r/history • u/AutoModerator • 25d ago
Simple/Short/Silly History Questions Saturday, August 21, 2021 Discussion/Question
Welcome to our Simple/Short/Silly history questions Saturday thread!
This thread is for all those history related questions that are too simple, short or a bit too silly to warrant their own post.
So do you have a question about history and have always been afraid to ask? Well, today is your lucky day. Ask away!
Of course all our regular rules and guidelines still apply and to be just that bit extra clear:
- Questions need to be historical in nature.
- Silly does not mean that your question should be a joke.
1
u/EncryptedHacker 20d ago
Who was the king that had his mother killed because he thought he could see some kind of ghost, and then when being killed the mother said “stab me in the womb first, for this is where I held him” or something like that? I can never remember.
3
u/CuChulainn314 20d ago
I think you might be thinking of Nero, whose mother Agrippina the Younger reputedly (according to Tacitus, I think?) delivered the womb line. I believe that the ghost bit was afterward, however; he didn't return to the area where he had her killed because he claimed to be able to hear her ghost on the wind.
1
u/Leili-chan 20d ago
Is it possible for a Regency era physician to also own an Apothecary in Regency London, or would that be farfetched? Not necessarily operate the Apothecary, but be the owner.
1
u/throwbacktous1 20d ago
Is there a concept in history of nation building through sacrifice? That is, the only thing which makes a group of people a nation is having to sacrifice themselves in wars? That makes sense in some conflicts in the world between nations which aren't different enough in my opionion to wage war but they could also distinguish themselves by having to shed blood and thus justify their existence by creating that group affiliation.
1
u/Thibaudborny 20d ago
As a sole concept? No. But the idea of shared sacrifice for ‘ideal X’ and the subsequent veneration of said events is privy to cultures across time.
2
u/sitquiet-donothing 20d ago
Fascism has a lot of these trappings. While a notoriously difficult word to pin down, all fascist regimes held the state to be the ultimate expression of the individual, i.e. everything is for the state.
1
u/throwbacktous1 20d ago
Well every nation has martyrs, not only fascistic regimes. Also all religions.
1
u/Irishane 21d ago
What is that best/most accurate telling of Spartacus?
Iv n ver watched the Film or the series but I'd imagine both are rife with artistic liberties. Which would you recommend, if either? Or are there better examples.
TV/Film
Podcast
Audiobook
All acceptable.
2
u/sitquiet-donothing 20d ago
I really enjoyed Plutarch's telling. It is within his exposition on Crassus. He gives a vibrant account using firm and clear language. Its like reading Emerson tbh (IK, IK, Emerson loved Plutarch). He gives details and interesting tidbits like Spartacus' wife being a member of the Dionysian cult and she would go into ecstasies' from which she would advise Spartacus. He is fair to the revolt, and I believe can be trustworthy. One big issue with this account is that he is talking about Crassus as the main point, so everything is in relation to Crassus, and Plutarch is pretty neutral in his quest to point a moral, but don't necessarily believe Plutarch's motives he gives his subjects.
Here is a link to an online public domain version of Plutarch's lives, get to the home page and choose "Crassus", Spartacus shows up 1/3 of the way through:
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Nicias+Crassus\*.html
2
3
u/Ayearinbooks 21d ago
There's a good episode of the History of rome Mike Duncan podcast about it.
https://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_history_of_rome/2008/12/36--i-am-sparta.html
Also an In Our Time episode - don't remember it well but they're usually good.
Former is more narrative, latter more discussion.
1
u/fatuglyandgross 22d ago
How did English-speaking allied WW2 soldiers communicate with soldiers from non-English allied countries? For example, when Russian and American soldiers met.
2
u/jrhooo 21d ago
To add one more point to tmahfans solid answer, they may also have had “pointy talky” cards.
Basically, if they plan ahead a little and have a pretty good idea of the area you’ll be in/people you’ll encouter, they’d sometimes issue every troop a little preprinted card or booklet.
It would have some common simple words and phrase translations. It would also have some simple pictures, numbers, colors, etc.
You weren’t going to have a deep conversation or anything, but between the words and pointing at pictures on the card, you could do simple things like giving instructions, taking descriptions, etc.
Something like, “were there enemy soldiers here? When? How many? What weapons did they have? What kind of vehicles? Where are they now? Is anyone here hurt? Does anyone need a doctor?”
You’d be able to manage that kind of thing.
3
u/tmahfan117 21d ago
Well, first you may have an interpreter or someone that speaks the other language in your unit or working with your unit. There were a lot of Polish and French exiles that were willing to fight with allied forces and could act as translators if they needed to. It’s also important to remember that, at least for American troops, there were A Lot of Troops with Italian or German recent ancestry, it wasn’t everyone, it wasn’t everyone, but it was enough that you could expect in a company of over a hundred men 1 is able to speak enough of the language to get the basics across.
And then, well, they interacted like any other two people in history interacted that couldn’t speak the same language. Using whatever few words they knew and then just gesturing to get the point across.
Plus, In your Russian/American a lot of these soldiers weren’t in charge of actually having to talk in any meaningful way to the others. When the soldiers met, they probably exchanged some “Comrades!” and some “Americans!” Shook hands and then drank/celebrated a bit together. You don’t really need to speak complex sentences for that.
The officers that met on the other hand would probably have translators/interpreters with them to speak about the actually complex stuff.
Most of the grunts were just there to do a job and were happy the war was starting to look like it was over for them.
1
u/leinad8558 22d ago
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/367840287302615041/879708062515097620/20210824_132535.jpg
Does anyone know this cap badge? Everyone else is wearing a royal engineers cap badge but he isnt.
1
u/Vsxelizabeth 23d ago
Why didn’t Hitler go the route of Turkey for the Caucasus oil?
1
u/ValleDaFighta 21d ago
Well, he sort of tried, as other commenters have pointed out invading Turkey wasn’t seen as a feasible option, but he certainly tried getting Turkey on the side of the axis. There was a treaty of friendship between Germany and Turkey which Hitler hoped to expand into an all-out alliance, but it never materialized.
2
u/Phokasi 22d ago
Turkey is a massive country with mountains after mountains after mountains. It also had a large modern military and to fight it, Germany would have had to devote massive resources and manpower.
Caucasus oil was in the Soviet Union so if that was the plan, the Germans would have to be fighting both Turkey and the Soviets, which they didn't have the manpower for. It would have been slightly more plausible for them to go through Turkey to invade British occupied Iraq to take oil there, that way they could have avoided war with the Soviets. It would have still been very difficult for the Germans as the Turks could use the terrain to create a quagmire for German forces and make it very difficult to get the oil back to Europe.
In any case, the inevitable war with the Soviets was central to Nazi ideology from the beginning, all the way back to Mein Kampf. The threat of "Judeo-Bolshevism" to civilization is something they had to wipe out. They also perceived (correctly) that war with the Soviets would only get harder as the Soviets were rapidly becoming more technologically advanced, and they had to attack soon while the Soviets were still mired in backwardness.
1
u/saltandvinegarrr 23d ago
Germany fighting Turkey would firstly be another front against the British, who border Turkey and had every reason to help defend it. The terrain is very mountainous and the supply lines don't favour Germany. If they try it before Barbarossa it's a very clear signal to the Soviets of what they're planning. If they try it afterwards, they don't have the resources to even do it.
1
2
u/[deleted] 24d ago
[deleted]
2
u/sitquiet-donothing 22d ago
Anti-semitism found fertile ground in Germany in the late 19th century. There was a theory about "national characters" and how ethnicities derive their virtues from the land they inhabit, it was VolksersomethingGerman. The Jews, having no land of their own, couldn't possibly develop virtues (this also included other groups like Romani). I cannot recall who popularized it, but according to Karen Armstrong it was a widespread view. I have seen it referred to in other sources as well, although not necessarily in relation to specifically Hitler, more in the line of why nobody blinked when Nazis started yelling about Jews.
2
u/elmonoenano 23d ago
The first volumes of the Kershaw and Ullrich biographies spend a decent amount of time on this. But this period is kind of the high point of "scientific racism". You have all the craziness of skull measuring and attempts at racial classification and early attempts at collecting statistics. Topics like genetic hygiene were topics anyone versed in current politics would know a lot about and have opinions on. So, it was in the air in the 1900 and 10's when he was hanging around in Vienna. Vienna had a notably anti-semitic mayor at that time, Karl Lueger that Hitler thought highly of and who may have been a model for Hitler in how to use anti-semitism politically. Kershaw and Ullrich point out specific people Hitler was reading and lectures he would have attended. Hitler had kind of a warped Darwinian outlook but he applied it more on the basis of race than an individual adaptation. That outlook kind of led him to the most anti-semitic and anti-slavic writers.
1
u/Tycho-Brahes-Elk 21d ago
He also again came into contact with anti-semites when he was in the Reichswehr in Bavaria in 1919, which may have reboldened his antisemitic beliefs.
The basis of the German side of antisemitism in the early 20th century, maybe this is of interest, is Houston-Chamberlain, whose antisemitic, aryan-praising work (Die Grundlagen des neuzehnten Jahrhunderts) influenced a good part of the Nationalists [i.e. the Monarchists] in the late Kaiserreich; Cosima Wagner loved some H.-C. Hitler was also a big fan, and Houston-Chamberlain was impressed by Hitler.
1
u/Real-Mind8220 22d ago
Scientific racism wasn't just limited to antisemitism, scientific racism is also the reason why Whites thought that Blacks and other non-Whites were inferior.
1
u/quilleran 23d ago
An interesting (though unverifiable) theory is that he was reading the works of a Viennese monk named Adolf Lanz, who suggested that the German race was descended from the Norse Gods, but that these gods had also had sex with monkeys, and that the tainted offspring of that union became the basis of all the other races.
3
1
u/KingToasty 24d ago
Antisemitism has been really really common across Europe for centuries. Hitler didn't really get his beliefs from anywhere special, it was what most Austrians believed at the time.
2
u/saltandvinegarrr 23d ago
The racial mythos of nazism wasn't very related to medieval anti-semitism
2
u/flyliceplick 24d ago
I have never seen anyone propose anything that wasn't pure guesswork. Anti-Semitism was popular at the time, so he would have been exposed to those beliefs. There's no mystery, although I've seen some 'theories' about various Jews in his life. Prejudice does not require reason.
1
u/negrote1000 24d ago
When did the number (23 times 3) got its association?
3
u/Larielia 24d ago
What are some good sources for learning about the ancient Near East? (Specifically.. Mesopotamia.)
7
u/Bentresh 24d ago
Basic introductions
The Ancient Near East: A Very Short Introduction by Amanda Podany
Babylonia: A Very Short Introduction by Trevor Bryce
Ancient Assyria: A Very Short Introduction by Karen Radner
More detailed overviews
A History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000-323 BC by Marc Van de Mieroop
The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy by Mario Liverani
Other useful books
Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation edited by Mark Chavalas
Civilizations of Ancient Iraq by Benjamin Foster and Karen Foster
A Short History of Babylon by Karen Radner
Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature by Benjamin Foster
Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia by Jean Bottero
The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion by Thorkild Jacobsen
Art of Mesopotamia by Zainab Bahrani
Free online resources
Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East by Michael Roaf (outdated but still useful)
They Wrote on Clay: The Babylonian Tablets Speak Today by Edward Chiera
Letters From Mesopotamia by A. Leo Oppenheim
Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization by A. Leo Oppenheim
Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus
Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C.
2
u/interloperk415kb 24d ago
are there early examples of people creating “tacky” items to sell to tourists?
1
u/sitquiet-donothing 22d ago
All along pilgrimage routes there were souvenir stands, often purporting to be true relics for only a couple pfennigs. I believe this was one of the things that really ticked off Bernard.
1
u/ValleDaFighta 21d ago
One example: Canterbury cathedral sold tiny model swords as a souvenir, like the ones that killed Thomas Becket.
1
u/quilleran 24d ago
Richard Burton reports that there were people in Mecca who would sweep up the dust near the Kaaba and sell it to pilgrims. For that matter, a lot of relics that you find in Europe today were sold to crusaders in the Holy Land-- a rusty nail or a splinter of wood from the True Cross and so forth. Some of these relics, such as the foreskin of baby Jesus or a cloth smeared with Mary's milk, would surely seem tacky to the unbeliever.
2
u/ChilliGamer221 24d ago
how did the Nazi Munich agreement affect the lives of people living in or around Czechoslovakia?
1
u/AngryBlitzcrankMain 23d ago
Well of course the biggest impact was seen in Sudetenland. Ethnic Czechs, jews and antifascist Germans had to leave for inner Czechoslovakia. Part of them left, because they no longer had any jobs to work in Sudetenland, others were forced to leave by German army or Sudetenland Germans in rather agressive fashion. People believed that this was the end of Sudetenland as a part of Czechoslovakia, so certain symbols on a young Czechoslovakian nation were moved too, for examples the remains of one of the most famous Czech poet, Karel Hynek Mácha were moved from now German occupied Litoměřice/Leitmeritz to Prague. Germans tried to provoke Czechoslovakian army by trying to also annex a portion of Czechoslovakia that werent part of the initial Munich agreement, however unsuccesfully.
Poland and Hungary also pressed claims on the border territories of Czechoslovakia, in a few instances there were short skirmished between Hungarian/Polish and Czeschoslovakian forces. The overall feelings were that of uncertainity, many people believed that this might be only the beginning, some optimists believed that Hitler wont demand more. The militar and politicians were hit the hardest. Many soldiers and commanders were left in complete shock and thousands of them decided to leave the country to fight Germany in different armies. Some of them even went the long route, joining Polish arm first, after the fall of Poland French army and after the fall of France British one. Some completely lost any resemblance of hope and nationalistic beliefs. For example Emanuel Moravec, one of the loudest proponents of fighting Germany, even after the Munich agreement have been signed, till the last Czech soldier standing. After this all failed, he in matter of months became collaborator with nazis, the tool of Germanization and nazi propaganda and one of the most hated people in Czechoslovakia, alongside with Reinhard Heydrich. President Beneš and other top politicians were either forced or decided to leave the country. The government of Czechoslovakia was slowly and steadily moving towards authoritarian, non-democratic and anti-semitistic model. Most of the politicians that remained believed that Czechoslovakia should ally nazi Germany and act as its satellite, similarily to Hungary and other nazi allies in Europe. Your average person was not yet that affected, but the feeling of betrayal by the west was the most prominent feeling over the next few months. It played a key role in Czechoslovakian turn to communism after the WWII.
7
u/purpleovskoff 24d ago edited 24d ago
Why are the Lollards, Waldensians and Hussites not considered protestant? They're always mentioned as precursors to but never as protestant themselves.
Is it just a case of scope and success or is there a fundamental uniting factor between the protestant churches?
Edit: for that matter, what about Monophysitism and tons of others throughout history?
2
u/elmonoenano 23d ago
New Books Network had this episode on protestant faiths recently. You might find some answers or information you like there: https://newbooksnetwork.com/the-oxford-history-of-protestant-dissenting-traditions-volume-i
5
u/lukeneeds 24d ago
The term protestant wasn't coined yet when these groups were active.
Protestants were originally the prince's who protested against the banishment of Luther and his writings and was later generally used for his followers.
8
u/calijnaar 24d ago
I'm not a church historian, so there may be reasons for the distinction that I am missing, but a lot of the core elements of protestantism seem to be present or at least hinted at in those movements (like sola scriptura etc.). So they are certainly a lot closer to protestantism than many earlier movememnts like the Cathars, for example.
So I would say one of the main reasons for the disctinction is very probably actually success. Actually splitting the church as opposed to be seen as a heretical group in the church certainly played a role.
There is also the fact that the name protestantism refers to a very specific historical event, the Protestation at Speyer in 1529 at the Imperial Diet, where 6 princes of the Holy ROman Empire and 14 imperial free cities petitioned against the 'Reichsacht' (outlawing) against Martin Luther, the prohibition of his works and the revocation of the decisions of the 1526 Diet, which had de facto suspended the Edict of Worms in the Lutheran territories.
In that sense nothing before 1529 can be called protestant. You could possibly argue about what constitutes the starting point of the reformation, but if you accept Luther's 95 theses in 1517 as the deciding event leading to the actual schism between Catholicism and Protestantism, you're also stuck with calling Lollars and Hussites precursors or pre-Reformation. I would generally agree that the early 16th century was when protestantism/reformation managed their breakthrough and got enough support to be able to withstand the efforts of the Catholic church to quench them as heretics. Which the earlier movements had not managed, which I think justifies the distinction (this of course doesn't say anything about the importance of those earlier movements)
3
u/purpleovskoff 24d ago
Thanks for the lengthy answer. I considered the idea of being movements within the church being heretical rather than Protestant, but then the Hussites were against the church structure entirely.
I think the Protestation at Speyer might be the answer, possibly coupled with the success/perpetuity of the later movement.
4
u/sunagainstgold 24d ago
The Lollards, Waldensians, and Hussites were reform movements within the western Church--they aimed to fix what was wrong while staying within the political-religious infrastructure of the Rome-based ecclesiastical hierarchy. Luther's followers, the Anabaptists, and other 1520s groups eventually cut themselves off from the Church based in Rome and declared themselves all the "true Church."
The late antique "heretical" churches (you mention monophysitism), many of which are around today and are no longer considered heretical, aren't labeled Protestant first of all because they don't consider themselves as such. They have their own ecclesiastical hierarchies of which Protestant churches have no part and want no part. (Luther was, mm, clear on this.) The early schisms were also not so much questions of fixing perceived problems within the Church so much as deciding basic issues of "Christian" belief. (Obviously every side believed they were the Christian one.)
So basically it's a question of authority, not dogma.
2
u/Thibaudborny 24d ago
That’s rather artificial. The Lollards were no different from Luther: both were movements within the Church. The sole difference in that regard is traction. Lollardism just never gained the support Luther did. The real difference is not in what they said, but in their consequences.
2
u/sunagainstgold 24d ago
Right, and aren't we talking about consequences? The Luther movement wasn't called "Protestant" right away, not by themselves and not by others. They were evangelicals and heretics, then the HRE declared a schism within the Church instead of an orthodoxy and a heresy, and by the 1530s, you had Protestants.
Everyone always thinks they're the "true Church." ;) (Church of God, Church of Christ, Church of God in Christ, United Church of Christ, Church of God with Signs Following...)
2
u/AngryBlitzcrankMain 24d ago
Because Reformation era started with Luther. Lollarsds, Waldensians and Hussites are considered to be proto-Reformation movements, alongside with dozens other christian sects and movements from 3rd to 15th century.
2
u/purpleovskoff 24d ago
That's more fleshing out the question than answering it
2
u/AngryBlitzcrankMain 24d ago
Ok. Pre 1517 = Proto-Protestantism. Post 1517 = Protestantism. Better ?
2
u/purpleovskoff 24d ago
I understand that there is a distinction, I'm asking why the former is considered proto- rather than actual protestantism
1
2
u/AngryBlitzcrankMain 24d ago
Because start of protestant movement is tied to Martin Luther and his 95 theses. I dont understand what kind of answer do you expect.
2
u/Phokasi 24d ago
He was asking why the protestant movement is considered to start with Luther and not with the very similar movements that came before. You're giving an "it just is" answer and those are bad.
0
u/AngryBlitzcrankMain 23d ago
But thats the truth. Its like the countless questions about why Seven Years War isnt World War 0. Because it simply wasnt named that way. Same way, even though there were reformation sects and movements before Luther, historical analysis just count his 95 theses as the start of the Reformation and the first step of protestant movement. There isnt anything measurable except the historical tradition of the name.
1
u/GliderDan 25d ago
How much impact did German commerce raiding by auxiliary cruisers have during WW2?
2
u/saltandvinegarrr 24d ago
They were approximately as effective as the same amount of submarines. As the war progressed they were much reduced in efficiency as they couldn't submerge
2
u/jehoshua42 25d ago
when exactly did bin laden become a thorn in america's side?
1
u/jezreelite 24d ago
He first decided America was pure evil in 1990, during the First Gulf War, when the US sent its military there at the request of the king of Saudi Arabia.
2
u/elmonoenano 24d ago
This is definitely when Bin Laden focused on America. The Khobar Towers bombing in 1993 is when the Nat Sec community started to really pay attention to him. The Nairobi embassy bombing 1998 is when Al Qaeda really broke through the consciousness of everyday America. Then there was the stuff like the USS Cole bombing and the Millennium Bomb Plot that OBL wasn't just a distraction from Bill Clinton's messy personal life.
2
2
1
u/jehoshua42 25d ago
at independence, what nationality of immigrants constituted the majority of people living in the us?
1
u/sitquiet-donothing 22d ago
If we are not meaning British Americans, it would probably be Germans or Scotch-Irish. Ben Franklin was worried that the USA would end up speaking German because they were lazy and refused to learn English. The Irish were brought over in droves as attached to families as servants or as indentured servants, they also comprised a sizeable amount of free labor.
1
2
2
u/jehoshua42 25d ago
what was the major factor in the union's victory in the civil war?
1
u/sitquiet-donothing 22d ago
Population, production capacity, foreign policies, and the right side of morals. The Confederacy never stood a chance.
The USA had more people than the CSA, way more, it also had them in places that mattered so their production capacity was far superior with the various industrial cities. European powers stayed out of it, especially after the Emancipation Proclamation, as most of those powers were not big on slavery any more, when it was clear the USA was anti Confederate slavery, they sided with the winner.
2
u/elmonoenano 24d ago
The way the two regions organized their economies was the biggest factor. The North was just way more productive, it was more diversified and didn't rely on three crops. That diverse economy grew faster, this drew immigrants and made the population expand much faster. The free white population of the N. was 3X the size of the S. at the outbreak of the war. B/c the N. used free labor they weren't in danger of their most productive section of the economy leaving, which is basically what ended the CSA. The N. had more of every resource and more capacity to produce those resources, whether it's food, money, manpower or equipment.
The way the S. structured their economy had lasting impacts. It's a big part of why Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana are at the bottom of just about every index for quality of life/economic stats even to this day.
4
u/AlastorZola 24d ago
Everything was against the Confederates. The Union had on their side the Industry, Demography, Navy and Railroad infrastructure.
2
u/quilleran 24d ago
Union naval supremacy allowed the North to slowly wreck the economy of the South, and the Confederacy proved totally unable to defend the western part of the country.
1
u/jehoshua42 25d ago
what are some important historical women in war?
2
u/sitquiet-donothing 22d ago
Check out the Tru'ng sisters. They were pretty badass. Aisha was an important historical woman who was a general during the "Battle of the Camels", she was also one of Muhammad's wives.
3
u/jrhooo 24d ago
For America, Virginia Hall is always an interesting figure. One of the most successful covert operatives in WWII, working for the British SOE, then US OSS and eventually the CIA.
Basically, she went behind enemy lines in occupied France, coordinated Frensh resistance activities, provided material support, directed sabotage, smuggled weapons, etc. She was high on the “most wanted list” for Nazi secret police.
3
3
u/MeatballDom 25d ago
Boudica, Teuta, Tomiri, Artemisia I and II of Caria, Cleopatra II and VII, off the top of my head. A lot more in Asia as well but that's out of my area.
In the modern era, the Soviet snipers such as Lyudmila Pavlichenko are definitely worth a look into.
1
2
u/joji711 25d ago
Did people back during the 1918 pandemic complained at the healthcare policies back then? Or is this a 21st century thing?
2
u/elmonoenano 23d ago
There were even famous anti-mask rallies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mask\_League\_of\_San\_Francisco
1
u/skyblueandblack 23d ago
Oh, they complained, and some resisted, and those cities that were slow to shut down and quarantine, or that re-opened too quickly, paid the price.
1
u/I_am_a_rob0t 25d ago
The Battle of Thermopylae and the Battle of the Alamo are two famous examples of losing battles that led to or fostered victories (or are regarded heroically). What other battles in history are similar?
I've read about many last stand battles. Growing up in Texas, we read about the Alamo, Goliad, Gonzalez, and even some of the smaller events around Refugio.
Wikipedia lists many last stands, but not all of them capture the imagination like the Thermopylae or the Alamo.
1
u/quilleran 24d ago
The Battle of Guilford Court House was a British victory, but the battle was so costly that Cornwallis’ army was rendered useless for offensive operation, leading him to abandon the British ”Southern strategy” for winning the American Revolution. Cornwallis moved his army to Yorktown in order to be rescued, and the rest is history, as they say.
1
u/MeatballDom 25d ago
Not really sure what you mean. Battles that were celebrated later even though they were loses? I don't think Thermopylae had much of an immediate effect. The successes at Artemisium (happening before and at the same time of Thermopylae) and the Sack of Athens (after Thermopylae had far greater immediate effects as Athens was able to say "Well, you've seen how our navy changes things, but we're happy to just pack up and move to a new city far off and rebuild in Italy or whatever if you don't listen to us". Herodotus' narrative is heavily influenced by Thermopylae, but not necessarily a reflection of the immediate influence (see in particular Hans van Wees' take on Herodotus and the Citizen soldier).
You might get rally cries which involve previous defeats, or a large effect of the peoples which leaks into the narrative of the future citizens. Some examples that come to mind would be the Battle of Cannae, and the "Lost Cause" American Civil War supporters.
-5
u/kegastam 25d ago
Welcome to our Simple/Short/Silly history questions Saturday thread!
This thread is for all those history related questions that are too simple, short or a bit too silly to warrant their own post.
So do you have a question about history and have always been afraid to ask? Well, today is your lucky day. Ask away!
Of course all our regular rules and guidelines still apply and to be just that bit extra clear:
- Questions need to be historical in nature.
- Silly does not mean that your question should be a joke.
1
u/Prudent_Wonder8349 25d ago
Did you ever think about this: who was the first person to decide to try cows milk? I wonder what that was like when people saw them, more than likely down there sucking on the teat. Had to be a strange day in human history.
7
u/MeatballDom 25d ago
Well not only were they raised suckling on their mother, they also saw baby calves doing the same to those cows. It wasn't some grand discovery. Domesticate the animals, and use the replenishing resources they provide. Nothing strange.
2
u/skyblueandblack 22d ago
To be fair, goats were likely domesticated before cattle, so getting the idea to drink cow's milk wouldn't have been much of a stretch after drinking goat's milk.
8
u/Tropical_Geek1 25d ago
When did the romans start wearing pants?
10
u/Spacecircles 25d ago
Late empire from the 4th to 6th century, but it's hard to be precise. The following is from chapter 6 of From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms edited by Thomas Noble, 2006, Routledge Press.
There is no doubt that dress could be regarded as foreign or, from a Roman point of view, barbarian. Trousers (bracae), for instance, were for a long time seen as typically barbarian. Agathias observed that the Franks wore trousers. But were the Germanic trousers wide, as in Roman iconography, or tight-fitting, as Tacitus says? In late Antiquity, the habit began to spread over the Empire, although it is hard to say to what extent. When Honorius in forbade to wear trousers in the city of Rome, this measure only made sense if the large majority of inhabitants did not wear trousers. On the other hand, Diocletian’s price edict already included tailors who made trousers, therefore they cannot have been an unfamiliar sight.
2
u/Tropical_Geek1 25d ago
That's interesting. Thanks!
1
u/jrhooo 25d ago
in Dan Carlin's "Thor's Angels" episode, he references this. The analogy he uses (and thus the title of the episode) is that in this era where Germanic "barbarians" are starting to be assimilated into main stream Roman society, they're not longer "barbarians" in the sense of "oh my god run, invaders". They're more like we think of biker gangs in modern times. Still intimidating, obviously "different" but not a "flee on sight" type of danger.
And (continuing the biker theme) the younger crowd starting to think they looked "cool" and adopting some of their fashion.
1
u/FabulousWackyPotato 24d ago
A few people wore them earlier than the other comments if they lived in very cold places cuz they were warmer than Roman clothes but It was thought of as disonherable so not openly and not much
5
u/CannibalPride 25d ago
Without any technological progress and the level of technology is at the iron age including agriculture and medicine, is it possible for the human population to reach 7 billion, regardless of whether it can sustain it or not?
8
u/Medical-Secret 25d ago
No, the growth rate increase was a direct product of technological process. Without it, it doesn't happen.
7
u/flyliceplick 25d ago
Population density at anywhere near that number would cause enormous pandemics without constant countermeasures.
2
u/CannibalPride 25d ago
Without technological breakthroughs, wouldn’t there be less urbanization and instead have the population spread out?
3
u/AlastorZola 25d ago
Yes. Nowadays in the western world, more than 50% of the population live in cities. It's impossible to sustain without industrial agriculture and most countries did attain this shift only after WWII. On the other hand, population centers are linked to land productivity, so the population wouldn't necessarily be more spread out geographically than today and still concentrated around water and access to good land.
2
u/Thibaudborny 25d ago
I’d reckon that as a hard no given what agricultural yield could sustain populace wise.
7
u/ConsistentAmount4 25d ago
When did humans begin cutting their hair regularly?
2
u/AlastorZola 25d ago
How regularly depends on cultures. A lot of ancient cultures had long hair as a symbol of status and power.
5
u/Ranger176 25d ago edited 25d ago
How valuable are history books written by journalists? I’m talking about books written about historical events contemporary to the time they were written in (e.g. Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower). Are these seen as reliable sources by scholars?
5
u/Nopants21 25d ago
I think it's important to consider that a journalist's book is pretty similar to what historians use to study history. It's a primary source and like all primary sources, it can have its share of unreliability, bias and incompleteness, but it's still a source.
5
u/flyliceplick 25d ago
It depends. They can be just as valuable as a historian's work, depending upon the journalist and the subject. Or they can be a disposable pop history doing little but regurgitating academic work. Or they can be a complete waste of time.
10
u/quilleran 25d ago
Obviously this depends upon the book, but Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower is an essential book on the subject. Wright speaks Arabic and conducted many interviews, making this book a sourcebook for future histories of the subject as well.
5
u/rubberbondsman 25d ago
What are some of the most hilarious or wild things we found from reading past texts/journal throughout history.
1
u/MrC99 24d ago
I read 'Say nothing' by Patrick Radden Keefe recently and a part of the book that made me laugh out loud was the escape of "The Magnificent Seven".
12
u/raymaehn 25d ago
Maybe not the most hilarious, but I came across it today and felt the need to share. In late medieval Prague, the local guild of professional fencers had a ruleset for tournaments. If someone broke those rules, they had to pay a fine. And in some cases, they would be beaten with a shovel. A shovel that was kept on the premises for exactly that purpose.
That's like the Olympics having a rule that a boxer who fights dirty will get beaten up backstage.
8
u/MeatballDom 25d ago
Zopyrus was said to have (though not necessarily believed to have) whipped himself, cut off his ears, and nose, and presented himself to Darius as someone who Darius had just brutally punished so that he could get sympathy from the enemy. Realising it was already done, Darius approved the plan, Zopyrus gained support from the Babylonians, rose through their military ranks, and left the gate open for Darius to come invade.
Or in meme format: https://i.imgur.com/4iRHRMo.png
16
u/sunagainstgold 25d ago
When he was around twenty-five, Louis XIV (of France)'s oldest son lost a game of chess to a twelve-year-old. He was so angry he ripped off his wig and threw it at the kid.
(Elisabeth-Charlotte von der Pfalz's letter collection: the gift that will never stop giving.)
20
u/Thibaudborny 25d ago edited 25d ago
Samuel Pepys’ diary. Man was a lecherous but entertaining writer whose diary was quite important to gauge the era of the Restoration under Charles II. He also… liked women. A lot. Quite entertaining was the moment where he made avances on his servant girl, who - she was a far younger girl - was adamant to resist him, yet Pepys really wanted to have his way with her (he described it as being smitten but ehm… smitten in his lower regions ofc). Ultimately he was caught doing so by his wife who predictably, flew into quite a rage. To get back at her unfaithful husband she was to proceed to mentally torture him in various ways, she refused him access to her bed in spite of his relentless efforts to seek her forgiveness & she also faked she contemplated turning catholic, just to spite Pepys and make him a social pariah.
2
u/sitquiet-donothing 20d ago
They did not have that part of his diary in my curriculum. I think I may have to refine my view of him as being the most boring person to ever walk around in a wig. Is there a version available online do you know?
21
u/Less-Feature6263 25d ago
Did I have to buy a ticket to go to theatre in Ancient Athens or was it free?
1
u/sitquiet-donothing 22d ago
IIRC they payed you to go. I might be confusing this with the assembly though. Theatre played a big role in religious ceremonies in Athens, it would have at least been free for these productions.
5
u/youre_all_dorks 25d ago
What did people do to combat body odor, bad breath, etc?
11
u/typingatrandom 25d ago
In the 17 th century, Maria-Theresa, daughter of the king of Spain, married king of France Louis the 14 th. There was an official record of everything she brought with her, including linen towels to clean her teeth.
9
u/dinglepumpkin 25d ago
The ancient Egyptians wore scented wax cones on top of their heads, which would slowly melt throughout the day and disperse the fragrance.
12
u/quilleran 25d ago edited 25d ago
In Roman times, people would put olive oil on their body and scrape it off to bathe. Apparently this was very effective, as it exfoliates the skin and moisturizes.
Wealthy people washed their hair with rose-water in medieval times, and they perfumed themselves by using the dried residue of a scent-gland from Siberian deer (a.k.a. musk)
The Muslim courtier Ziryab introduced Europe to many notions of hygiene during his stay at Corboba, Spain. For body odor, he introduced the fashion of wearing light-colored, thinner clothing during summer. He also is said to have invented (or introduced) toothpaste and deodorant, though another source I read referred to him as sweetening his breath by chewing on fragrant seeds (I'm thinking fennel).
I've read the habit of daily bathing was introduced to England by Beau Brummel in the 1800s.
1
2
u/RenAndStimulants 25d ago
This may be a bit grim. But how was body recovery worked out in medieval times.
I've read of figures lost in battle forever but also of stories of the burials and ceremonies of people who had been in battles well lost but recovered
5
u/Briglin 25d ago
There would be a massive free for all form locals stripping the bodies of anything valuable - that normally meant everything, often I believe leaving the bodies naked. Yes nobles would be taken and given service and the camp followers would seek out dead injured relatives/friends but as for the enemy - they were free game.
2
u/Thibaudborny 25d ago
Generally people of note would be sought out for the proper last rites. As for the others, anonymous mass graves and pyres on the spot of the carnage.
9
u/Whoopsy-381 25d ago
Many medieval bios refer to having fountains running with wine as part of a celebration, such as a coronation or birth of an heir. How did they do that?
5
u/Skookum_J 25d ago
Build a big cistern up high somewhere nearby. Like on top of a nearby building. Then hook up a pipe from the cistern to feed into the fountain. Then fill the cistern with hundreds of gallons of wine.
The gravity draws the wine down the pipe, and builds pressure in the pipe. Higher the cistern, them more pressure in the pipe, the more pressure in the pipe, the more the wine shoots out at the fountain.
3
u/fiendishrabbit 25d ago
Incorrect. You should read Heron of Alexandrias book Pneumatica where he describes a ton of different pressure and gravity operated devices, of which a very large number are things to delight party goers with stuff like Wine fountains, vessels that serve wine or water alternatively and other parlour trick devices.
The most well known is Heron's fountain (whose most popular use was as a wine fountain). Pneumatica was well known in the middle ages, one of the most copied ancient manuscripts and several hundred medieval copies survive to this day.
9
u/Skookum_J 25d ago
That's how Heron did it, but that doesn't mean everyone did it that way.
Most municipal fountains were gravity fed. So the easiest way to convert them to produce wine would be to divert the water flow, and tap in a gravity fed line from a cistern.
1
u/cashobar 19d ago
Is it true that people 500 years ago (in western societies) drank a shit ton of alcohol? I’ve been told that people only drank beer to kill germs and that every single person would be classified as an alcoholic by modern standards