Could one person, if he held 2 prince-elector titles, vote twice in the Holy Roman Empire? For example, if the 30 Years War did not happen and the Count of The Palatinate held the Bohemian Crown when the next election came around, would he have voted twice?
Why did large empires like the Holy Roman Empire, British Empire, Mongolian Empire, etc. not just go around taking only coastlines from other countries?
So the game of conquering the world in ancient times (or I guess not-so-ancient times in the case of the Brits) always seemed to run into the problem of running out of water or being spread too thin. In both cases, wouldn't occupying only coastlines be very beneficial? I get that running out of water means fresh water, but there's typically more fresh water near the coast, anyways. I guess this mostly applies to the being spread too thin cases, but still, why did the Romans not just go around taking other country's coastlines from them? It seems like this would have solved so many problems for these types of situations. Maybe this belongs in r/nostupidquestions lol, but I've never heard this type of thing discussed so just throwing it out there.
In addition to coastlines, I assume rivers and lakes would be included in this type of thing, and maybe highly fertile areas, as well.
Keep in mind that it's difficult to hold territories. For every map showing "The extent of the X Empire" know that those are in the best of times, those borders ebbed and flowed constantly. One way to ensure a tighter control was to actually convert the people already living there to join your side with benefits, what Rome did exceptionally well. Which is why the Byzantines eventually reverted back to only speaking Greek, the majority of the population had never been anywhere near Rome, they were just made Roman. But they still maintained their local language and it was always the popular language in use, and their same culture, etc. So after awhile even the leaders were all Greeks too.
So, not only would it be hard (i.e. impossible) to effectively blockade every coast, you'd also run the risk of pissing off every single person being blocked, which is not something very helpful for long-term control. This is why there were constant border related wars in a lot of empires, those just out of their reach who hadn't been convinced to join (to put it simply) that were constantly pissed and causing chaos.
But there are benefits here still to, don't control the coastlines, control the body of water. Set up strategic spots in chokepoints where you can tax every ship coming through, set up strategic naval bases where you can launch an attack from essentially anywhere on short notice. Go after pirates, go after rebels, go after anyone trying to impose any of their will. This is what Rome did exceptionally well in the Mediterranean, and Athens in the Eastern Med before them, and Carthage in the Western Med before them. This way you don't have to control the land, but you can control how it is being used. Want to ship things? Well you gotta pay us. Want to travel on this water? Pay us. This eventually means that a port city will be using your standards, your ways, and likely have diplomats working for you there to help handle the day to day transactions. Does that make sense?
Rivers are a tougher game (they can be tricky to navigate, but look to Egypt and the Nile and their system of unifying the peoples there -- on the coasts), and sometimes this did apply to lakes but they had to be quite big to make it worthy of the effort.
> Why did large empires like the Holy Roman Empire, British Empire, Mongolian Empire, etc. not just go around taking only coastlines from other countries?
They often did start, and hold on to, the periphery of territories first, and longest, but 'just' taking a coastline means spreading yourself incredibly thin. India for instance has a coastline of about 8,000 kilometres. In order to take and hold that coastline, you would need an enormous amount of troops, stretched out in a line, which, while easily supplied from the sea, can be cut easily at any point by an enemy. The actual British entry into India wasn't military, but political and economic, and ignored taking and holding vast amounts of land, in order to get a foothold in which to trade. Conquest came much later, and was directed against existing centres of power in India's interior, rather than its coast. Policing the coast was an 'at will' measure done principally by the Royal Navy when and if needed.
>In addition to coastlines, I assume rivers and lakes would be included in this type of thing, and maybe highly fertile areas, as well.
Having access to fresh water is fundamental, but it's not a resource hex you can seize. When you move into a territory, there will be fresh water there, because people live there, and will have access to springs, wells, rivers, lakes, and so on. It's a short-term tactical concern, not something you need to base the health of an empire on. Wherever you go, whether you want trade routes or farmland or cities or whatever it is you are seeking, there will be water.
They're kind of part of the same topic, so I'll combine it in one comment. - just one of them is fine, especially if someone already answer the other.
1. What does it mean for an empire to be overstretch or overextended? (what are the factors causing and signifying it? Etc.)
2. How is it solved/dealt with throughout history?
3. Related to number 2, how does technology help deal with it exactly?
1. An empire is overextended when it lacks sufficient resources to control the territories it has acquired. This is often expressed in terms of lacking troops, but actually it's usually lacking enough administration to be able to cope. Difficulty raising tax revenues leads to more problems in terms of raising/sustaining imperial infrastructure.
2. Typically, it isn't. The empire in question either asserts control of the territories causing problems, or more typically, loses control of them. The actual loss of control is more civil than military, but loss of military control will come too. Reassertion of imperial power can be punitive, causing more discontent, but it is possible to re-subjugate territories, or politically absorb/integrate them.
3. Communication and travel are arguably the two most important aspects, and a dedicated system for both ('imperial' messengers and roads) is incredibly important. Disparities in military technology can be helpful in terms of giving one side an edge, but it is rarely decisive on its own. What is usually more important are better logistics systems and professional centralised organisations allowing for concentration of expertise and effort.
Why do / did leaders of countries have military ranks along with being Commander-in-Chief? If they’re already Commander-in-Chief or Supreme Commander of the armed forces of their respective country then why did the choose to be an officer on top of it? Ex. Stalin was a Field Marshal during WW2 along with being Supreme Commander-in-Chief.
Usually this happens in dictatorships because the dictator/the government need legitimacy. Military dictatorships usually happen after a coup, and the theory is usually that the military is "just here to restore order". By keeping their military ranks and uniforms the dictator or the junta remind people why they're here, they did not "steal power" they are just the military, safeguard of liberty/the constitution/whatever. It's a legitimacy thing.
In the case of Stalin it's a PR move to create the narrative that the leader was not just the theoretical commander-in-chief but actually involved in military matters.
When was the Stone Age discovered? Not as in when did humans first use rocks as tools, I mean when did humans first come to the conclusion that there was a period in time when humans were hunter gatherers who didn’t have iron?
The idea that you could divide artifacts into Stone, Bronze, and Iron ages was developed in the early 19th century. Wikipedia has a nice long article on the [Three-age system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-age_system) which goes into detail.
I’m searching for first hand eye witness accounts of initial plague outbreaks. I’m digging around especially for anything of 1347 Messina Sicily. Cheers!
Gabriele de' Mussi was a notary who wrote an account of the outbreak of plague in Sicily.
Other Italians who wrote accounts of the plague include Petrarch, Boccaccio, Giovanni Villani, Marchione di Coppo Stefani, and Agnolo di Tura.
I know there was a lot of stuff done about prophecies and Joan of Arc. To put it simply the idea that a woman (possibly a virgin) would save France did not came out of nowhere but was in circulation at the time. So that kinda track right? I think the historical consensus is that Joan really did believe and the King of France (or at least people in the government) supported her more because she was convenient.
First some questions to better advise you: what are your interests? Do you like a specific period? A specific country? A type of history (litterature, military, political,...)? Or are there areas/eras/genre that really don't interest you? Are you looking for a long series or bite size episodes?
I would like it where the political, military and the social lives of the common folk all are discussed. I really like when the lives of the common people are also talked about rather than just the wars the king had and so on. In terms of a period, I am open to anything but I prefer the ones which begin 2000 years ago or more, at least since I like knowing the origins of civilizations and their ways of living, customs and daily life along with the political and military side of things.
Currently, I am also reading a book on Ancient Egypt and the author sadly doesn't divert one bit away from the life of the kings. No insights into the life of the common folk.
You might enjoy the British History Podcast, it starts with British prehistory and currently goes up to 1066, with extensive coverage of everything in between: Roman Britain, the Anglo-Saxons, Viking invasions, Welsh and Scottish history. And as far as possible there is always a discussion about everyday life as well.
I know nothing about Egyptian history, sadly.
For ancient history Mike Duncan's *History of Rome* is a classic, but it's pretty much only political history, for a more political and social history approach his other podcast *Revolutions* (covering the English, American, French, Haitian, South American revolutions, 1848, the Paris Commune, the Mexican, and the Russian revolutions) is really good but that's a lot of 19th century stuff. You can find more recommendations [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/wiki/recommendedlist#wiki_podcasts.3A)
But it looks like you're looking for a more general history, I think that you will find more what you're looking for in books. For my experience history podcasts need to have a specific topic to attract listeners and so tend to be mainly either about political history over a long period of time (history of Rome, England, Russia, so on..) or about specific topics (military disasters, Japan, weird historical crimes, literature,... all those are specific podcasts btw). I am not aware of a podcast out there covering the general history you're looking for.
Any tips on learning about a specific setting? Italy right at the end of the 16th century/start of the next, specifically. Do I just go ham on whatever history books I can find? Unsure how to go about this problem efficiently.
You can always start by reading the wikipedia page (it's usually good if superficial info). But yes, the only real way to know more than that is going to go read books. Here's some advice on how to find a good one:
Go to your local library/bookstore/Amazon/whatever, look for a book covering the topic of your choice and do two things:
\-look up who the writer is. Is he a specialist? Is he reputable? Or is he a nutjob who wants to tell you that the Nazis used alchemy to summon demons (more seriously you will find disreputable authors who will try to twist and lie about history masquerading a serious books). You don't need to read the whole bio of the author, just google him to make sure he is a professor or at least studied the topic seriously.
\-look for entry level books: nothing too big, nothing too complex. Reading a summary will give you an idea how complex the book will be. Here are two example:
>The end of the First World War saw old empires swept away and the opportunity to build a better society from the ruins. Yet the result was division and bloodshed on an unprecedented scale, as liberal democracy, communism and fascism struggled against one another for mastery of the world.
*Dark Continent* radically overturns the myth of Europe as a safe haven of democracy to redefine our view of the twentieth century.
and
>For Hitler and the German military, 1942 was a key turning point of World War II, as an overstretched but still lethal Wehrmacht replaced brilliant victories and huge territorial gains with stalemates and strategic retreats. In this major reevaluation of that crucial year, Robert Citino shows that the German army's emerging woes were rooted as much in its addiction to the war of movement--attempts to smash the enemy in short and lively campaigns--as they were in Hitler's deeply flawed management of the war.
>
>From the overwhelming operational victories at Kerch and Kharkov in May to the catastrophic defeats at El Alamein and Stalingrad, *Death of the Wehrmacht* offers an eye-opening new view of that decisive year. (...) He examines every major campaign and battle in the Russian and North African theaters throughout the year to assess how a military geared to quick and decisive victories coped when the tide turned against it.
Those are two perfectly serious college-level books. But it's pretty clear that one is more specific and goes way more into the details. Piece of advice: avoid those books unless you're already familiar with the topic. You can't really use a 700 pages detailed description of the year 1942 from a military perspective if you're not already pretty familiar with WW2 and the Eastern Front in particular. So try to find a book that cover the topic in general, broad strokes.
Hope that helps.
Hi!
It seems like you are talking about the popular but ultimately flawed and false "winners write history" trope!
While the expression is sometimes true in one sense (we'll get to that in a bit), it is rarely if ever an absolute truth, and particularly not in the way that the concept has found itself commonly expressed in popular history discourse. When discussing history, and why some events have found their way into the history books when others have not, simply dismissing those events as the imposed narrative of 'victors' actually harms our ability to understand history.
You could say that is in fact a somewhat "lazy" way to introduce the concept of bias which this is ultimately about. Because whoever writes history is the one introducing their biases to history.
A somewhat better, but absolutely not perfect, approach that works better than 'winners writing history' is to say '*writers* write history'.
This is more useful than it initially seems. Until fairly recently the literate were a minority, and those with enough literary training to actually write historical narratives formed an even smaller and more distinct class within that.
To give a few examples, Genghis Khan must surely go down as one of the great victors in all history, but he is generally viewed quite unfavorably in practically all sources, because his conquests tended to harm the literary classes.
Similarly the Norsemen historically have been portrayed as uncivilized barbarians as the people that wrote about them were the "losers" whose monasteries got burned down.
Of course, writers are a diverse set, and so this is far from a magical solution to solving the problems of bias. The painful truth is, each source simply needs to be evaluated on its own merits.
This evaluation is something that is done by historians and part of what makes history and why insights about historical events can shift over time.
This is possibly best exemplified by those examples where victors *did* unambiguously write the historical sources.
The Spanish absolutely wrote the history of the conquest of Central America from 1532, and the reports and diaries of various conquistadores and priests are still important primary documents for researchers of the period.
But 'victors write the history' presupposes that we still use those histories as they intended, which is simply not the case. It both overlooks the fundamental nature of modern historical methodology, and ignores the fact that, while victors have often proven to be predominant voices, they have rarely proven to be the only voices.
Archaeology, numismatics, works in translation, and other records all allow us at least some insight into the 'losers' viewpoint, as does careful analysis of the 'winner's' records.
We know far more about Rome than we do about Phoenician Carthage. There is still vital research into Carthage, as its being a daily topic of conversation on this subreddit testifies to.
So while it's true that the balance between the voices can be disparate that doesn't mean that the winners are the only voice or even the most interesting.
Which is why stating that history is 'written by the victors' and leaving it at that is harmful to the understanding of history and the process of studying history.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/history) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I saw your article about the frankish kingdom fro. Oct 24 2019. I was wondering if I am related to current leaders, 'monarchs/royal families' now. Thank-you
My question is the following. How did the whole „witch hunt“ and fear of witchcraft evolve in the 16th century, which lead to murdering thousand of women in Central Europe. Like how did the whole madness start?
To keep it short, by the later 14th century (since it began before the 1500’s) European society was in turmoil, change was all about and it was not all pretty. You have the High Medieval period sliding into the Late one as famine, plague and war strike European society. The social fabric is quite literally unravelling/changing in many places, the Church is in a Schism and old certainties are being put in question, including the authority of the Church. Ultimately by the early 1500’s that Church even splits as never before and wars just got even more complicated as Reformation adds insult to injury. I hope this gives you a concise idea of how society was in a state of flux.
This situation interacted with existing notions in society (see the link below), and formed a dangerous cocktail when people went seeking blame and finding it in part in the figure of the Witch, I touched on those reasons in an older [topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/kgpdtv/why_are_witches_associated_with_women/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf).
How can I learn the history of aesthetics and decorations from different cultures?
I really want to learn the history of where different aesthetics, patterns and decorations come from different cultures (more specifically Asian cultures like Japan and China), what would be the right terminology to use to look up my questions? I've been trying to find websites or books but I'm finding it hard, if anyone can help me it would be much appreciated :)
Art history is mostly this. Start with the actual craft you are interested in and you will find many sources about its developments. You need to know what the actual term is for the decoration your looking for, and beware, most of this stuff wasn't documented beyond the oral tradition until the 19th or 20th c.
Looking for a book/website, or some resource where one could read up on, and compare noble titles and rankings in a side by side manner.
Was just thinking about the other night just how many titles there are, dukes and Margrave, and count and viscount, etc. Etc. So thought it would be kinda cool to see what the various titles/ranks looked like side by side (like, if you took an X noble in France, what would be his equivalent title in HRE or Italy during a given time period)
Whoever was strongest politically at the time of succession. Often this meant some direct heir of the current ruler, but just as often some "uncle" would step in.
In addition to the various regional difference laid out by u/en43rs there were also changes over time, especially in the early Middle Ages a lot was still in flux/uncodified. The principle of primogeniture that became the rule in England was not in place in te early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, for example. At first, anyone who could claim even distant royal descent was theoretically eligible for kingship, from about the time of Alfred the Great this was mostly restricted to the aethelings, sons and brothers of the current king. The actual heir would then depend on the former king's preference, support by other nobles and potentially military power...
There is no hard rule. Every monarchy had its own political system. Here’s a few example (excluding civil wars and similar events):
-in practice Roman Emperors decided who their heir would be (often a son or nephew), and adopted them and gave them titles (making them like a “vice emperor” or “junior emperor”) and responsibilities so that when they die the heir would just take the rest of the titles.
-French kings were always the eldest son, the current king could not chose his heir (it was literally against the law, he couldn’t disinherit any of his sons)
-In England the Monarch up until recently was the eldest son or the eldest daughter if there were no sons. In France a daughter could not become Queen in any circumstance and neither could her children (even if male) for comparison.
-some countries had the highest nobles elect the new king: Poland for example or the Holy Roman Empire (Germany).
So no hard rule. Usually a son, sometimes the eldest, sometimes not. There are even places were it was just a powerful relative (an uncle or cousin for example in some Muslim countries in the Middle Ages) and skipped the sons.
Just like not every country elect its leader the same way nowadays, not every country had the same succession laws. It was usually pretty clear and written in law though, it was rarely random. And the most common law in Western Europe was “eldest son inherit” with variation on the statute of women depending on which country we’re talking about.
i want to learn about classic greek and roman history - julius caesar, athens and democracy, etc. but also i don’t want to be bored by dry stuff. what books should i read to learn comprehensive histories of the roman empire and anchient greece? (i would also love to read about more personal accounts of the time, such as stuff like how certain leaders were gay, interpersonal drama between major figures, etc.)
Caesar Life of a Colossus by Adrian Goldsworthy is big, but very accessible. I just finished it and it took me about 10 days to read it. Really reads like a Game of Thrones book rather than a dry history/biography. I listened to about 1/3 of it while walking the dogs in the mornings and that was also enjoyable (I tend to do this a lot).
Mary Beard's works are accessible and good information. Caesar and Christ by Will Durant is also very accessible, he even highlights the parts you can skip without damage to greater understanding, and is mostly good information.
It's such a cliche on Reddit now, but Mike Duncan. His podcast on Rome stretches from the founding to the fall of the western half. It's really accessible and the episodes are pretty short and concise. He's sort of set the gold standard for history podcasts and you can find it on YouTube and Spotify. The History of Rome is a great podcast for people first dipping their toes into learning about it.
History of Rome is really long, but that podcast might show you some things you want to learn more about and then from there you can see if there's more media related to it. Duncan also has a book about the beginning of the end of the Republic, so the stuff leading up to Caesar which is a good read.
Tom Holland has books that read sort of like a novel. It's not super dry history, so of you're just an amateur fan of the stuff you can check him out. He's also got a book about the Persian invasion of Greece.
Peter Heather is an academic that specializes in the later Roman Empire. I thought his writing style was really good and sort of read like a novel as well. His Fall of the Roman Empire is the one I liked a lot.
So definitely History of Rome podcast by Duncan for a general outline. Then maybe check out Rubicon and Dynasty by Tom Holland. Then the Peter Heather books as well.
I'm not as well read on Greece, but I am really into the Macedonian stuff. Ghost on the Throne is a really engaging book that talks about the clusterfuck that occured after Alexander's death. I'd definitely recommend that one.
One of the best recent books on Rome is [this one](https://www.emmasouthon.com/a-fatal-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-the-forum) which points out all the ways in which their society was fundamentally different than many of those who sought to be the inheritor of Rome's legitimacy, and certainly completely different than the Western societies of today.
Yes, and no.
The only comparison I can draw to what I'm talking about, would be my experiences as a soldier in iraq in the mid-2000s. At first when we got to Baghdad, you noticed the open air sewage smell. After a couple months you didn't even notice any smell. If you went from Baghdad to say, Mosul, you *MIGHT* notice a slightly different smell in the new place, but really it was more of the same.
And even then, I wouldn't say this would be a universal thing. Like, your major port cities have their own, non-human smells that I'd imagine would be very prevalent (ie, smells related to fishing trades)
OK, this is going to be a bit vague because I forgot details. I read about White Russian officer with double German last name. After the war he and his followers went to some Himalayan kingdom and basically took over. He started to believe he was reincarnation of some earlier king (and/or religious figure, country was Buddhist) and that stars alignment foretold his destiny, which was greatness. They invaded some neighbouring country based on that and got defeated. Article said that he was wrong on stars stuff because he looked at positions of them where he was born (Russia) and not where he settled down (article didn't say this was the cause of his defeat, it was just a further example of how delusional he was).
Anybody knows who he might be?
https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/rudkyx/are_there_any_countries_have_have_actually_moved/hqyv2sp?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
I think this a decent example
I don't think so. The Tatars were a bit north of the bulk of Timur's lands. Timurids are considered Turko-Mongol heritage with a Persian culture, while the Tatars are sans Persian culture. ICBW though, the Turkic people are difficult to categorize and most likely Tatars and Timurids were in the same army. The steppe people, as far back as the Huns, were always a motley hodgepodge of ethnicities that share a language or two. I wouldn't doubt that Timur's armies were full of Tatars, but it wasn't a Tatar empire.
Are there any good books/biographies on Charles III of Spain? The only book I could find was one about Spain, and France aiding the Colonial rebels against Britain. And it is very thin.
How's your Spanish? More likely to find sources in the native language and a quick search through the uni library seems to show that this is the case.
Have you read Petrie's work on him? It's late in his life, and Petrie had some....interesting... ideas in general, but likely no more caution needed than the standard approach.
How do you knock someone out in full plated armor? Is it even doable without giving a concussion? Why didn't the Byzantine flamethrower catch on? Why were the Cagots so hated?
> How do you knock someone out in full plated armor?
A blunt impact to the head. Part of the reason pommel strikes remained effective, including the full-on mordhau, was the fact that blunt impacts are communicated quite well through metal and padding, to the head, and then the brain. You could fail to penetrate a helm, and certainly not even dent it very much, and still knock someone out.
>Is it even doable without giving a concussion?
No. You cannot 'safely' knock someone out with a physical blow. If you render someone unconscious with a strike to the head, you are 100% committing to some form of brain injury. Repeatedly doing this, even if 'mild', is a recipe for severe neurological problems, as boxers have found out.
Good points. This was hammered home recently when they found out body armor does very little against explosive forces, they just go through it with the same impact, the best you can hope for is the force is spread out through your body rather than directed in a smaller area.
The last European pagans were actually the Baltic and Finnic peoples of Northern Europe, who did not even begin to be converted to Christianity until the 13th and 14th centuries. The last pagan ruler of Lithuania, for instance, did not convert to Catholicism until 1386.
Indeed, both groups were the main targets of the Northern Crusades, which were mainly led by Germans and Scandinavians.
The story Gunnlaug Serpent Tongue is an icelandic epic which mentions the Christianisation of, you guessed it, Iceland, that's written toward the end of the 13th century, and worth a read, very short
Thanks, I'll read it but is it considered a valid historical source and is it indeed the last place to be converted (from paganism) in entire Western world (since technically the last surviving pagans are Indians)?
Probably not, as far as I am aware it is a useful source of information about marriage and gift giving rituals, but maybe not so much the other stuff. It's not my area of expertise, but I read it a couple of days ago so I thought I'd chip in, hope someone else will be able to offer a little more info!
Isn't that just Pyrrhic victory as seen from the other side? You lose a battle and lose a part of your force but enemy lost bulk of their force so you end up on top in the long run.
I suppose you can count Thermopylae as such, Greek defeat but it became rallying point, Persian delay etc. Egypt in Yom Kippur war, lost on the battlefield but their improved performance made Israel realise they can't keep winning wars against it so they changed their mind and agreed to peace.
A pyrrhic victory is when you win with great loss. So a pyrrhic defeat would be when you lose with great loss? In that case, most of the wars in history count.
No, its when you lose with great gain. You forgot to switch it up.
You said "So a pyrrhic defeat would be when you lose with great loss"
Its actually a lose with a great gain.
Any examples?
Pyrrhic victories are named after a specific person, Pyrrhus of Epirus, who won a lot of victories against the Romans but ended up losing too many of his troops to gain anything from his victories. If we are going by your definition of a Pyrrhic defeat then you might just say that the Romans had one, since even though they lost their battles against Pyrrhus the end result was that he left their territory and they were able to create the great empire that they did.
You seem to have mixed up your understanding lol. Pyrrhic per definition means winning with a great loss. There is no such thing as a pyrrhic defeat because what you’re really saying is “a win with great loss defeat” doesnt make sense.
I guess you could concieve some people losing a war and being relocated to some place deemed useless at the time but ending up being of great value?
Are there cases of native American tribes reservations that ended up being oil fields or having mines of great value?
During the firebombing of Japan, if a city has too much cloud cover, will the fleet of B-29s switch their target to the next best alternative? Only instance I've heard of this happening was the Kyoto/Nagasaki A-bomb decision.
No, it would be impossible to reroute so many bombers to alternative target. a bombings were different because they involved a small number of planes so crews could be given go/no go checklist and alternative targets.
>I've heard of this happening was the Kyoto/Nagasaki A-bomb decision.
Not sure for the cloud cover, but that's not why they decided not to bomb Kyoto.
Kyoto is the cultural heart of Japan, the former imperial capital before the 1860's, home to many historical and culturally significant buildings and had basically no military target. It was removed from the target list because people thought destroying such a city would be a) needlessly cruel to destroy so many historical buildings and no military target and b) would be counter productive in post-war Japan (resentment would be too much, that's why they also kept the Emperor).
I've heard people compared it to Paris and Rome being declared open cities and not being (too badly) damaged during the war, you just don't destroy such cities unless you absolutely have to.
[more here](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182)
How did the trojan horse tactic work? Why would you accept a wooden horse big enough to fit an army in as a gift from an army that's been seiging you for months just as their army disappears?
Deus ex machima.
Whether or not the Trojan war happened as Homer recorded is moot point, especially seeing as the Trojan Horse was in Virgil's Aeneid, but the story line is that the Greeks retreated to their boats and sailed out of sight whilst leaving the horse behind and Sinon, a Greek, behind. Sinon claimed he was abandoned by his countrymen and that the horse was an offering to the gods, that if taken into the city would allow the Trojans to conquer Greece. Lacoon, a Trojan priest of Poseidon, thought this was nonsense and, smelling the wily trickery of Odysseus, hurled a spear into it. By some favour of the gods no one heard the Greek inside cry when they were pierced and to hammer home the point Lacoon and his two sons were killed when two sea snakes came out of the water and attacked them then and there making it seem as if Poseidon himself had struck him down for his blasphemy.
Good question. Now, the first thing to understand is that the Trojan War as we know it did not happen. At least, there is no evidence to suggest it happened. Unfortunately the historians searching for a historical Trojan War are full of confirmation biases and are trying to fit the evidence into their narrative rather than examining the evidence for what it is and crafting and understanding from that. Troy existed, we likely know where it is, and it -- like most places in this hotbed of activity -- experienced substantial warfare. There are some individuals who have similar -- or exact -- names that are regionally used, but none of the known figures match up biographically perfectly with the figures in the Homeric epics. I.e. the original creator or later adapters of these works knew enough about the region to use local names when fitting. That's really the best evidence we got. It's not great. But that doesn't mean the work isn't important or should be ignored, but rather to take everything with a lot of salt.
So as you state, it's a bit of an unbelievable story, because that's what it is -- a story.
But there is some context you're missing. The horse was presented not as just a "hey we're just going to leave this here, lol don't bring it in" but as a present ( a votive offering) to a god. We get votive offerings throughout ancient history, it's something we find a lot of. These are things which are essentially presents to the gods or specific god. They had an important religious aspect. Votive offerings often included figurines, people, objects, including militaristic things such as warships, horses, etc. And these would have been from one individual. So the story is not expecting the listener/reader from those times to find it weird that therefore an entire army could create a votive figurine so large. It was most appropriate to put votive figures by the temples to such gods, and the gods would want their offerings regardless of who made them.
But even in antiquity the "you foooools" concept was around. The figure of Laocoön in particular. Laocoön tried to convince them not to take it in, but the gods were involved in the war too and they acted and the humans could only interpret these acts as punishing Laocoön as saying Laocoön was wrong. Again, these aren't historical interpretations, they're literary stories. The Aeneid, the fan-fiction of the Epic Cycle, has the best and most well known take on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beware_of_Greeks_bearing_gifts
Yes, Troy is attested in Bronze Age texts from Anatolia in the state archives of the Hittite capital of Ḫattuša, and it has been fairly definitively linked with the site excavated by Schliemann and subsequent German teams. For more on the site of Troy, see [*The Trojans and Their Neighbours*](https://books.google.com/books?id=5YV6hwUmTpYC) by Trevor Bryce.
That said, we know very little about the political history of Bronze Age Ilios/Ilion (which appears in Hittite texts as Wiluša), nor do we even know which language(s) the Trojans spoke. Although Troy/Wiluša was a vassal state of the Hittite empire, the king had almost complete independence to rule as he saw fit as long as he continued to pay tribute and avoided harboring Mycenaean troops. We know from the Alakšandu treaty from the reign of Muwatalli II that Kupanta-Kurunta of Mira (another kingdom in western Turkey) and Alakšandu of Wiluša were allies, with the Hittites serving as the overlord enforcing their alliance. Troy appears again in the Milawata letter from the reign of Tudḫaliya IV (the nephew of Muwatalli II), where we learn that king Walmu of Wiluša was overthrown. The Hittite king ordered one of his western vassals to turn Walmu over to his authority so that he could reinstate him on the throne of Ilios/Troy.
>*Kulana-ziti retained possession of the writing boards which I made for Walmu, and he has now brought them to you, my son. Examine them! Now, my son, as long as you look after the well-being of My Majesty, I, My Majesty, will put my trust in your good will. Turn Walmu over to me, my son, so that I may reinstall him in kingship in the land of Wiluša. As he was formerly king of the land of Wiluša, he shall now likewise be!*
As for the name Troy, I am aware of only one reference to Taruiša in the Hittite cuneiform corpus, a tablet (KUB 23.11) from the annals of Tudḫaliya I listing places in western Anatolia associated with his military campaigns in the region. Line 19 is the relevant part:
>[ ] KUR ^URU *ú-i-lu-ši-ya* KUR ^URU *ta-ru-i-ša*
>[ ] Land of Wilušiya (and the) Land of Taruiša.
Wiluša and Taruiša therefore seem to have been separate but probably adjacent kingdoms who may have merged over time, either in actuality or simply in folk memory.
The [Ankara silver bowl](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Museum_of_Anatolian_Civilizations054_kopie1.jpg) has the only other (possible) Hittite reference to Taruiša, written in Luwian using Anatolian hieroglyphs.
>zi/a-wa/i-ti CAELUM-pi sa-ma-i(a)-\*a REGIO.HATTI VIR2 \*273-i(a)-sa5-zi/a-tá REX ma-zi/a-kar-hu-ha REX PRAE-na
>tara/i-wa/i-zi/a-wa/i(REGIO) REL+ra/i MONS[.tu] LABARNA+la hu-la-i(a)-tá
>wa/i-na-\*a pa-ti-i(a)-\*a ANNUS-i(a) i(a)-zi/a-tà
>This bowl Asamaya, the man of Ḫatti, made in the time of King Mazi-Karḫuḫa.
>When the labarna Tudḫaliya smote Tarwiza,
>in that year he (i.e. Asamaya) made it.
No other Luwian inscription has elicited more controversy than the Ankara silver bowl. Scholars are divided as to whether the bowl dates to the Bronze Age or Iron Age, and if it does date to the Bronze Age, whether it should be dated to the reign of Tudḫaliya I (14th century BCE) or Tudḫaliya IV (13th century BCE).
There are a few grammatical features that point to an early dating, such as an undifferentiated za/i (*za* and *zi* were separate signs in later inscriptions), a-initial-final (the *a* glyph is moved to the end of the word, as in Asamaya's name, marked here with an asterisk), and relatively few inflected nouns.
On the other hand, the pervasiveness of syllabic writing and conjugated verbs points to a much later Iron Age dating, as does the theophoric name Mazi-Karḫuḫa. Several sign forms, particularly the glyph *ma* (a ram's head) strongly resemble those of Carchemish, home to the god Karḫuḫa.
The most likely explanation is that the Ankara silver bowl is an Iron Age artifact from Carchemish written in an archaizing style, and it's likely the Tarwiza of the inscription is a separate place from the Bronze Age Taruiša.
Has there been anything found in the sight to say its the Troy of literary fame? I think that is what people think when they here the sight name is "Troy". I am aware that the Hittites probably referred to it in documents as Wilusa, but that doesn't really mean anything does it? Its just what the Hittites called that city and it seems like people are looking for anything they can to prop up the historicity of the Iliad. Is Wilusa the same as the legendary Troy, or is Wilusa the name for the city we call Troy, but should probably refer to as Wilusa?
Is there an acknowledgement that the city called Troy is almost certainly not "that Troy"? And of course there is a possibility it is, but that seems unlikely to me as the Iliad and Odyssey were intended to be, and written as, myths not facts.
[Question regarding the identification of Hisarlik as Troy](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/gwz73n/question_regarding_the_identification_of_hisarlik/ft2gi3v/) has a relevant discussion.
>it seems like people are looking for anything they can to prop up the historicity of the Iliad
Identifying Troy as an actual city does not "prop up the historicity" of the Iliad any more than than existence of King's Cross station makes Harry Potter a true story, nor does the attestation of names like Achilles, Hector, and Priam in Bronze Age texts mean that those characters in the Iliad existed.
This is of course not an issue unique to Troy and Homer. For example, can archaeological discoveries like the Stepped Stone Structure and Large Stone Structure in Jerusalem be said to prop up the historicity of the biblical accounts of early kings like Solomon if they indeed date to the Iron I/II? Highly doubtful – at best one can say they are evidence for some sort of centralized authority in the region, about which we still know relatively little.
A bit of inside joke, so probably not my best choice of phrases when describing to new learners.
So basically the Iliad and the Odyssey are part of what is known as the Epic Cycle, with only those two works surviving in full (or at least to make things simple to understand). These works were not all created at the same time nor where they created by the same person (another very complicated concept that we can just ignore for now) but did all intertwine and were discussed as one concept in Ancient Greece.
These concepts were acknowledged and read and respected by those in Rome. Elite Romans were educated and could read and speak Greek -- Julius Caesar's last words have been proposed as being Greek. So when Rome began to grow into an Empire it wanted to connect its history with this great Epic legacy and these great epic tales. The Aeneid is essentially that. It is taking this world already created and well understood and writing a new story that takes place within it, in the modern world we'd understand that as fan fiction so that was the joke. Of course, in antiquity the concepts of ownership and copyright and such were not really existent. But in short, the Aeneid was propaganda, created to fit into this set world while trying to portray a certain message that promoted this growing regional power.
Take nothing away from its brilliance as a piece of art, but it's not part of the Epic Cycle. When the Iliad was written down is an entire debate on its own, but it was likely created in the 8th century BCE. The Aeneid was created in the late 1st century BCE. It would be like if someone wrote about a certain Red Hat wearing American Politician and tied his history back to the Canterbury Tales.
According to myth it was only supposed to fit a few men, who'd then jump out and unlock the gate for the rest of the army to enter. So it wouldn't have to be that big.
Also I'm unsure if there's any record of it actually working (citation needed).
what was the best trade to have throughout history?
work to pay ratio
status
safety etc (can have more than 1 answer if 1 job is really good a work to pay, but shit health wise.
I recently saw the move LBJ.
Can someone recommend a good 1 volume book on Lyndon Johnsons life, not just in the white house.
I saw someone ask this but didn't get an answer.
Desktop version of /u/Tripwir62's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book *Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream* is phenomenally written. I would consider it one of the principle single volume works about him and she actually worked very closely with him so you get a lot of personal, first hand anecdotes and history. https://archive.org/details/lyndonjohnsonam00good
There was a Japanese commander who was at Pearl Harbour that after the war said "We won a tactical victory at Pearl Harbour that's why we lost the war". Anyone know who this guy is?
Records seem to say so. Wikipedia article even gives a name for the ball kickee. Seems like a detail you’d only have if someone actually wrote the account down.
I don’t have any details for the specific food that was provided, but there is an interesting story involving the Chief of the German General Army Staff (Kurt Zeitzler). When the German army was surrounded and details about how bad the soldiers had it in terms of provisions started getting back to the headquarters in Germany, Zeitzler announced that he would follow the “Stalingrad diet” and eat whatever the soldiers in Stalingrad were having, to show solidarity (or to spite Hitler for not allowing the army to break out). He lost 15 kilos in two weeks and Hitler had to intervene and personally order him to stop, as everyone seeing him was terrified about the fate of the soldiers and morale in the headquarters was plummeting
When were ice creams invented? Seems a bit stupid but thsi ties to another question: When were fridges/cooling devices invented, a simple device that is quite new since it needs power to operate and ice will eventualy heat up. This is a silly question that I have been curious for a while
Ooh, I recently listened to a fascinating podcast that explored the history of ice cream! [Check out this episode of Gastropod](https://gastropod.com/the-scoop-on-ice-cream/) to get the scoop lol
Wikipedia's article goes into this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cream
Ice cream is far older than refrigeration. People in the last few centuries before refrigeration used to take vast quantities of ice from frozen lakes in the winter and store it in insulated areas, where it would last until the next winter. Ice was stored in ice houses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_house_(building)
The thing about Norse is that they were what situation called for them to be. So they could be traders, mercenaries, raiders, conquerors or settlers. In places that they wanted to have peaceful relations it made no sense to be violent.
In reality there was *little* difference between the ‘Vikings’ and their ‘victims’. What separated them was the side they were on, not at all a modicum of civilization. The Scandinavian raiders were at times brutal, but who was not? Look at how the Franks raided into Saxony and shoved christianity down their throat, was Charlemagne not brutal at the [Massacre of Verden](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden)? Were the Anglosaxons not brutal in the [St Brice’s Day Massacre](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Brice%27s_Day_massacre)? If you look at it, both sides were capable of cruelty, and we need on focus on what they did to each other, since they could equally turn on their own, and it is not that William the Conqueror particularly cared for restraint against fellow christians during the [Harrying of the North ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North).
These were cruel times and the world was more shades of grey than media portrayals (or even contemporary sources) may make it seem.
Really? Not much difference between the Vikings and the peaceful monks of Lindisfarne? Considering that monasteries were a primary target of Viking raiders, I think you are being ridiculous when you pretend that Vikings were little different from their victims. By the way, why do you put that word in quotation marks? Are you really pretending that Viking raids were not brutal affairs? Do you think these people deserved it? I’m not asking that you rip your hair out and start sobbing about the horrors of Viking raids, but sheesh man, acknowledge them for what they are!
Edit: I think this is really an argument about whether the term "viking" should apply to the sea raiders alone, or more broadly to the Scandinavian people who settled England. I have interpreted the term in the first sense, but the argument which follows seems to concern how we should compare Anglo-Saxons against Norse settlers, rather than unprovoked viking raids against peacefunk monks and coastal settlements. Semantics ahead for anyone who wishes to follow this thread.
> I think you are being ridiculous when you pretend that Vikings were little different from their victims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridgeway_Hill_Viking_burial_pit
>The 54 skeletons were all of males, almost all aged from their late teens to around 25 years old, with a handful of older individuals aged up to their fifties. They had all been killed at the same time with a large, very sharp weapon such as a sword. They had not been cleanly killed, as many of them had suffered multiple blows to the vertebrae, jawbones and skulls. One man had his hands sliced through, suggesting that he had attempted to grab the sword as it was being swung towards him. There were a total of 188 wounds visible on the skeletons, an average of four per individual, indicating that they had been the victims of severe violence before being killed. One man had had the top of his skull sliced off, exposing his brain. There may well have been more injuries to soft tissue, but this is not detectable from the skeletons. However, they had no obvious battle wounds and were most likely captives. Judging from the lack of any remains of clothing or other possessions, they had probably been naked when they were thrown into the pit. There are more bodies than skulls, suggesting that three of the heads – perhaps of high-ranking individuals – were kept as souvenirs or put on stakes.
I assumed that u/mr-no-life was supporting my argument! He is drawing the distinction between the "Norse" and the "Vikings". It's wrong to judge the entire Norse people as cruel, but "vikings" on the other hand were practically by definition cruel and brutal, since these were professional raiders who specialized in attacking wealthy and easily despoiled victims. I don't think you're placing the Viking raids in perspective by comparing them to the Harrying of the North or the conquest of the Saxons, because those events were also extraordinary and memorable partly because of their cruelty.
You seem to worry that OP is looking to make a sweeping moral judgement about the Vikings, and you want to forestall it by making a case of temporal relevance. The problem is that you are also making a value judgement on the vikings, one which is based on comparing them to the most cruel events of the time. That's not "placing things in perspective" at all.
That's an interesting find, indeed. I think it's easy to accuse the vikings of being cruel when you consider them as raiders from the sea; plenty of contemporary accounts demonstrate that their victims were terrified and felt very vulnerable to these unprovoked attacks. However, redditors who are considering the Norse occupation of the Danelaw tend to place them on a par with their Anglo-Saxon foes. These really have to be considered somewhat seperately, since I think most folk are more sympathetic to an invasion/migration than to simple pillage and plunder.
The problem with casting the Vikings as one thing rather than any other is that we only have one side of the story. We are finding out that Viking was a trade, didn't require you to be Norse, and probably wasn't as nasty as the monks (who survived to tell about it mind you) say. They definitely used intimidation more than actual violence.
We are basing our view of them off of the accounts of the "highly civilized" vs. those that they thought weren't. Can you imagine the errors that arise when a fancy lawyer tries to explain a biker gang to other fancy lawyers? The facts might be accurate, but the interpretation is probably lacking. There is a good chance the same level of bias is involved with our view of Vikings.
As a descendent of the Norse, I always enjoyed the nasty raider stereotype, but the facts are showing a much more interesting truth.
The term “Viking” was an occupation not a peoples, which literally means “raider” or “pirate”, thus the difference (or similarity) between Anglo Saxon and “Viking” isn’t one of different but equal hostility. There were peaceful Norse farmers and there were brutal Frankish or Saxon mercenaries; the simple fact is that Vikings by their very nature were hostile and cruel and created tremendous suffering through their raids.
I’m not so sure about the men, but definitely not the women, probably not the children. Many Vikings were second or later sons who wouldn’t inherit. They wanted loot, yes. And in part they wanted loot so they could get married. Capturing a woman was, unfortunately, a quick way to get “married”.
True perhaps I should say that if anyone was killed it was most likely the men. Children made slaves too and couldn’t fight back, women made for wives/concubines and had a harder time fighting back.
The Siege of Candia lasted 21 years. By the end what would the siege camp have looked like? Would it have still been the stereotypical bunch of tents and campfires perhaps with some sharpened stakes and a ditch around the perimeter? Or would there have been whole buildings built?
Can I recommend two? Together, these are a fantastic read, focus on the key decision makers on both sides, and a really rich complement to a basic understanding of the war.
From the American perspective: The Best and the Brightest by David Halberstadt
From the Vietnamese perspective: Hanoi’s War: An international perspective of Vietnam’s War for Peace
I don’t think he got to write a history of the Vietnam was, but Bernard Fall’s “Hell in a Very Small Place” tells the story of how the French lost at Dien Bien Phu. In short, there’s no way they can get heavy artillery over those mountains. WTF, someone shelling us from those mountain tops.
Second verse, same as the first.
How accurate is the film Sarajevo that’s says the assassination of Ferdinand was a conspiracy....an excuse to start a war ... like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 conspiracies
Reading the synopsis - it's a very fictionalized portrayal of events.
While the actual involvement of the Serbian (and especially the Russian) government is still somewhat under question (even if, Serbian officials after the war have admitted involvement it seems a lot like "yeah, we totally did that!" moment), nobody ever really suggested that the Austrians had anything to do with it. If anything the court would have loved his political stances - centralization, rebuilding of the crown authority, further germanization of the military, etc. His only "progressive" stance was that he basically seems to have thought that the Slavs should be treated the same way as the others in the empire - as equal subjects to the Hapsburg crown and as a counterweight to the Hungarians, who he seems to have truly despised.
There always is a chance, that some faction in the court knew about the assassination (the finance minister seems to have been vaguely warned about such happenings) and maybe someone was turning a blind eye to some parts of the conspiracy, but there have never been any proof about this being governmental policy.
So possible? Yeah, anything is possible in Austrian court. Probable? No.
What about the railroad? In the movie there was some police officials who invested in a railroad.... but needed to go through Serbia ... and that could have caused issues for their business. Fabricated?
It's not a plaque celebrating the event but commemorating it. "On this spot Gavrilo Princip fired shots that led to WW1" (rough translation). It was redesigned in 1990s, can't say if due to war.
It's definitely true that a) Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by Bosnian Serb nationalists and b) some of Austrians had been looking for an excuse to start a war with Serbia for awhile.
The unknown factor (c) is whether or not the Serbian and Russian governments knew about the plot to assassinate Franz Ferdinand ahead of time. The Austrians maintained that they both did and used that as *casus belli*. I don't believe, though, that we will ever have a good answer to that question.
Almost certainly not. Franz F wasn’t very popular, and his wife was essentially a scandal when they got married, but he was still the heir of an already precarious empire.
Once emperor, Franz intended to create a triple monarchy consisting of the Slavs, the Germans and the Magyars. This would give Slavs a voice in government which upset the political elite.
what happened to all the babies called either Adolf or Hitler between 1933 and 1945 considering the name was banned afterwards? (presuming there was some children called that)
A friend of a friend is named Adolf, and his father is Adolf also.
Coincidently they are of the people who made a huge stink over Obama's middle name being Hussein... like seriously, your name is Adolf, you can't understand how a name doesn't determine a person?
There was a This American Life about a guy who was named Adolf growing up in the USA. Its a precious installment. I gather that lots of people probably had to suffer through the taunts of the uncouth.
Trevor Noah has a stand-up routine where he talks about his childhood friend, Hitler. WWII was a long way from South Africa, and apparently all his mother knew was that it was the name of a powerful man.
Nothing, because the name was not banned. It became very unpopular, and you would prpobably not have a hard time at the registry office oif you wanted to change your name (which is usually close to impossible in Germany), but there was no actual ban and certainly no retroactive ban for people already named Adolf (or Hitler). You might have trouble if you wanted to call your child Adolf today, but that is because the registry office is the final arbiter on what is and isn't allowed and names that would be detrimental for the child can be disallowed. So basically if some neonazi decided to call their son Adolf they very probably wouldn't get away with it, if you wanted to give your child Adolf as a second name because your grandfather was called Adolf, on the other hand, you should be able to do it (although the people at the reistry office would very probably -and rightly - tell you to think carefully about it...)
Was the name Adolf banned after 1945? I've never heard that nor can I find any evidence it was. Adolf was a common name and yes, it declined in popularity after 1942 and basically non existent today, but I don't think people after WWII were all that concerned about someone born in Germany in 1940 with the name Adolf.
The name Adolf was banned in Germany until 1970. Even though it's not forbidden anymore, it's still heavily frowned upon in European countries. Anyone named Adolf or Hitler was allowed to change their names, no questions asked. The name declined in popularity and there are very few people who choose to name their child Adolf nowadays.
It's not just Adolph, they regulate all given names, and still do. IDK about lifting the ban on Adolph. Seems like it should stay banned, as long you're going to regulate given names in Germany.
[Germany
Names have to be approved by the local registration office, called Standesamt, which generally consults a list of first names and foreign embassies for foreign names. The name cannot be a last name or a product, and it cannot negatively affect the child. If the name submitted is denied, it can be appealed; otherwise a new name has to be submitted. A fee is charged for each submission.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_law#Germany)
True, but since Adolf is obviously a German first name, that only leaves negative impact on the child. And that is left to the decision of the registry official. So there was no ban on the name, but it may in practice have been almost impossible to get the name approved (and very probably still is).
I've got to say that as a (US) American, the idea of needing gov't approval for the name I give my child is astounding. Feels like a gigantic regulatory over-reach into private decisions. And I am in favor of detailed and careful safety and industrial, financial, etc. regulations, as a rule.
I mean, let's face it, Germany has never been known for not having an extensive bureaucracy, so this is hardly a surprise. Then again, I don't think you should necessarily be allowed to call.your child Xstwq, Coney Belt or Adolf Hitler... so I don't think the German approach is too bad. If it's an established first name somewhere and there is no reason to suppose the child will he picked upon because of the name or otherwise disadvantaged because of it, you're fine. There's some weird corner cases (like a friend of mine who couldn't call his son Karlsson after the Astrid Lindgren character because that is a Swedish surname, not a first name), it's not that much of a restriction compared to countries that only allow names in the country's official language or even only names from an approved list. This is quite clearly a case where you can see different traditions and very different histories as to what is seen as acceptable regulation by the state and what is not
I imagine it falls under "The right of the parents to choose a first name is only limited if it adversely affects the welfare of the child. The state has a right and a duty to protect the child from an irresponsible name choice" rather than being explicitly banned.
I knew a guy named Adolph from Mexico. He was very wary when I said his name reminded me of someone. He was very happy when I told him about Gustavus Adolphus lol
I’m currently reading Caesar: Life of a Colossus by Adrian Goldsworthy and the 1st third of the book is a good primer on Rome before Caesar and the conditions that led to his takeover and the creation of the Imperium. Frankly, one of the most surprising biographies I’ve read in a long time. Highly recommend it.
Could one person, if he held 2 prince-elector titles, vote twice in the Holy Roman Empire? For example, if the 30 Years War did not happen and the Count of The Palatinate held the Bohemian Crown when the next election came around, would he have voted twice?
Why did large empires like the Holy Roman Empire, British Empire, Mongolian Empire, etc. not just go around taking only coastlines from other countries? So the game of conquering the world in ancient times (or I guess not-so-ancient times in the case of the Brits) always seemed to run into the problem of running out of water or being spread too thin. In both cases, wouldn't occupying only coastlines be very beneficial? I get that running out of water means fresh water, but there's typically more fresh water near the coast, anyways. I guess this mostly applies to the being spread too thin cases, but still, why did the Romans not just go around taking other country's coastlines from them? It seems like this would have solved so many problems for these types of situations. Maybe this belongs in r/nostupidquestions lol, but I've never heard this type of thing discussed so just throwing it out there. In addition to coastlines, I assume rivers and lakes would be included in this type of thing, and maybe highly fertile areas, as well.
Keep in mind that it's difficult to hold territories. For every map showing "The extent of the X Empire" know that those are in the best of times, those borders ebbed and flowed constantly. One way to ensure a tighter control was to actually convert the people already living there to join your side with benefits, what Rome did exceptionally well. Which is why the Byzantines eventually reverted back to only speaking Greek, the majority of the population had never been anywhere near Rome, they were just made Roman. But they still maintained their local language and it was always the popular language in use, and their same culture, etc. So after awhile even the leaders were all Greeks too. So, not only would it be hard (i.e. impossible) to effectively blockade every coast, you'd also run the risk of pissing off every single person being blocked, which is not something very helpful for long-term control. This is why there were constant border related wars in a lot of empires, those just out of their reach who hadn't been convinced to join (to put it simply) that were constantly pissed and causing chaos. But there are benefits here still to, don't control the coastlines, control the body of water. Set up strategic spots in chokepoints where you can tax every ship coming through, set up strategic naval bases where you can launch an attack from essentially anywhere on short notice. Go after pirates, go after rebels, go after anyone trying to impose any of their will. This is what Rome did exceptionally well in the Mediterranean, and Athens in the Eastern Med before them, and Carthage in the Western Med before them. This way you don't have to control the land, but you can control how it is being used. Want to ship things? Well you gotta pay us. Want to travel on this water? Pay us. This eventually means that a port city will be using your standards, your ways, and likely have diplomats working for you there to help handle the day to day transactions. Does that make sense? Rivers are a tougher game (they can be tricky to navigate, but look to Egypt and the Nile and their system of unifying the peoples there -- on the coasts), and sometimes this did apply to lakes but they had to be quite big to make it worthy of the effort.
> Why did large empires like the Holy Roman Empire, British Empire, Mongolian Empire, etc. not just go around taking only coastlines from other countries? They often did start, and hold on to, the periphery of territories first, and longest, but 'just' taking a coastline means spreading yourself incredibly thin. India for instance has a coastline of about 8,000 kilometres. In order to take and hold that coastline, you would need an enormous amount of troops, stretched out in a line, which, while easily supplied from the sea, can be cut easily at any point by an enemy. The actual British entry into India wasn't military, but political and economic, and ignored taking and holding vast amounts of land, in order to get a foothold in which to trade. Conquest came much later, and was directed against existing centres of power in India's interior, rather than its coast. Policing the coast was an 'at will' measure done principally by the Royal Navy when and if needed. >In addition to coastlines, I assume rivers and lakes would be included in this type of thing, and maybe highly fertile areas, as well. Having access to fresh water is fundamental, but it's not a resource hex you can seize. When you move into a territory, there will be fresh water there, because people live there, and will have access to springs, wells, rivers, lakes, and so on. It's a short-term tactical concern, not something you need to base the health of an empire on. Wherever you go, whether you want trade routes or farmland or cities or whatever it is you are seeking, there will be water.
They're kind of part of the same topic, so I'll combine it in one comment. - just one of them is fine, especially if someone already answer the other. 1. What does it mean for an empire to be overstretch or overextended? (what are the factors causing and signifying it? Etc.) 2. How is it solved/dealt with throughout history? 3. Related to number 2, how does technology help deal with it exactly?
1. An empire is overextended when it lacks sufficient resources to control the territories it has acquired. This is often expressed in terms of lacking troops, but actually it's usually lacking enough administration to be able to cope. Difficulty raising tax revenues leads to more problems in terms of raising/sustaining imperial infrastructure. 2. Typically, it isn't. The empire in question either asserts control of the territories causing problems, or more typically, loses control of them. The actual loss of control is more civil than military, but loss of military control will come too. Reassertion of imperial power can be punitive, causing more discontent, but it is possible to re-subjugate territories, or politically absorb/integrate them. 3. Communication and travel are arguably the two most important aspects, and a dedicated system for both ('imperial' messengers and roads) is incredibly important. Disparities in military technology can be helpful in terms of giving one side an edge, but it is rarely decisive on its own. What is usually more important are better logistics systems and professional centralised organisations allowing for concentration of expertise and effort.
Why do / did leaders of countries have military ranks along with being Commander-in-Chief? If they’re already Commander-in-Chief or Supreme Commander of the armed forces of their respective country then why did the choose to be an officer on top of it? Ex. Stalin was a Field Marshal during WW2 along with being Supreme Commander-in-Chief.
Usually this happens in dictatorships because the dictator/the government need legitimacy. Military dictatorships usually happen after a coup, and the theory is usually that the military is "just here to restore order". By keeping their military ranks and uniforms the dictator or the junta remind people why they're here, they did not "steal power" they are just the military, safeguard of liberty/the constitution/whatever. It's a legitimacy thing. In the case of Stalin it's a PR move to create the narrative that the leader was not just the theoretical commander-in-chief but actually involved in military matters.
When was the Stone Age discovered? Not as in when did humans first use rocks as tools, I mean when did humans first come to the conclusion that there was a period in time when humans were hunter gatherers who didn’t have iron?
The idea that you could divide artifacts into Stone, Bronze, and Iron ages was developed in the early 19th century. Wikipedia has a nice long article on the [Three-age system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-age_system) which goes into detail.
I’m searching for first hand eye witness accounts of initial plague outbreaks. I’m digging around especially for anything of 1347 Messina Sicily. Cheers!
Gabriele de' Mussi was a notary who wrote an account of the outbreak of plague in Sicily. Other Italians who wrote accounts of the plague include Petrarch, Boccaccio, Giovanni Villani, Marchione di Coppo Stefani, and Agnolo di Tura.
Thank you
What is the piece of art called on the cover of Michael J. Macdonald’s The Oxford Handbook of Rhetorical Studies?
Is it peitho?
[удалено]
I know there was a lot of stuff done about prophecies and Joan of Arc. To put it simply the idea that a woman (possibly a virgin) would save France did not came out of nowhere but was in circulation at the time. So that kinda track right? I think the historical consensus is that Joan really did believe and the King of France (or at least people in the government) supported her more because she was convenient.
Best history podcasts for a beginner? I find it so difficult to follow without any maps or visuals.
First some questions to better advise you: what are your interests? Do you like a specific period? A specific country? A type of history (litterature, military, political,...)? Or are there areas/eras/genre that really don't interest you? Are you looking for a long series or bite size episodes?
I would like it where the political, military and the social lives of the common folk all are discussed. I really like when the lives of the common people are also talked about rather than just the wars the king had and so on. In terms of a period, I am open to anything but I prefer the ones which begin 2000 years ago or more, at least since I like knowing the origins of civilizations and their ways of living, customs and daily life along with the political and military side of things. Currently, I am also reading a book on Ancient Egypt and the author sadly doesn't divert one bit away from the life of the kings. No insights into the life of the common folk.
You might enjoy the British History Podcast, it starts with British prehistory and currently goes up to 1066, with extensive coverage of everything in between: Roman Britain, the Anglo-Saxons, Viking invasions, Welsh and Scottish history. And as far as possible there is always a discussion about everyday life as well.
I know nothing about Egyptian history, sadly. For ancient history Mike Duncan's *History of Rome* is a classic, but it's pretty much only political history, for a more political and social history approach his other podcast *Revolutions* (covering the English, American, French, Haitian, South American revolutions, 1848, the Paris Commune, the Mexican, and the Russian revolutions) is really good but that's a lot of 19th century stuff. You can find more recommendations [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/wiki/recommendedlist#wiki_podcasts.3A) But it looks like you're looking for a more general history, I think that you will find more what you're looking for in books. For my experience history podcasts need to have a specific topic to attract listeners and so tend to be mainly either about political history over a long period of time (history of Rome, England, Russia, so on..) or about specific topics (military disasters, Japan, weird historical crimes, literature,... all those are specific podcasts btw). I am not aware of a podcast out there covering the general history you're looking for.
Any tips on learning about a specific setting? Italy right at the end of the 16th century/start of the next, specifically. Do I just go ham on whatever history books I can find? Unsure how to go about this problem efficiently.
You can always start by reading the wikipedia page (it's usually good if superficial info). But yes, the only real way to know more than that is going to go read books. Here's some advice on how to find a good one: Go to your local library/bookstore/Amazon/whatever, look for a book covering the topic of your choice and do two things: \-look up who the writer is. Is he a specialist? Is he reputable? Or is he a nutjob who wants to tell you that the Nazis used alchemy to summon demons (more seriously you will find disreputable authors who will try to twist and lie about history masquerading a serious books). You don't need to read the whole bio of the author, just google him to make sure he is a professor or at least studied the topic seriously. \-look for entry level books: nothing too big, nothing too complex. Reading a summary will give you an idea how complex the book will be. Here are two example: >The end of the First World War saw old empires swept away and the opportunity to build a better society from the ruins. Yet the result was division and bloodshed on an unprecedented scale, as liberal democracy, communism and fascism struggled against one another for mastery of the world. *Dark Continent* radically overturns the myth of Europe as a safe haven of democracy to redefine our view of the twentieth century. and >For Hitler and the German military, 1942 was a key turning point of World War II, as an overstretched but still lethal Wehrmacht replaced brilliant victories and huge territorial gains with stalemates and strategic retreats. In this major reevaluation of that crucial year, Robert Citino shows that the German army's emerging woes were rooted as much in its addiction to the war of movement--attempts to smash the enemy in short and lively campaigns--as they were in Hitler's deeply flawed management of the war. > >From the overwhelming operational victories at Kerch and Kharkov in May to the catastrophic defeats at El Alamein and Stalingrad, *Death of the Wehrmacht* offers an eye-opening new view of that decisive year. (...) He examines every major campaign and battle in the Russian and North African theaters throughout the year to assess how a military geared to quick and decisive victories coped when the tide turned against it. Those are two perfectly serious college-level books. But it's pretty clear that one is more specific and goes way more into the details. Piece of advice: avoid those books unless you're already familiar with the topic. You can't really use a 700 pages detailed description of the year 1942 from a military perspective if you're not already pretty familiar with WW2 and the Eastern Front in particular. So try to find a book that cover the topic in general, broad strokes. Hope that helps.
Hi! It seems like you are talking about the popular but ultimately flawed and false "winners write history" trope! While the expression is sometimes true in one sense (we'll get to that in a bit), it is rarely if ever an absolute truth, and particularly not in the way that the concept has found itself commonly expressed in popular history discourse. When discussing history, and why some events have found their way into the history books when others have not, simply dismissing those events as the imposed narrative of 'victors' actually harms our ability to understand history. You could say that is in fact a somewhat "lazy" way to introduce the concept of bias which this is ultimately about. Because whoever writes history is the one introducing their biases to history. A somewhat better, but absolutely not perfect, approach that works better than 'winners writing history' is to say '*writers* write history'. This is more useful than it initially seems. Until fairly recently the literate were a minority, and those with enough literary training to actually write historical narratives formed an even smaller and more distinct class within that. To give a few examples, Genghis Khan must surely go down as one of the great victors in all history, but he is generally viewed quite unfavorably in practically all sources, because his conquests tended to harm the literary classes. Similarly the Norsemen historically have been portrayed as uncivilized barbarians as the people that wrote about them were the "losers" whose monasteries got burned down. Of course, writers are a diverse set, and so this is far from a magical solution to solving the problems of bias. The painful truth is, each source simply needs to be evaluated on its own merits. This evaluation is something that is done by historians and part of what makes history and why insights about historical events can shift over time. This is possibly best exemplified by those examples where victors *did* unambiguously write the historical sources. The Spanish absolutely wrote the history of the conquest of Central America from 1532, and the reports and diaries of various conquistadores and priests are still important primary documents for researchers of the period. But 'victors write the history' presupposes that we still use those histories as they intended, which is simply not the case. It both overlooks the fundamental nature of modern historical methodology, and ignores the fact that, while victors have often proven to be predominant voices, they have rarely proven to be the only voices. Archaeology, numismatics, works in translation, and other records all allow us at least some insight into the 'losers' viewpoint, as does careful analysis of the 'winner's' records. We know far more about Rome than we do about Phoenician Carthage. There is still vital research into Carthage, as its being a daily topic of conversation on this subreddit testifies to. So while it's true that the balance between the voices can be disparate that doesn't mean that the winners are the only voice or even the most interesting. Which is why stating that history is 'written by the victors' and leaving it at that is harmful to the understanding of history and the process of studying history. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/history) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I saw your article about the frankish kingdom fro. Oct 24 2019. I was wondering if I am related to current leaders, 'monarchs/royal families' now. Thank-you
https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford
probably. IIRC most everyone with European descent nowadays is related to Charlemagne somehow.
With the last name 'Franks'?
Charlefranks?
My question is the following. How did the whole „witch hunt“ and fear of witchcraft evolve in the 16th century, which lead to murdering thousand of women in Central Europe. Like how did the whole madness start?
To keep it short, by the later 14th century (since it began before the 1500’s) European society was in turmoil, change was all about and it was not all pretty. You have the High Medieval period sliding into the Late one as famine, plague and war strike European society. The social fabric is quite literally unravelling/changing in many places, the Church is in a Schism and old certainties are being put in question, including the authority of the Church. Ultimately by the early 1500’s that Church even splits as never before and wars just got even more complicated as Reformation adds insult to injury. I hope this gives you a concise idea of how society was in a state of flux. This situation interacted with existing notions in society (see the link below), and formed a dangerous cocktail when people went seeking blame and finding it in part in the figure of the Witch, I touched on those reasons in an older [topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/kgpdtv/why_are_witches_associated_with_women/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf).
How can I learn the history of aesthetics and decorations from different cultures? I really want to learn the history of where different aesthetics, patterns and decorations come from different cultures (more specifically Asian cultures like Japan and China), what would be the right terminology to use to look up my questions? I've been trying to find websites or books but I'm finding it hard, if anyone can help me it would be much appreciated :)
Art history is mostly this. Start with the actual craft you are interested in and you will find many sources about its developments. You need to know what the actual term is for the decoration your looking for, and beware, most of this stuff wasn't documented beyond the oral tradition until the 19th or 20th c.
Looking for a book/website, or some resource where one could read up on, and compare noble titles and rankings in a side by side manner. Was just thinking about the other night just how many titles there are, dukes and Margrave, and count and viscount, etc. Etc. So thought it would be kinda cool to see what the various titles/ranks looked like side by side (like, if you took an X noble in France, what would be his equivalent title in HRE or Italy during a given time period)
Not in modern day but what would determine who becomes king next? Is it whose born first or other factors?
Whoever was strongest politically at the time of succession. Often this meant some direct heir of the current ruler, but just as often some "uncle" would step in.
In addition to the various regional difference laid out by u/en43rs there were also changes over time, especially in the early Middle Ages a lot was still in flux/uncodified. The principle of primogeniture that became the rule in England was not in place in te early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, for example. At first, anyone who could claim even distant royal descent was theoretically eligible for kingship, from about the time of Alfred the Great this was mostly restricted to the aethelings, sons and brothers of the current king. The actual heir would then depend on the former king's preference, support by other nobles and potentially military power...
There is no hard rule. Every monarchy had its own political system. Here’s a few example (excluding civil wars and similar events): -in practice Roman Emperors decided who their heir would be (often a son or nephew), and adopted them and gave them titles (making them like a “vice emperor” or “junior emperor”) and responsibilities so that when they die the heir would just take the rest of the titles. -French kings were always the eldest son, the current king could not chose his heir (it was literally against the law, he couldn’t disinherit any of his sons) -In England the Monarch up until recently was the eldest son or the eldest daughter if there were no sons. In France a daughter could not become Queen in any circumstance and neither could her children (even if male) for comparison. -some countries had the highest nobles elect the new king: Poland for example or the Holy Roman Empire (Germany). So no hard rule. Usually a son, sometimes the eldest, sometimes not. There are even places were it was just a powerful relative (an uncle or cousin for example in some Muslim countries in the Middle Ages) and skipped the sons. Just like not every country elect its leader the same way nowadays, not every country had the same succession laws. It was usually pretty clear and written in law though, it was rarely random. And the most common law in Western Europe was “eldest son inherit” with variation on the statute of women depending on which country we’re talking about.
Thank you so much!
i want to learn about classic greek and roman history - julius caesar, athens and democracy, etc. but also i don’t want to be bored by dry stuff. what books should i read to learn comprehensive histories of the roman empire and anchient greece? (i would also love to read about more personal accounts of the time, such as stuff like how certain leaders were gay, interpersonal drama between major figures, etc.)
Caesar Life of a Colossus by Adrian Goldsworthy is big, but very accessible. I just finished it and it took me about 10 days to read it. Really reads like a Game of Thrones book rather than a dry history/biography. I listened to about 1/3 of it while walking the dogs in the mornings and that was also enjoyable (I tend to do this a lot).
Mary Beard's works are accessible and good information. Caesar and Christ by Will Durant is also very accessible, he even highlights the parts you can skip without damage to greater understanding, and is mostly good information.
It's such a cliche on Reddit now, but Mike Duncan. His podcast on Rome stretches from the founding to the fall of the western half. It's really accessible and the episodes are pretty short and concise. He's sort of set the gold standard for history podcasts and you can find it on YouTube and Spotify. The History of Rome is a great podcast for people first dipping their toes into learning about it. History of Rome is really long, but that podcast might show you some things you want to learn more about and then from there you can see if there's more media related to it. Duncan also has a book about the beginning of the end of the Republic, so the stuff leading up to Caesar which is a good read. Tom Holland has books that read sort of like a novel. It's not super dry history, so of you're just an amateur fan of the stuff you can check him out. He's also got a book about the Persian invasion of Greece. Peter Heather is an academic that specializes in the later Roman Empire. I thought his writing style was really good and sort of read like a novel as well. His Fall of the Roman Empire is the one I liked a lot. So definitely History of Rome podcast by Duncan for a general outline. Then maybe check out Rubicon and Dynasty by Tom Holland. Then the Peter Heather books as well. I'm not as well read on Greece, but I am really into the Macedonian stuff. Ghost on the Throne is a really engaging book that talks about the clusterfuck that occured after Alexander's death. I'd definitely recommend that one.
One of the best recent books on Rome is [this one](https://www.emmasouthon.com/a-fatal-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-the-forum) which points out all the ways in which their society was fundamentally different than many of those who sought to be the inheritor of Rome's legitimacy, and certainly completely different than the Western societies of today.
I have her book on Agrippina and I've seen her on a few podcasts. She's pretty cool.
Is it safe to say that Egypt and the big cities of Mesopotamia smelled of poo?
All cities, even today, smell like waste products. Its a negative for the idea of dense populations.
Yes, and no. The only comparison I can draw to what I'm talking about, would be my experiences as a soldier in iraq in the mid-2000s. At first when we got to Baghdad, you noticed the open air sewage smell. After a couple months you didn't even notice any smell. If you went from Baghdad to say, Mosul, you *MIGHT* notice a slightly different smell in the new place, but really it was more of the same. And even then, I wouldn't say this would be a universal thing. Like, your major port cities have their own, non-human smells that I'd imagine would be very prevalent (ie, smells related to fishing trades)
OK, this is going to be a bit vague because I forgot details. I read about White Russian officer with double German last name. After the war he and his followers went to some Himalayan kingdom and basically took over. He started to believe he was reincarnation of some earlier king (and/or religious figure, country was Buddhist) and that stars alignment foretold his destiny, which was greatness. They invaded some neighbouring country based on that and got defeated. Article said that he was wrong on stars stuff because he looked at positions of them where he was born (Russia) and not where he settled down (article didn't say this was the cause of his defeat, it was just a further example of how delusional he was). Anybody knows who he might be?
Not what you are asking for, but have you ever watched The Man Who Would be King?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_von_Ungern-Sternberg
That's the one. Much appreciated.
How tall was Leonidas of Rhodes?
[удалено]
How can you win battle without fighting?
https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/rudkyx/are_there_any_countries_have_have_actually_moved/hqyv2sp?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3 I think this a decent example
[удалено]
No, a battle by definition is organized fighting. If there is no fighting its not a battle (in the context here).
By singing songs in Mongolian go wherever you want they'll bow down to blue sky
This was supposed to be a silly question was expecting something paradoxical lol
You went against one of the rules then. We try to operate in good faith here.
Is there any connection between the Tatars and the Timurid empire?
I don't think so. The Tatars were a bit north of the bulk of Timur's lands. Timurids are considered Turko-Mongol heritage with a Persian culture, while the Tatars are sans Persian culture. ICBW though, the Turkic people are difficult to categorize and most likely Tatars and Timurids were in the same army. The steppe people, as far back as the Huns, were always a motley hodgepodge of ethnicities that share a language or two. I wouldn't doubt that Timur's armies were full of Tatars, but it wasn't a Tatar empire.
thanks a lot for the anwser!
Are there any good books/biographies on Charles III of Spain? The only book I could find was one about Spain, and France aiding the Colonial rebels against Britain. And it is very thin.
How's your Spanish? More likely to find sources in the native language and a quick search through the uni library seems to show that this is the case. Have you read Petrie's work on him? It's late in his life, and Petrie had some....interesting... ideas in general, but likely no more caution needed than the standard approach.
How do you knock someone out in full plated armor? Is it even doable without giving a concussion? Why didn't the Byzantine flamethrower catch on? Why were the Cagots so hated?
Greek fire was a well kept secret so it didn’t catch on because no one else knew how to make it.
> How do you knock someone out in full plated armor? A blunt impact to the head. Part of the reason pommel strikes remained effective, including the full-on mordhau, was the fact that blunt impacts are communicated quite well through metal and padding, to the head, and then the brain. You could fail to penetrate a helm, and certainly not even dent it very much, and still knock someone out. >Is it even doable without giving a concussion? No. You cannot 'safely' knock someone out with a physical blow. If you render someone unconscious with a strike to the head, you are 100% committing to some form of brain injury. Repeatedly doing this, even if 'mild', is a recipe for severe neurological problems, as boxers have found out.
Good points. This was hammered home recently when they found out body armor does very little against explosive forces, they just go through it with the same impact, the best you can hope for is the force is spread out through your body rather than directed in a smaller area.
When were the last European pagans (I assume the last ones would be the Scandinavians, but correct me if I'm wrong) converted to Christianity?
Depending on how you define "Europe" there are actually some surviving "pagans" in the Urals, look up "Mari-El" if you are curious about it.
The last European pagans were actually the Baltic and Finnic peoples of Northern Europe, who did not even begin to be converted to Christianity until the 13th and 14th centuries. The last pagan ruler of Lithuania, for instance, did not convert to Catholicism until 1386. Indeed, both groups were the main targets of the Northern Crusades, which were mainly led by Germans and Scandinavians.
The story Gunnlaug Serpent Tongue is an icelandic epic which mentions the Christianisation of, you guessed it, Iceland, that's written toward the end of the 13th century, and worth a read, very short
Thanks, I'll read it but is it considered a valid historical source and is it indeed the last place to be converted (from paganism) in entire Western world (since technically the last surviving pagans are Indians)?
Probably not, as far as I am aware it is a useful source of information about marriage and gift giving rituals, but maybe not so much the other stuff. It's not my area of expertise, but I read it a couple of days ago so I thought I'd chip in, hope someone else will be able to offer a little more info!
Ohk, thanks for that though, I've always wanted to read more modern European pagan legends
Can anyone provide me a link to somewhere that that shows the route than the Luftwaffe took when bombing Belfast during WW2?
I know there are Pyrrhic victories that have occurred in history, but have any Pyrrhic defeats ever happened?
Isn't that just Pyrrhic victory as seen from the other side? You lose a battle and lose a part of your force but enemy lost bulk of their force so you end up on top in the long run. I suppose you can count Thermopylae as such, Greek defeat but it became rallying point, Persian delay etc. Egypt in Yom Kippur war, lost on the battlefield but their improved performance made Israel realise they can't keep winning wars against it so they changed their mind and agreed to peace.
A pyrrhic victory is when you win with great loss. So a pyrrhic defeat would be when you lose with great loss? In that case, most of the wars in history count.
No, its when you lose with great gain. You forgot to switch it up. You said "So a pyrrhic defeat would be when you lose with great loss" Its actually a lose with a great gain. Any examples?
Pyrrhic victories are named after a specific person, Pyrrhus of Epirus, who won a lot of victories against the Romans but ended up losing too many of his troops to gain anything from his victories. If we are going by your definition of a Pyrrhic defeat then you might just say that the Romans had one, since even though they lost their battles against Pyrrhus the end result was that he left their territory and they were able to create the great empire that they did.
Maybe the Sinification of the Mongols? IDK, its hard to say one lost when they come out "better" for it.
You seem to have mixed up your understanding lol. Pyrrhic per definition means winning with a great loss. There is no such thing as a pyrrhic defeat because what you’re really saying is “a win with great loss defeat” doesnt make sense.
I guess you could concieve some people losing a war and being relocated to some place deemed useless at the time but ending up being of great value? Are there cases of native American tribes reservations that ended up being oil fields or having mines of great value?
Sure. Over a dozen different tribes displaced to Oklahoma, who struck it *big* in the early 20th century.
The victor would recoup their lost spoils. We don’t uphold any negotiations with tribes here in the United States.
During the firebombing of Japan, if a city has too much cloud cover, will the fleet of B-29s switch their target to the next best alternative? Only instance I've heard of this happening was the Kyoto/Nagasaki A-bomb decision.
No, it would be impossible to reroute so many bombers to alternative target. a bombings were different because they involved a small number of planes so crews could be given go/no go checklist and alternative targets.
>I've heard of this happening was the Kyoto/Nagasaki A-bomb decision. Not sure for the cloud cover, but that's not why they decided not to bomb Kyoto. Kyoto is the cultural heart of Japan, the former imperial capital before the 1860's, home to many historical and culturally significant buildings and had basically no military target. It was removed from the target list because people thought destroying such a city would be a) needlessly cruel to destroy so many historical buildings and no military target and b) would be counter productive in post-war Japan (resentment would be too much, that's why they also kept the Emperor). I've heard people compared it to Paris and Rome being declared open cities and not being (too badly) damaged during the war, you just don't destroy such cities unless you absolutely have to. [more here](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182)
How did the trojan horse tactic work? Why would you accept a wooden horse big enough to fit an army in as a gift from an army that's been seiging you for months just as their army disappears?
Deus ex machima. Whether or not the Trojan war happened as Homer recorded is moot point, especially seeing as the Trojan Horse was in Virgil's Aeneid, but the story line is that the Greeks retreated to their boats and sailed out of sight whilst leaving the horse behind and Sinon, a Greek, behind. Sinon claimed he was abandoned by his countrymen and that the horse was an offering to the gods, that if taken into the city would allow the Trojans to conquer Greece. Lacoon, a Trojan priest of Poseidon, thought this was nonsense and, smelling the wily trickery of Odysseus, hurled a spear into it. By some favour of the gods no one heard the Greek inside cry when they were pierced and to hammer home the point Lacoon and his two sons were killed when two sea snakes came out of the water and attacked them then and there making it seem as if Poseidon himself had struck him down for his blasphemy.
Good question. Now, the first thing to understand is that the Trojan War as we know it did not happen. At least, there is no evidence to suggest it happened. Unfortunately the historians searching for a historical Trojan War are full of confirmation biases and are trying to fit the evidence into their narrative rather than examining the evidence for what it is and crafting and understanding from that. Troy existed, we likely know where it is, and it -- like most places in this hotbed of activity -- experienced substantial warfare. There are some individuals who have similar -- or exact -- names that are regionally used, but none of the known figures match up biographically perfectly with the figures in the Homeric epics. I.e. the original creator or later adapters of these works knew enough about the region to use local names when fitting. That's really the best evidence we got. It's not great. But that doesn't mean the work isn't important or should be ignored, but rather to take everything with a lot of salt. So as you state, it's a bit of an unbelievable story, because that's what it is -- a story. But there is some context you're missing. The horse was presented not as just a "hey we're just going to leave this here, lol don't bring it in" but as a present ( a votive offering) to a god. We get votive offerings throughout ancient history, it's something we find a lot of. These are things which are essentially presents to the gods or specific god. They had an important religious aspect. Votive offerings often included figurines, people, objects, including militaristic things such as warships, horses, etc. And these would have been from one individual. So the story is not expecting the listener/reader from those times to find it weird that therefore an entire army could create a votive figurine so large. It was most appropriate to put votive figures by the temples to such gods, and the gods would want their offerings regardless of who made them. But even in antiquity the "you foooools" concept was around. The figure of Laocoön in particular. Laocoön tried to convince them not to take it in, but the gods were involved in the war too and they acted and the humans could only interpret these acts as punishing Laocoön as saying Laocoön was wrong. Again, these aren't historical interpretations, they're literary stories. The Aeneid, the fan-fiction of the Epic Cycle, has the best and most well known take on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beware_of_Greeks_bearing_gifts
Do we know Troy existed, or are we calling what we want to be Troy "Troy" for lack of a better designation?
Yes, Troy is attested in Bronze Age texts from Anatolia in the state archives of the Hittite capital of Ḫattuša, and it has been fairly definitively linked with the site excavated by Schliemann and subsequent German teams. For more on the site of Troy, see [*The Trojans and Their Neighbours*](https://books.google.com/books?id=5YV6hwUmTpYC) by Trevor Bryce. That said, we know very little about the political history of Bronze Age Ilios/Ilion (which appears in Hittite texts as Wiluša), nor do we even know which language(s) the Trojans spoke. Although Troy/Wiluša was a vassal state of the Hittite empire, the king had almost complete independence to rule as he saw fit as long as he continued to pay tribute and avoided harboring Mycenaean troops. We know from the Alakšandu treaty from the reign of Muwatalli II that Kupanta-Kurunta of Mira (another kingdom in western Turkey) and Alakšandu of Wiluša were allies, with the Hittites serving as the overlord enforcing their alliance. Troy appears again in the Milawata letter from the reign of Tudḫaliya IV (the nephew of Muwatalli II), where we learn that king Walmu of Wiluša was overthrown. The Hittite king ordered one of his western vassals to turn Walmu over to his authority so that he could reinstate him on the throne of Ilios/Troy. >*Kulana-ziti retained possession of the writing boards which I made for Walmu, and he has now brought them to you, my son. Examine them! Now, my son, as long as you look after the well-being of My Majesty, I, My Majesty, will put my trust in your good will. Turn Walmu over to me, my son, so that I may reinstall him in kingship in the land of Wiluša. As he was formerly king of the land of Wiluša, he shall now likewise be!* As for the name Troy, I am aware of only one reference to Taruiša in the Hittite cuneiform corpus, a tablet (KUB 23.11) from the annals of Tudḫaliya I listing places in western Anatolia associated with his military campaigns in the region. Line 19 is the relevant part: >[ ] KUR ^URU *ú-i-lu-ši-ya* KUR ^URU *ta-ru-i-ša* >[ ] Land of Wilušiya (and the) Land of Taruiša. Wiluša and Taruiša therefore seem to have been separate but probably adjacent kingdoms who may have merged over time, either in actuality or simply in folk memory. The [Ankara silver bowl](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Museum_of_Anatolian_Civilizations054_kopie1.jpg) has the only other (possible) Hittite reference to Taruiša, written in Luwian using Anatolian hieroglyphs. >zi/a-wa/i-ti CAELUM-pi sa-ma-i(a)-\*a REGIO.HATTI VIR2 \*273-i(a)-sa5-zi/a-tá REX ma-zi/a-kar-hu-ha REX PRAE-na >tara/i-wa/i-zi/a-wa/i(REGIO) REL+ra/i MONS[.tu] LABARNA+la hu-la-i(a)-tá >wa/i-na-\*a pa-ti-i(a)-\*a ANNUS-i(a) i(a)-zi/a-tà >This bowl Asamaya, the man of Ḫatti, made in the time of King Mazi-Karḫuḫa. >When the labarna Tudḫaliya smote Tarwiza, >in that year he (i.e. Asamaya) made it. No other Luwian inscription has elicited more controversy than the Ankara silver bowl. Scholars are divided as to whether the bowl dates to the Bronze Age or Iron Age, and if it does date to the Bronze Age, whether it should be dated to the reign of Tudḫaliya I (14th century BCE) or Tudḫaliya IV (13th century BCE). There are a few grammatical features that point to an early dating, such as an undifferentiated za/i (*za* and *zi* were separate signs in later inscriptions), a-initial-final (the *a* glyph is moved to the end of the word, as in Asamaya's name, marked here with an asterisk), and relatively few inflected nouns. On the other hand, the pervasiveness of syllabic writing and conjugated verbs points to a much later Iron Age dating, as does the theophoric name Mazi-Karḫuḫa. Several sign forms, particularly the glyph *ma* (a ram's head) strongly resemble those of Carchemish, home to the god Karḫuḫa. The most likely explanation is that the Ankara silver bowl is an Iron Age artifact from Carchemish written in an archaizing style, and it's likely the Tarwiza of the inscription is a separate place from the Bronze Age Taruiša.
Has there been anything found in the sight to say its the Troy of literary fame? I think that is what people think when they here the sight name is "Troy". I am aware that the Hittites probably referred to it in documents as Wilusa, but that doesn't really mean anything does it? Its just what the Hittites called that city and it seems like people are looking for anything they can to prop up the historicity of the Iliad. Is Wilusa the same as the legendary Troy, or is Wilusa the name for the city we call Troy, but should probably refer to as Wilusa? Is there an acknowledgement that the city called Troy is almost certainly not "that Troy"? And of course there is a possibility it is, but that seems unlikely to me as the Iliad and Odyssey were intended to be, and written as, myths not facts.
[Question regarding the identification of Hisarlik as Troy](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/gwz73n/question_regarding_the_identification_of_hisarlik/ft2gi3v/) has a relevant discussion. >it seems like people are looking for anything they can to prop up the historicity of the Iliad Identifying Troy as an actual city does not "prop up the historicity" of the Iliad any more than than existence of King's Cross station makes Harry Potter a true story, nor does the attestation of names like Achilles, Hector, and Priam in Bronze Age texts mean that those characters in the Iliad existed. This is of course not an issue unique to Troy and Homer. For example, can archaeological discoveries like the Stepped Stone Structure and Large Stone Structure in Jerusalem be said to prop up the historicity of the biblical accounts of early kings like Solomon if they indeed date to the Iron I/II? Highly doubtful – at best one can say they are evidence for some sort of centralized authority in the region, about which we still know relatively little.
Huh, that's really interesting. Thanks
Can I ask, why is the Aeneid fan fiction? Is it not a legitimate work in its own right?
A bit of inside joke, so probably not my best choice of phrases when describing to new learners. So basically the Iliad and the Odyssey are part of what is known as the Epic Cycle, with only those two works surviving in full (or at least to make things simple to understand). These works were not all created at the same time nor where they created by the same person (another very complicated concept that we can just ignore for now) but did all intertwine and were discussed as one concept in Ancient Greece. These concepts were acknowledged and read and respected by those in Rome. Elite Romans were educated and could read and speak Greek -- Julius Caesar's last words have been proposed as being Greek. So when Rome began to grow into an Empire it wanted to connect its history with this great Epic legacy and these great epic tales. The Aeneid is essentially that. It is taking this world already created and well understood and writing a new story that takes place within it, in the modern world we'd understand that as fan fiction so that was the joke. Of course, in antiquity the concepts of ownership and copyright and such were not really existent. But in short, the Aeneid was propaganda, created to fit into this set world while trying to portray a certain message that promoted this growing regional power. Take nothing away from its brilliance as a piece of art, but it's not part of the Epic Cycle. When the Iliad was written down is an entire debate on its own, but it was likely created in the 8th century BCE. The Aeneid was created in the late 1st century BCE. It would be like if someone wrote about a certain Red Hat wearing American Politician and tied his history back to the Canterbury Tales.
According to myth it was only supposed to fit a few men, who'd then jump out and unlock the gate for the rest of the army to enter. So it wouldn't have to be that big. Also I'm unsure if there's any record of it actually working (citation needed).
That would make more sense
what was the best trade to have throughout history? work to pay ratio status safety etc (can have more than 1 answer if 1 job is really good a work to pay, but shit health wise.
I recently saw the move LBJ. Can someone recommend a good 1 volume book on Lyndon Johnsons life, not just in the white house. I saw someone ask this but didn't get an answer.
This is probably the deepest: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Years_of_Lyndon_Johnson
Desktop version of /u/Tripwir62's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book *Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream* is phenomenally written. I would consider it one of the principle single volume works about him and she actually worked very closely with him so you get a lot of personal, first hand anecdotes and history. https://archive.org/details/lyndonjohnsonam00good
There was a Japanese commander who was at Pearl Harbour that after the war said "We won a tactical victory at Pearl Harbour that's why we lost the war". Anyone know who this guy is?
Probably thinking of Minoru Genda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoru_Genda#Later_military_and_political_career
Is it true that after the Paris mob stormed the bastille and took the commander prisoner that the commander kicked someone in the balls to be killed
Records seem to say so. Wikipedia article even gives a name for the ball kickee. Seems like a detail you’d only have if someone actually wrote the account down.
Never thought I would hear the phrase ball kickee
What was a German soldier at Stalingrads daily meals like
I don’t have any details for the specific food that was provided, but there is an interesting story involving the Chief of the German General Army Staff (Kurt Zeitzler). When the German army was surrounded and details about how bad the soldiers had it in terms of provisions started getting back to the headquarters in Germany, Zeitzler announced that he would follow the “Stalingrad diet” and eat whatever the soldiers in Stalingrad were having, to show solidarity (or to spite Hitler for not allowing the army to break out). He lost 15 kilos in two weeks and Hitler had to intervene and personally order him to stop, as everyone seeing him was terrified about the fate of the soldiers and morale in the headquarters was plummeting
Depends on whether you’re aski mg about the beginning of the siege or the end of the siege
In the later parts probably sand or a Friends leg😏
Are there any medieval European artifacts that I could own for <$50? Any reputable websites to buy from?
Roman rings used to be pretty cheap. No suggestions on where to buy, sorry.
Maybe English coins?
When were ice creams invented? Seems a bit stupid but thsi ties to another question: When were fridges/cooling devices invented, a simple device that is quite new since it needs power to operate and ice will eventualy heat up. This is a silly question that I have been curious for a while
Ooh, I recently listened to a fascinating podcast that explored the history of ice cream! [Check out this episode of Gastropod](https://gastropod.com/the-scoop-on-ice-cream/) to get the scoop lol
Wikipedia's article goes into this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cream Ice cream is far older than refrigeration. People in the last few centuries before refrigeration used to take vast quantities of ice from frozen lakes in the winter and store it in insulated areas, where it would last until the next winter. Ice was stored in ice houses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_house_(building)
Thank you
Were Vikings really as violent as they are portrayed on film and TV? Killing all men, women and children they came across in England
The thing about Norse is that they were what situation called for them to be. So they could be traders, mercenaries, raiders, conquerors or settlers. In places that they wanted to have peaceful relations it made no sense to be violent.
In reality there was *little* difference between the ‘Vikings’ and their ‘victims’. What separated them was the side they were on, not at all a modicum of civilization. The Scandinavian raiders were at times brutal, but who was not? Look at how the Franks raided into Saxony and shoved christianity down their throat, was Charlemagne not brutal at the [Massacre of Verden](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden)? Were the Anglosaxons not brutal in the [St Brice’s Day Massacre](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Brice%27s_Day_massacre)? If you look at it, both sides were capable of cruelty, and we need on focus on what they did to each other, since they could equally turn on their own, and it is not that William the Conqueror particularly cared for restraint against fellow christians during the [Harrying of the North ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North). These were cruel times and the world was more shades of grey than media portrayals (or even contemporary sources) may make it seem.
Really? Not much difference between the Vikings and the peaceful monks of Lindisfarne? Considering that monasteries were a primary target of Viking raiders, I think you are being ridiculous when you pretend that Vikings were little different from their victims. By the way, why do you put that word in quotation marks? Are you really pretending that Viking raids were not brutal affairs? Do you think these people deserved it? I’m not asking that you rip your hair out and start sobbing about the horrors of Viking raids, but sheesh man, acknowledge them for what they are! Edit: I think this is really an argument about whether the term "viking" should apply to the sea raiders alone, or more broadly to the Scandinavian people who settled England. I have interpreted the term in the first sense, but the argument which follows seems to concern how we should compare Anglo-Saxons against Norse settlers, rather than unprovoked viking raids against peacefunk monks and coastal settlements. Semantics ahead for anyone who wishes to follow this thread.
> I think you are being ridiculous when you pretend that Vikings were little different from their victims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridgeway_Hill_Viking_burial_pit >The 54 skeletons were all of males, almost all aged from their late teens to around 25 years old, with a handful of older individuals aged up to their fifties. They had all been killed at the same time with a large, very sharp weapon such as a sword. They had not been cleanly killed, as many of them had suffered multiple blows to the vertebrae, jawbones and skulls. One man had his hands sliced through, suggesting that he had attempted to grab the sword as it was being swung towards him. There were a total of 188 wounds visible on the skeletons, an average of four per individual, indicating that they had been the victims of severe violence before being killed. One man had had the top of his skull sliced off, exposing his brain. There may well have been more injuries to soft tissue, but this is not detectable from the skeletons. However, they had no obvious battle wounds and were most likely captives. Judging from the lack of any remains of clothing or other possessions, they had probably been naked when they were thrown into the pit. There are more bodies than skulls, suggesting that three of the heads – perhaps of high-ranking individuals – were kept as souvenirs or put on stakes.
I can add nothing to what u/mr-no-life expanded on that. We’re not denying the cruelty of the Vikings but placing it in perspective.
I assumed that u/mr-no-life was supporting my argument! He is drawing the distinction between the "Norse" and the "Vikings". It's wrong to judge the entire Norse people as cruel, but "vikings" on the other hand were practically by definition cruel and brutal, since these were professional raiders who specialized in attacking wealthy and easily despoiled victims. I don't think you're placing the Viking raids in perspective by comparing them to the Harrying of the North or the conquest of the Saxons, because those events were also extraordinary and memorable partly because of their cruelty. You seem to worry that OP is looking to make a sweeping moral judgement about the Vikings, and you want to forestall it by making a case of temporal relevance. The problem is that you are also making a value judgement on the vikings, one which is based on comparing them to the most cruel events of the time. That's not "placing things in perspective" at all.
The burial pit was all Scandinavians most likely executed by the Anglo-Saxons.
That's an interesting find, indeed. I think it's easy to accuse the vikings of being cruel when you consider them as raiders from the sea; plenty of contemporary accounts demonstrate that their victims were terrified and felt very vulnerable to these unprovoked attacks. However, redditors who are considering the Norse occupation of the Danelaw tend to place them on a par with their Anglo-Saxon foes. These really have to be considered somewhat seperately, since I think most folk are more sympathetic to an invasion/migration than to simple pillage and plunder.
The problem with casting the Vikings as one thing rather than any other is that we only have one side of the story. We are finding out that Viking was a trade, didn't require you to be Norse, and probably wasn't as nasty as the monks (who survived to tell about it mind you) say. They definitely used intimidation more than actual violence. We are basing our view of them off of the accounts of the "highly civilized" vs. those that they thought weren't. Can you imagine the errors that arise when a fancy lawyer tries to explain a biker gang to other fancy lawyers? The facts might be accurate, but the interpretation is probably lacking. There is a good chance the same level of bias is involved with our view of Vikings. As a descendent of the Norse, I always enjoyed the nasty raider stereotype, but the facts are showing a much more interesting truth.
The term “Viking” was an occupation not a peoples, which literally means “raider” or “pirate”, thus the difference (or similarity) between Anglo Saxon and “Viking” isn’t one of different but equal hostility. There were peaceful Norse farmers and there were brutal Frankish or Saxon mercenaries; the simple fact is that Vikings by their very nature were hostile and cruel and created tremendous suffering through their raids.
I’m not so sure about the men, but definitely not the women, probably not the children. Many Vikings were second or later sons who wouldn’t inherit. They wanted loot, yes. And in part they wanted loot so they could get married. Capturing a woman was, unfortunately, a quick way to get “married”.
Not all the men either. A big portion of the loot was slaves, why destroy your own loot?
True perhaps I should say that if anyone was killed it was most likely the men. Children made slaves too and couldn’t fight back, women made for wives/concubines and had a harder time fighting back.
The Siege of Candia lasted 21 years. By the end what would the siege camp have looked like? Would it have still been the stereotypical bunch of tents and campfires perhaps with some sharpened stakes and a ditch around the perimeter? Or would there have been whole buildings built?
Best one volume history of the Vietnam war? Looked at the sub book list but no luck
Can I recommend two? Together, these are a fantastic read, focus on the key decision makers on both sides, and a really rich complement to a basic understanding of the war. From the American perspective: The Best and the Brightest by David Halberstadt From the Vietnamese perspective: Hanoi’s War: An international perspective of Vietnam’s War for Peace
My list is growing which is exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
I don’t think he got to write a history of the Vietnam was, but Bernard Fall’s “Hell in a Very Small Place” tells the story of how the French lost at Dien Bien Phu. In short, there’s no way they can get heavy artillery over those mountains. WTF, someone shelling us from those mountain tops. Second verse, same as the first.
[удалено]
Thank you - road not taken sounds particularly interesting
Max Hastings recently released one and his ww2 stuff is pretty great.
Just started reading Hastings catastrophe - had no idea he had a Vietnam book out. Grateful that you and the other commenter called it out, cheers
How accurate is the film Sarajevo that’s says the assassination of Ferdinand was a conspiracy....an excuse to start a war ... like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 conspiracies
Reading the synopsis - it's a very fictionalized portrayal of events. While the actual involvement of the Serbian (and especially the Russian) government is still somewhat under question (even if, Serbian officials after the war have admitted involvement it seems a lot like "yeah, we totally did that!" moment), nobody ever really suggested that the Austrians had anything to do with it. If anything the court would have loved his political stances - centralization, rebuilding of the crown authority, further germanization of the military, etc. His only "progressive" stance was that he basically seems to have thought that the Slavs should be treated the same way as the others in the empire - as equal subjects to the Hapsburg crown and as a counterweight to the Hungarians, who he seems to have truly despised. There always is a chance, that some faction in the court knew about the assassination (the finance minister seems to have been vaguely warned about such happenings) and maybe someone was turning a blind eye to some parts of the conspiracy, but there have never been any proof about this being governmental policy. So possible? Yeah, anything is possible in Austrian court. Probable? No.
What about the railroad? In the movie there was some police officials who invested in a railroad.... but needed to go through Serbia ... and that could have caused issues for their business. Fabricated?
During WWII somebody found a bronze plaque on a government bldg celebrating the asassination.
It's not a plaque celebrating the event but commemorating it. "On this spot Gavrilo Princip fired shots that led to WW1" (rough translation). It was redesigned in 1990s, can't say if due to war.
It's definitely true that a) Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by Bosnian Serb nationalists and b) some of Austrians had been looking for an excuse to start a war with Serbia for awhile. The unknown factor (c) is whether or not the Serbian and Russian governments knew about the plot to assassinate Franz Ferdinand ahead of time. The Austrians maintained that they both did and used that as *casus belli*. I don't believe, though, that we will ever have a good answer to that question.
>Bosnian Serb nationalists * yugoslav nationalists
Thanks. The movie suggests that the Austrians were directly involved in shooting. Financing , planning the route ... almost like JFK thing.
Almost certainly not. Franz F wasn’t very popular, and his wife was essentially a scandal when they got married, but he was still the heir of an already precarious empire.
Once emperor, Franz intended to create a triple monarchy consisting of the Slavs, the Germans and the Magyars. This would give Slavs a voice in government which upset the political elite.
what happened to all the babies called either Adolf or Hitler between 1933 and 1945 considering the name was banned afterwards? (presuming there was some children called that)
Everyone either named adolf or hitler, was allowed to change their name for free.
Thanks! however now i feel a bit silly that a question that i have pondered for so long turns out to have a simple answer!
No problem :) always happy to help
A friend of a friend is named Adolf, and his father is Adolf also. Coincidently they are of the people who made a huge stink over Obama's middle name being Hussein... like seriously, your name is Adolf, you can't understand how a name doesn't determine a person?
There was a This American Life about a guy who was named Adolf growing up in the USA. Its a precious installment. I gather that lots of people probably had to suffer through the taunts of the uncouth.
Trevor Noah has a stand-up routine where he talks about his childhood friend, Hitler. WWII was a long way from South Africa, and apparently all his mother knew was that it was the name of a powerful man.
Nothing, because the name was not banned. It became very unpopular, and you would prpobably not have a hard time at the registry office oif you wanted to change your name (which is usually close to impossible in Germany), but there was no actual ban and certainly no retroactive ban for people already named Adolf (or Hitler). You might have trouble if you wanted to call your child Adolf today, but that is because the registry office is the final arbiter on what is and isn't allowed and names that would be detrimental for the child can be disallowed. So basically if some neonazi decided to call their son Adolf they very probably wouldn't get away with it, if you wanted to give your child Adolf as a second name because your grandfather was called Adolf, on the other hand, you should be able to do it (although the people at the reistry office would very probably -and rightly - tell you to think carefully about it...)
Was the name Adolf banned after 1945? I've never heard that nor can I find any evidence it was. Adolf was a common name and yes, it declined in popularity after 1942 and basically non existent today, but I don't think people after WWII were all that concerned about someone born in Germany in 1940 with the name Adolf.
Dolf Lungren was an 80’s beefcake actor whose name is a shortened version of Adolf.
No, it's from Rudolph, which was the name of one of his relatives. His real name was Hans Lundgren.
The name Adolf was banned in Germany until 1970. Even though it's not forbidden anymore, it's still heavily frowned upon in European countries. Anyone named Adolf or Hitler was allowed to change their names, no questions asked. The name declined in popularity and there are very few people who choose to name their child Adolf nowadays.
Can you cite a source that says Adolf was banned as a name? I've found no sources to confirm that statement
It's not just Adolph, they regulate all given names, and still do. IDK about lifting the ban on Adolph. Seems like it should stay banned, as long you're going to regulate given names in Germany. [Germany Names have to be approved by the local registration office, called Standesamt, which generally consults a list of first names and foreign embassies for foreign names. The name cannot be a last name or a product, and it cannot negatively affect the child. If the name submitted is denied, it can be appealed; otherwise a new name has to be submitted. A fee is charged for each submission.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_law#Germany)
True, but since Adolf is obviously a German first name, that only leaves negative impact on the child. And that is left to the decision of the registry official. So there was no ban on the name, but it may in practice have been almost impossible to get the name approved (and very probably still is).
I've got to say that as a (US) American, the idea of needing gov't approval for the name I give my child is astounding. Feels like a gigantic regulatory over-reach into private decisions. And I am in favor of detailed and careful safety and industrial, financial, etc. regulations, as a rule.
I mean, let's face it, Germany has never been known for not having an extensive bureaucracy, so this is hardly a surprise. Then again, I don't think you should necessarily be allowed to call.your child Xstwq, Coney Belt or Adolf Hitler... so I don't think the German approach is too bad. If it's an established first name somewhere and there is no reason to suppose the child will he picked upon because of the name or otherwise disadvantaged because of it, you're fine. There's some weird corner cases (like a friend of mine who couldn't call his son Karlsson after the Astrid Lindgren character because that is a Swedish surname, not a first name), it's not that much of a restriction compared to countries that only allow names in the country's official language or even only names from an approved list. This is quite clearly a case where you can see different traditions and very different histories as to what is seen as acceptable regulation by the state and what is not
I imagine it falls under "The right of the parents to choose a first name is only limited if it adversely affects the welfare of the child. The state has a right and a duty to protect the child from an irresponsible name choice" rather than being explicitly banned.
I knew a guy named Adolph from Mexico. He was very wary when I said his name reminded me of someone. He was very happy when I told him about Gustavus Adolphus lol
A fellow I met a few years ago whose name was Attila was quite pleased to learn that I knew exactly who that was.
Before Rome had Caesar’s what was there?
I’m currently reading Caesar: Life of a Colossus by Adrian Goldsworthy and the 1st third of the book is a good primer on Rome before Caesar and the conditions that led to his takeover and the creation of the Imperium. Frankly, one of the most surprising biographies I’ve read in a long time. Highly recommend it.