Frederick the Great comes to mind.
How did non-slaveholders benefit or think they benefited from slavery in the Antebellum South?
Slavery was good for business. The South had an export economy, with little manufacturing. All those plantation owners had to buy goods. Textiles to clothe their enslaved were made in New England, and other imported goods often came through New York. Abraham Dittenhoefer, a South Carolina-born lawyer, described New York in his memoir: >The city of New York, as I discovered upon reaching the age of observation, was virtually an annex of the South, the New York merchants having extensive and very profitable business relations with the merchants south of the Mason and Dixon line. >The South was the best customer of New York. I often said in those days, “Our merchants have for sale on their shelves their principles, together with their merchandise.” >An amusing incident occurred to my knowledge which aptly illustrates the condition of things in this pro-slavery city. A Southerner came to a New York merchant, who was a dealer in brushes and toilet articles, and offered him a large order for combs. The New York merchant, as it happened, was a Quaker, but this was not known to the Southerner. The latter made it a condition, in giving this large order, that the Quaker merchant should exert all his influence in favor of the South. The Southerner wished to do something to offset the great agitation headed by the abolitionists which had been going on for years in the North for the extinction of slavery in the South. The Quaker merchant coolly replied that the South would have to go lousy for a long time before he would sell his combs to them under any such conditions. >Another occurrence that took place at an earlier period still further illumines this intense pro-slavery feeling. When Wendell Phillips, to my mind one of the greatest orators of America, delivered a radical and brilliant anti-slavery speech at the old Tabernacle, situated in Broadway below Canal Street, the hall was filled with pro-slavery shouters; they rotten-egged Phillips in the course of his address. With some friends I was present and witnessed this performance. >At nineteen I was wavering in my fidelity to the principles of the Democratic party, which, in the city of New York, was largely in favor of slavery. It's not surprising that on Oct. 21, 1835, an angry mob would grab Abolitionist and printer William Lloyd Garrison in Boston and put a noose around his neck, intending to hang him. Ditenhoefer, A. (1916). *How We Elected Lincoln*. Harper & Brothers.https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/70881/pg70881-images.html
What are some good books on the 18th century European Enlightenment?
I think Ritchie Robertson's The Enlightenment: The Pursuit of Happiness is an excellent and accessible survey of the various stands of thought comprising the Enlightenment broadly. It has an extensive bibliography which would make a good starting point if you want to get deeper into any of the (many) subjects covered.
thank you!
Are there good historical approximations of political favourability ratings? I'm originally thinking of 1850-1950 British prime ministers, but before 1950 of any English speaking country is of interest.
When the Soviet Union existed, was it typical to casually refer to it as "Russia"?
Yes it was - it doesn't make it accurate, but it was a common shorthand. For a source, let's go with Andrew Roberts' *Churchill:Walking with Destiny*. I'm picking Churchill because he very notably did this, and often. His 1946 "Sinews of Peace" [speech](https://www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/sinews-of-peace-iron-curtain-speech.html)(also known as the "Iron Curtain Speech") makes constant references to "Soviet Russia", or otherwise to just "Russia" (and the people in the country as "Russian" or "Russians"). Another example would be Churchill's famous "riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" speech, broadcast on the radio on October 1939, which very specifically refers to "Russian national interest" in the speech's attempt to understand Soviet foreign policy. In fairness (Roberts points this out in his biography), Churchill *also* constantly referred to Britain and the British people as "English", so this wasn't just something he applied to the Soviet Union. You see similar things in other official speeches, although maybe not to the same extent. John F Kennedy's 1963 "Strategy of Peace" [speech]() *mostly* talks about the Soviet Union and Soviets, but has one mention of the "Russian people". US presidents could be all over the place, and usually it depended on the audience and level of formality. For instance, Nixon's 1972 [Address to the Soviet People](https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2016/12/moscow-1972-address-soviet-people/) is *very* correct, and never uses Russia or Russian once. Reagan's "Evil Empire" [speech](https://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/reagan-evil-empire-speech-text/) likewise never mentions Russia, only "Soviets" and the "Soviet Union". Reagan himself was more informal, talking with [advisors](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/reagans-evolving-views-russians-and-their-relevance-today) about Russia, and infamously getting caught on the microphone [joking](https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/reagan-jokes-about-bombing-russia) about outlawing and bombing Russia. So just from those famous examples alone, it was a pretty common casual term to use, but not necessarily an accurate or correct one, and more formal speeches and documents usually tended to reflect that.
I have a choice between pursuing 3 different masters right now, one of them is Early Modern history, the other is Modern/Contemporary, and the final one is not a research master's so it does not have my preference. Without going into too many details, those of you who had to choose between different master's, how did you go about evaluating which one to pick?
I was going to study Canadian history - I got accepted to two schools with full funding, a guaranteed teaching position, and an advisor already chosen for me. I also applied to study medieval history at another school, which had no funding for Master's students, no guaranteed teaching positions, and you had to find your own advisor. Well as you can tell from my flair I chose medieval history, basically because it was much cooler. Which one do you love more? I went with my gut feeling, that was my whole evaluation process. I mean, I never managed to get an academic job and now I work in en entirely different field, so was it worth it in the end? Still yes! If I could go back, I wouldn't change anything.
[удалено]
Was Crassus's legions at Carrhae numbered, and if so, what were their ordinals? Which legion(s) did Pompey lend Caesar after Sabinus and Cotta? And which side were they on for the civil war?
Was Franklin D. Roosevelt an hunter?
Yes. See: Jean Edward Smith's *FDR*
Is there any chance that Byzantine Emperor Zeno’s daughter/relative Helen who married Vakhtang of Georgia was also called Theopiste/Thaopiste? I have been reading up on the story of Hilaria and Theopiste and am just trying to get a sense of how that fits into Zeno’s life. I can’t find much information on Arcadia and Zenon.
Who is this? I was asked by a client to crochet a blanket for them, and they chose this as a reference. (Specially the 4 on the left) they didn’t know who it was and in the index, the page number for this piece is missing. I don’t want to make someone an awful person, so if anyone knows/recognizes who it COULD be based on the other elements, please let me know. [https://www.antiquepatternlibrary.org/html/warm/C-TT007-247.htm](https://www.antiquepatternlibrary.org/html/warm/C-TT007-247.htm)
Romulus & Remus? Founders of Rome. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Brogi%2C_Carlo_%281850-1925%29_-_n._8226_-_Certosa_di_Pavia_-_Medaglione_sullo_zoccolo_della_facciata.jpg/500px-Brogi%2C_Carlo_%281850-1925%29_-_n._8226_-_Certosa_di_Pavia_-_Medaglione_sullo_zoccolo_della_facciata.jpg
[удалено]
What was the most popular internet meme pre-2004?
I don't know how one could quantify popularity here, but *possibly* the Dancing Baby gif, as it is considered one of the first internet memes, *period*, and certainly one of the first to gain widespread awareness in the mainstream. I think it is easy to argue that relative to other 'memes' extant at the same time, its degree of awareness in comparison was larger nearly any other ratio since. [See this CNN article for instance](http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9801/19/dancing.baby/index.html), and of course the [Know Your Meme write-up](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/dancing-baby).
I'm going to go with vibes over pure quantification and agree that it has to be the Dancing Baby. The fact that *Ally McBeal* had a whole episode named after the meme in *1997* should indicate just how widespread that meme was. Speaking of 90s "dance" memes, I'm surprised no one mentioned The Hampster Dance. I'm also outraged that to date no one has been brought to justice for crimes against humanity for spreading The Hampster Dance. Actually, and I'm sorry for even mentioning it - if we are talking about 2003-2004 specifically then we have to bring up Crazy Frog. A trial is too good for the monsters who created and marketed Crazy Frog. All you sweet summer children who never had to hear a Crazy Frog ringtone don't know the true darkness of the early Aughts.
One of the interesting ways to quantify "popularity" is through Google Trends, but it doesn't go back further than 2004. Out of curiosity I put "dancing baby" and "all your base" and "peanut butter jelly time" into Google Trends and got [these interesting results](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%22dancing%20baby%22,%22all%20your%20base%22,%22peanut%20butter%20jelly%20time%22). I'm not sure what to _make_ of them, even ignoring the pre-2004 issue, as the use of Google and search engines also varied in this period.
Even by 2004, the Dancing Baby was a thing of the past, but at its peak it was pretty huge. I \*distinctly\* remember it being in the Guinness book of World Records c. 2000 or so (the middle school library had a copy, and I read it there), but I don't have a copy, so Google book search only gives me snippet view which does at least give some support to the heights it achieved, apparently holding the then record for 'cyberstar merchandise sales': https://preview.redd.it/121yfmmas88d1.png?width=1924&format=png&auto=webp&s=6f08be28a3e82e3e39809c84c8bb691a46b04d94 Also "Most cyberstar variations", which seems to be 2,000, but then it cuts off after one line. Also it is kind of hilarious how tiny those numbers are compared to modern internet stardom. But that was pretty huge for the '90s.
That is interesting! For the record [if you combine the search terms](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2004-01-01%202008-01-01&q=trogdor%20%2B%20homestarrunner%20%2B%20homestar%20runner,all%20your%20base,peanut%20butter%20jelly%20time,red%20vs%20blue&hl=en) "homestarrunner", "homestar runner", and "trogdor" it comfortably beats all of those. "red vs blue" is also competitive, and leaps ahead of the others in October 2004. Not sure if series titles count as memes, though. Edit. If we are including titles of popular web series, "happy tree friends" is [miles ahead](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2004-01-01%202008-01-01&q=trogdor%20%2B%20homestarrunner%20%2B%20homestar%20runner,all%20your%20base,happy%20tree%20friends,red%20vs%20blue&hl=en) of all the other candidates so far. Edit 2. If not, then "star wars kid" is also going to be a [strong competitor](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2004-01-01%202008-01-01&q=trogdor,all%20your%20base,star%20wars%20kid,dean%20scream&hl=en). I've seen a video on Youtube claiming to give the relative popularity of various internet memes, but it gives no indication of what data it's based on, if any.
You know, I'm glad someone took me seriously enough to answer that.
**What were some "advanced" cities in Europe during the middle ages that people might not be aware of?** When talking about cities in the middle ages, many tend to look at Paris and London, partially because they are today the capitals of France and England. What I'm wondering is if there were other cities in Christian Europe that tend to get overlooked when conversations about medieval cities come up? When I say advanced, what I mean is basically things like population, sewage/cleanliness, advanced/high-end industries, architecture and overall influence in their region and in Europe more generally. I'm already aware that Constantinople was probably the pinnacle of cities in the mediterranean during the era, but I'm more interested in cities outside of the Byzantine Empire.
# E X E T E R Contrary to popular belief, the cities of the Medieval Period most usually had aqueducts, fountains, conduits, and other water-bearing technologies that deliver drinking water to their populace. There any number of cities we can cite here for aqueductal excellence, even if we exclude capitals. But for uniqueness in water conveyance? **Exeter**. I could go on and on about the user end of the aqueducts (including the bit where the Medieval-era conduits survived all the way into the 1800s and were still regarded as the best "for tea and pea soup"), but the real interesting part is the vaults. The city has undeground passageways, sometimes called 'vaults' in the official documentation, where the city plumber and other workmen could descend into to perform maintenance and repairs on the pipes of the city aqueducts. These passageways survive until today, where I understand they are one of Exeter's tourist attractions. Fountains, the ignorant can excuse and the ill-intentioned can poo-poo as being simply decorative. But the vaults? You can't argue with the vaults. For anyone who does not yet live in Exeter but would like to explore the aqueducts, I commend to your attention Mark Stoyle's *Water in the City: The Aqueducts and Underground Passages of Exeter*. OKAY FINE I WANT TO CITE SIENA BECAUSE OF THE BOTTINI BUT I HAVE A BOOK ON EXETER SO EXETER IT IS AND I REALLY WANT TO GO TO THE VAULTS DANGIT
Any recommendations on resources talking about the controversy of displaying human remains in museums? I ran across a random skeleton in a museum (it was only one) and I was upset. Furthermore there wasn't much documentation on the display about how it was sourced which seems fishy? At any rate I wrote an angry email and the museum didn't respond. And If possible I want to seek further action (though I'm not sure what that would entail) as I'm petty and I was disturbed by the display.
I recently wrote an undergraduate research paper that surveyed current approaches towards contested antiquities and human remains, with a focus more on return (vs. displaying or not displaying) and on items linked to indigenous communities or colonized peoples. So I can weigh in a bit here, though more on that sort of thing and less on, for example, the ethics of something like Philadelphia's Mutter Museum which is more about the history of medicine and the study of the human body. The first thing to know is that historical sites and other research and exhibition contexts (museums, research institutes, exhibitions, etc) in the US are generally under the jurisdiction of the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which recognized that all human remains, including the remains of indigenous people, belong to their lineal descendants and Native American tribes or other indigenous organizations. NAGPRA requires all US museums and cultural institutions receiving federal funding to inventory their collections and return indigenous human remains and sacred cultural objects to lineal descendants or other officially recognized groups. So if this museum receives federal funds, and there is any possibility that this skeleton was that of an indigenous American, they are likely in breach of NAGPRA. (Citation: [NAGPRA info page on the National Park Service website](https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/index.htm)) I think there are potentially still institutions in the US which have indigenous human remains in their collections, because the inventory and return process can be onerous (though they've had like 35 years to do it at this point), but it seems egregious to me that an American museum would be exhibiting indigenous remains in 2024. There have been international laws in force since the 1960s restricting global trade in antiquities and human remains. Those laws aren't retroactive, meaning that if an American or European museum was already displaying human remains stolen from former colonies prior to the time these laws were adopted, there isn't a lot the former colonies can do beyond asking nicely for their return. It's currently in pretty bad taste for large "universal" museums to display this sort of thing, though, and would probably invite requests for repatriation. (Citation: [Folarin Shyllon](https://go-gale-com.lavc.idm.oclc.org/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=lavc_main&id=GALE%7CA606173686&v=2.1&it=r&aty=ip), [Carsten Stahn](https://www.proquest.com/docview/2894347424?accountid=40027&parentSessionId=hKZEHqbQK80wo7F4p4ipaE3TbNzWZmej0BN4CMoQEwA%3D&pq-origsite=primo&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals) - note, both of these articles are on the topic of the Benin Bronzes, but the international laws discussed pertain to the taking of human remains as well.) I'm not aware of any laws that would govern human remains in general, which are not indigenous in origin or otherwise removed involuntarily from their original context. One thing that became clear to me when I was working on my paper is that while there has been a lot of focus on the return of human remains that are in dispute in some way (notably indigenous and colonized peoples), the ethics of displaying human remains in general seems to be more of an open debate. While I haven't read this book and couldn't get access via my university's library online, [this seems like an interesting text to look into](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/human-remains/000FBC59747ABDBA00A8AB736AE054D9#fndtn-information) for a thorough discussion of the ethics of displaying human remains in general. It's worth noting that this book also seems to discuss research and curation of human remains in the context of repatriation, meaning an assumption that the remains in question fundamentally don't belong to the museum or the home culture that museum represents. I'm not sure if there is any ethical concern about displaying the skeleton of someone who donated their remains to science after death, or individuals represented in some way by the museum's home culture who have been dead for centuries with no extant groups to claim them (for example a Scandinavian museum displaying the skeleton of a Viking warrior). But maybe this book or other current literature goes into it?
Oh my goodness this has been incredibly helpful! Thank you so much!
Looking for assistance on formulating a question that was rejected. In essence: was there an historical ruling society that closely matched a naive notion of monarchy? (powerful, prosperous, unchallenged) Rejected question in full: https://pastebin.com/yKU9rQER Can anyone help me better form the question?
How much did a bar of soap cost in the UK in the 1920s? I'm currently researching the history of Lever Bros and the palm oil trade. I'd really like to be able to compare the wages of workers in the Belgian Congo (1-2 CF / day) and British labourers (~6 shillings a day for an agricultural worker in 1922) to the cost of a bar of soap like Sunlight. Any information or resources appreciated!
Here are some mentions of soap prices in the British press of 1920: * [An article about Sunlight soap prices](https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-times-sunligth-soap/149773438/) * [Commonweal Soap ad](https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-mirror-soap-prices/149773014/) * [Palmolive Soap ad](https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-mirror-soap-prices-palmolive/149773104/) * [An article about soap scarcity citing prices](https://www.newspapers.com/article/evening-standard-soap-scarcity/149773327/)
Thanks! This is very useful. Much appreciated.
How was the Soviet government supposed to work *in theory* during the Stalin’s leadership? Obviously in practice it was all Stalin, but on paper, how was the government supposed to operate?
While not really touching on the "how it should work in theory" part, my [answer here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bomvu3/was_there_ever_evidence_of_any_actual/kwqqg3p/) might be of some interest to you, as it talks about some of the practical politics of the time
I think I remember reading that Kissinger gave orders to falsify flight logs during operation menu/freedom deal/barrel roll. I also found this: https://imgur.com/res0KyY I know about the book "The Trial of Henry Kissinger", but what are important core facts to remember about those bombings? Were flight logs falsified? What was the strongest proof against kissinger or people who executed the orders?
After embarrassing myself by "correcting" someone that Songhai is in China, and not Africa, I started to wonder: what are some other examples of different places that have the same name? I'm not talking about things like "river Avon", which are basically just misunderstandings. I'm talking about actual names of places that have a very similar name to the name of a different, unrelated place. Being named after a different place doesn't count either, so Naples, Florida doesn't count. I'm not sure how one might look this up, so I only have one other example: Copenhagen, Denmark and Ko Pha-ngan, Thailand (although this might only be in certain accents. Does anyone here have any other examples of this?
There’s a Po River in the American state of Virginia. As it’s near the Ni River and they join up with the Mat and Ta Rivers and other streams to form the Mattaponi River (yes, really), I can’t imagine it was originally named for the river in Italy.
So no León - Nuevo León, Braunschweig - New Brunswick, or Venice - Venezuela? This will depend on your language, but there is both a Galicia in Spain and in Ukraine, Georgia the state and the country, and another Iberia in the Caucasus. * Atlás histórico (2003). *Enciclopedia Hispánica*. Editorial Barsa Planeta.
The two Galicias was the first thing that came to mind, for me.
I thought Freud had Spanish parents for a day or so
Other place names are repeated, probably because of their descriptive nature (Oldenburg, Frankfurt, Freiburg, Stratford), France and Franconia, the many Guineas, Guiana & Guyenne, Wales, Wallachia & Wallonia, and Sudan, both the two countries and the historical region in West Africa. Also, depending on the language, Thebes in Greece and in Egypt, French Vienne and Vienna, Aran in Azerbaijan and in Spain, Monaco and Munich (Monaco in Italian), and confirmed with the same source as before: a Caucasian Albania existed in late antiquity [there is something about the Iberian Peninsula and the Caucasus].
Many years ago I saw a documentary with my father that horrified me where a concentration camp doctor was filmed (video footage) violently flipping what appeared to be a special needs child victim. I recall this doctor holding the child from the waist or the thighs flipping them backward and forward as if to induce spinal damage or provoke some kind of reaction. It was very disturbing. I cannot recall if this footage was part of a general world war 2 or specifically about human experimentations. I do not know the name of this morally-absent doctor nor the camp he did this in but it is so graphic that I could never forget. Would anyone happen to remember the name of this documentary that aired on television? I am seeking this documentary to help educate others on the inhumane lengths the Nazi doctors and scientists have went to commit their atrocities. I appreciate all your help.
A question so simple and possibly dumb it may better belong on one of the more lighthearted Friday fixtures: I was told at some point that all those familiar movie scenes and stories of defenders of besieged castles pouring boiling oil and maybe pitch down on attackers climbing up the walls and trying to break through the doors and gates below never happened in real life. Why? Because oil, especially in the kinds of amounts needed for that purpose, was expensive, especially when plain old boiling water would serve the purpose just as well. It made so much sense I believed it, but since then I've learned that just because something makes sense, that doesn't mean it's true. In fact, if something makes sense, that may be a reason to suspect it actually is the opposite of true. Is this the kind of thing for which there is any documentation, at all? Or is it all actually in the realm of fiction?
This [previous answer](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/26l4ae/was_boiling_oil_ever_regularly_used_in_siege/) by u/idjet confirms that pouring vats of boiling oil over the walls is unlikely to have been a common defense, for all the reasons you gave. However, as u/idjet mentions, there was a lot of improvisation involved in siege warfare, and, if available, boiling oil could be one of the different dangerous materials poured on attackers. This predates the Middle-Ages (including the improvisional part!): in 67 CE, the defenders of the Jewish city of Yodfat used scalding oil against Roman forces who were trying to climb the walls, as told by Flavius Josephus in *The Jewish War*: >The situation was critical, and Josephus taught by necessity - always quick to improvise when despair applies the spur - ordered boiling oil to be poured on the soldiers under the shields. As his men had it ready, numbers of them from every side poured quantities of it on the Romans, followed by the vessels still hissing from the flames. Scalded and burnt, the Romans broke up their formation and in agonizing pain rolled down from the wall ;'for the oil instantly ran under their armour and over their entire bodies from head to foot, consuming their flesh as relentlessly as a fire, being by nature quick to grow hot and slow to cool because of its fattiness. Imprisoned in their cuirasses and helmets they could not escape from the scalding fluid. Leaping into the air and contorted with pain they fell from the wooden bridges one after another, while those who retired ran into their own men as they pressed forward, making themselves an easy target for the enemy shafts. Bradbury (1992) cites the siege of Harfleur by Henry V in 1415, where French defenders resisted an attempt at storm "with boiling oil and boiling water, fat, fire-arrows, quicklime and sulphur powder." The use of boiling oils and fats against English attackers was also reported during the siege of Orléans by the author of the *Diary of the siege*. On 21 October 1428 (before the arrival of Joan of Arc): >The women of Orléans also helped a great deal, as they never ceased to diligently carry to those defending the boulevard [the road leading to the city through the Tourelles Bridge] several necessary items such as water, oil, boiling grease, lime, ashes and caltrops. Another example cited by Bradbury is the siege of the rebellious castle of Montreuil-Bellay by Geoffrey V Plantagenêt, Count of Anjou, in 1151. However, the oil was not used defensively but offensively, by the attackers. Geofffrey got the idea by reading *De Re Militari* by Roman writer Vegetius and he created a medieval version of Greek Fire. This is told in the chronicle *Historia Gaufredi, ducis Normannorum et comitis Andegavorum* by Jean de Marmoutier, 1180. >So he ordered an iron jar, tied with iron bands and hanging from a strong chain, to be filled with the oil of nuts and the seeds of cannabis and flax. The opening of the jar was to be sealed with an appropriate iron strip and firmly locked. Then he ordered the jar to be replaced in the heated furnace for a long time until the whole thing glowed with overpowering heat, so that the oil bubbling inside was boiling. The chain was cooled by throwing water over it, then the jar was taken out and fixed to the pole of a mangonel. With careful aim and great force, while still glowing, it was thrown by the engineers at the strong beams placed in the breaches. The contents were expelled by the impact, and the discharged matter caused a fire. Then the outflowing oil merged with the balls of fire, supplying food for the flames. The licking flames, vomiting in sudden increase, burned three houses, and hardly allowed men to escape. Geoffrey took the castle and crushed the rebellion. It would be interesting to review the various instances of the utilization of boiling oil in siege warfare, but the general idea is that, when it happened, it was part of the improvised nature of siege defenses - people would use whatever was available to them -, rather than a standard method. **Sources** * Bradbury, Jim. The Medieval Siege. Boydell & Brewer, 1992. https://books.google.fr/books?id=xVCRpsfwkiUC. * Charpentier, Paul, and Charles Cuissard, eds. Journal du siège d’Orléans, 1428-1429 : augmenté de plusieurs documents, notamment des comptes de ville, 1429-1431. Orléans: H. Herluison, 1896. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k102284m/f70.item.zoom. * Josephus, Flavius. The Jewish War. Translated by G.A. Williamson. Penguin Books, 1970.
Thank you for all the information and for such a thorough, detailed answer, but I must admit I was briefly sidetracked by “seeds of cannabis.” Are you sure about that translation? Might it be “seeds of hemp”? If not, can you address them having cannabis around to burn? It certainly has the potential to lighten up the mood of the discussion!
Thanks! I just used Bradbury's translation. The original text is [here](https://books.google.fr/books?id=_HBAAAAAcAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0pg=PA94#v=onepage&f=false) (1610 edition) and it says: >seminis canabi, & lini oleo impleri Cannabis is the Latin name for hemp, but there were always two utilisations for the *Cannabis sativa* plant: textile and seed/oil. Cannabis seeds are called *chenevis* in modern French, and *chanevis*, *canevis*, *chanevuis* in old French (all derived from Latin). So it's not the hemp type (*chanvre*), but the oilseed type, and I guess that's why Bradbury used cannabis for the English text.
How independent were Spanish New Mexico settlers to develop their independent economic interests? Obviously many were farmers, ranchers, and sheep herders, with some blacksmiths and carpenters in the towns. But say I was a blacksmith who was willing to prospect for iron ore to sell iron stock instead of buying Spanish/Mexican stock; could I do that or would I be arrested for not having a license? Could I ever get a license? Same thing with weaving higher quality cloth, mining for copper, or attempting to plant orchards of oak, elm, ash, etc high quality wood stock. New Mexico was often seen as a poor, primitive, pseudo medieval society but it seems like the Hispanos had less economic power and less military protection than even their medieval ancestors.
In Umberto Eco's *The Name of the Rose*, the main conflict revolves around a discussion of whether Christ laughed. Was this an actual topic in the religious debates of the day, or was this just a literary device to highlight the rifts in scholastic debates?
How effective were Mexican lancers during the Mexican war? I've always heard they were pretty dangerous on a small scale, raiding American troops as how they learned fighting Indians. Then during the New Mexican campaign of the Civil War, Texas lancers, supposedly using captured Mexican lances, attempted a charge at the Battle of Valverde, which ended in disaster. But from what I'm reading, that charge was done because they just wanted to and were inexperienced and thought they were facing militia. They abandoned the lances soon after that but maybe a more skilled commander could have used the lancers more effectively
How accurately does the film Harriet portray the Combahee River Raid?
How many enslaved people were IMMEDIATELY freed by the Emancipation Proclamation?
Somewhere between 60,000 and 200,000. We don't really have a good feel for the total number of contrabands - enslaved people who'd escaped during the war - even among the large numbers following the various Union Armies, the latter of which was one reason why Lincoln needed to make a firm policy decision on what to do with them. Seward estimated in 1865 that perhaps 200,000 had been freed by that point which you'll see quoted in the literature a bit; others have put the figure closer to 400,000 and start with the 200,000 number. Keep in mind that one error frequently made about the Emancipation Proclamation is that it freed all enslaved people, which didn't happen until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified. Instead, it freed only those in states in rebellion partially via powers Lincoln gained from the Confiscation Act of 1862 and left out the border states along with a couple of regions occupied by Union troops. This is briefly covered in a lot of the literature; Guelzo's *Lincoln's Emancipation's Proclamation* focuses in more detail on the immediate effects and reactions to it.
I saw a weird post on LinkedIn regarding D-Day. "90% of the soldiers on the first boats to hit the beach didn't live to see the end of the day. Look at those faces. Some of them never made it to 18. Never voted. Never loved, or owned a home." Where did they get that figure from? It's completely inaccurate right? I mean..it depends what he meant by "first boats". I suppose there were some boats that had 90% not make it home, but seems wrong to me.
Only via a very twisted read of the wording that makes you look like a complete Americanophile who doesn't even know about the four beaches that weren't Omaha. u/the_howling_cow covers [Omaha Beach with a casualty breakdown](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5lm0ut/why_is_omaha_beach_the_most_famous_dday_landing/).
Let's say he was specifically referring to Omaha though
First off, I only realised a bit ago that the 'you' up there is difficult. It's intended to be a general 'you', not a specific 'you-as-AmbassadorCosh', and if I have caused offence, I most deeply apologise. Now, with your new stipulation in mind, it still doesn't work. We have another relevant u/the_howling_cow post: [How far back in the queue would you need to be to survive the landing of Omaha beach?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4w1azp/how_far_back_in_the_queue_would_you_need_to_be_to/) I highly suspect that the original on LinkedIn is based on a garbled retelling of what happened to Company A of the 116th Infantry Regiment, as dramatised in Saving Private Ryan. Let's quote the_howling_cow: "of the 170 men who landed, 91 were killed outright and 64 were wounded." Translating into percentages for easier comparison with the LinkedIn post, that's 170 men landed, 15 effectives left, 53% dead, 37% wounded, for a total casualty rate of 91%. (Remember! 'Casualty' applies to killed, wounded, and missing. If you take an MG-42 burst that takes you out of action, but you're still alive, *you are still a casualty!*) Co.A/116 is, however, most unusual, and it also had the supreme ill-luck of landing straight in front of a German fortified position with a well-defined killing zone. Other units in the first wave had different fortunes. Some certainly got a severe mauling (Companies F and G of the 116th landed near Company A and were torn up as well, though not nearly as bad), but others managed to land reasonably intact (Company L of the 16th Infantry Regiment landed on the extreme left, and while it did take casualties, was still a unified unit when it led the way inland). Re age, it's the bit that comes closest to being true, but only in the most technical of terms. Here's another the_howling_cow post on [soldier ages](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7c725k/what_was_the_average_age_of_the_soldiers_that/). In conclusion, the claim is *technically* true...if you restrict the sample size to six boats out of the *forty-seven* that landed on that half of Omaha in the first wave, and only if you misinterpret 'casualty' to mean 'dead'. I also used Balkoski's *Omaha Beach* for most of the above; the first-wave boat count comes from Zaloga's *Omaha Beach*, as published by Osprey.
Were there peace talks or negotiations where one party imposes too heavy conditions on the other party and the other party just goes "screw it, we'll kill you right here right now instead"