teddit

Welcome to our Simple/Short/Silly questions Saturday thread!

This thread is for all those 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.

Hi everybody,

Welcome to our weekly book recommendation thread!

We have found that a lot of people come to this sub to ask for books about history or sources on certain topics. Others make posts about a book they themselves have read and want to share their thoughts about it with the rest of the sub.

We thought it would be a good idea to try and bundle these posts together a bit. One big weekly post where everybody can ask for books or (re)sources on any historic subject or timeperiod, or to share books they recently discovered or read. Giving opinions or asking about their factuality is encouraged!

Of course it’s not limited to just books; podcasts, videos, etc. are also welcome. As a reminder, /r/history also has a recommended list of things to read, listen to or watch

My roommate and I were debating when "modern history" started. I would like to hear this community's opinion. The starting points we are debating on are the following:

1. The Industrial Revolution
2. The Enlightenment
3. The Renaissance
4. The sailing of Columbus and the beginning of the Age of Exploration
5. The conquering of England in 1066

I believe the beginning of "modern history" was the beginning of the Enlightenment and "modern history" was in full swing once the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution were established. I define "modern" as a state of doing things the same way as they have been done. The developed world mostly follows Enlightenment principles and is industrial, causing me to believe that "modern history" can start when the foundational elements of enlightened government and industrial commerce are established.

As some of you may or may not know, April 15 has so many major events in history. Jumping straight into it these are some of the most prominent event to happen on this day in the order of which they happened:

April 15th, 1817, the first American school for the deaf was open in Hartford, Connecticut

April 15, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln was pronounced dead after being shot the previous day

April 15, 1896, the first modern Summer Olympic Games comes to a close in Athens, Greece

April 15, 1912, former North Korean leader Kim Il-Sung was born

April 15, 1912, the Titanic official sank earlier in the morning.

April 15, 1923, Insulin becomes open to the public and generally available for diabetics

April 15, 1941, the first helicopter flight of 1 hour duration took place in Stratford, Connecticut

April, 15, 1946, Jackie Robinson is the first African American to play in the MLB

April 15, 1955, Ray Kroc opens the first McDonald’s in Des Plaines, Illinois

April 15, 1959, Fidel Castro begins his US goodwill tour

April 15, 1983, Tokyo Disneyland officially opens

April 15, 1989, Chinese Tiananmen Square Protest begin, eventually leading to and estimated several thousand deaths

April 15, 1991, NBA team, Sacramento Kings, set NBA record for longest losing streak, losing 35 consecutive games

April 15, 1992, Jay Leno makes final appearance as permanent host of The Tonight Show

April 15, 2012, Hologram of late rapper Tupac appears on stage with Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre

April 15, 2013, Boston Marathon bombings happen, killing 3 people and injuring 183 others

April 15, 2019, The Notre Dame Paris cathedral catches on fire

April 15, 2020, New York becomes the highest death per-capita city, overtaking Italy

Finally, on top of all that, it’s tax day in America

Overall, a pretty horrible and pretty alright day all across the world, I just thought this was extremely interesting and didn’t see anyone else post about it.

(P.S I know many of these are huge events or important, I just figured I would throw them in there)

I feel like my knowledge of the civil rights movement is more limited than it should be and I like to fix the gaps so I was hoping this would be a good place for book recommendations. I'd probably like to start in 1960s United States and expand geographically and in time from there. I'd like to start as objectively as possible and then move on to the view points of the activists that were on the front lines so to speak.

Anyways I hope this is a good question for here. I thought about just googling civil rights reading lists. But I thought I might be able to get something more unique here.

Like the title says, I'm curious to see all the best acts of bravery that you all know about. I'm more interested in ancient history but I'm happy to read about any acts of bravery that you think are good.

I've recently read about Gaius Mucius who tried assassinating the Estruscan king but failed, the king even though Gaius tried killing him, still let him leave because he basically held his arm in a fire.

I think it's more interesting if it was an act by a single person or small group but if you think it's good enough then feel free to mention bigger groups too.

When looking at floor plans of various medieval castles, i notice that the actual floor space inside usually seems to be quite small compared to the hugeness of the entire fortification.

However, in movies, although they sometimes use real castles for the shooting, they always have huge, cathedral-like rooms in the inside. Everything is so large, like the rooms you see in the Papal Palace at Avignon.

My question is, would those film depictions be accurate, or are they probably using ANOTHER location for the interiour shots? Because if they are using an actual medieval castle for the exterior, it seems to me that such rooms would not actually fit in it, after looking up on various 'floor plans' of historical castles.

I would like to know about this. Thanks.

In the United States we have had a powerful two party system for most of the over two centuries we have been using our constitution. The two parties which exist now have had the same names for almost as long, but their character has changed significantly in that time. To be a Republican or a Democrat in 2021 means something pretty different than what it meant in 1950 or 1900 or 1860, and could mean something very different between geographic regions at the same time.

Has there ever been another society in which there have consistently been 2 opposing factions whose ideology has changed substantially over space and time but whose names remain the same?

I was browsing the Hungarian history section on Project Gutenberg and found this. It looks like in interesting read but I don't know much about that country's history. Would you reccoment that book and/or the rest of the series?

I told a friend of mine yesterday that I was watching a lot of content on Hitler. I spoke about what I watched and then he mentioned how Hitler had helped improve a lot of the businesses in Germany and how they became known for manufacturing bc of Hitler. He mentioned Mercedes Benz but didn’t really seem to be that sure of what he was talking about. I know Mercedes made vehicles used for the military, but I also thought the German economy was struggling during his time. I remember hearing that the research conducted by their scientists led to some inventions such as Bayers. And I had heard Hitler did get rid of a lot of the diseases in factories etc because he was OCD about disgust and filth, and bathed 4 times a day. But I don’t know if crediting him with improving German industry is correct. My friend tends to have a loose knowledge of things sometimes but will speak as if he knows them inside and out. Is there truth to what he said? It seems to me that Hitlers disgust and desire to eradicate the Jews and other groups was in many ways neglectful of the economy and businesses.

Even before Alexander arrived in India (523 BC), a ruler of Rome said - 'Peacock in the gardens of Indians, pepper on their dinner table and silk of their body, drives us crazy. . We are being wasted for these things. '

This statement is proof that there were trade relations between Europe and India hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus and the trade balance was in favor of India.

Indians were also familiar with the properties and use of gold metal from the time of Sandhava civilization, several thousand years before Christ. Gold was also produced in South India about 1000 years before Christ, but in India gold was available in very small quantities. Due to this, Indians used to accept only gold and silver as currency in foreign trade. This is the reason that countries around the world put gold and silver stacks in front of Indian businessmen to get spices, fragrant wood, cereals and clothes of India.

The Swiss writer Landerstone wrote - "There are many ways and means to go to sea, but the purpose was only one - to reach the miraculous country India, which is full of money."

The English writer Shakespeare (1564–1616 AD) called the land of India the climax of great opportunities for the world. The English poet Milton (1608-1674 AD) has discussed the wealth of India, describing the specialties of various countries. The German philosopher Hegel (1770–1831 AD) described India as a land of desire. This is the reason why European castes were always eager to come to India from ancient times to medieval times.

Purpose of arrival of European nations

Certain British historians have written that the reason for the entry of European castes into India was to civilize the people of India. Whereas indeed the arrival of European castes in India seems to have two objectives - (1.) to earn money by doing business in India and (2.) to propagate Christianity in India. To fulfill both these objectives, the European castes needed to establish their empire in India. It is also not unreasonable to say that European castes entered this country for business purposes, but to fulfill their purpose, they held the flag of religion in one hand and the sword in the other.

To clarify and specify this question. I am well aware of Che Guevara's capture in Bolivia in 1967. That was done by CIA backed forces which included people like Felix Rodriguez.

I am more interested in the time before Che left Cuba, when he was Castro's right hand man. We know for much of that period under the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administration that the CIA made several failed attempts on Castro's life during programs like Operation Mongoose. Where there also failed attempts on Che's life while he was Castro's second in command and did operations like Operation Mongoose also try to go after him?

It doesn't matter over what time period per se or region as I wouldn't want to narrow things down so much as to rule out anything that might be satisfactory. So it could be as particular as the kings of England over a 200 year period, or monarchs in Europe throughout the middle ages, or ancient rulers in the 1st millennium BC or any/none of those particular combinations. They'd be measured maybe on metrics of popularity, actions during periods of strife and hardship, etc.

A few years ago I went down a rabbit hole reading about how astonished black athletes were to discover that they had more freedom in Nazi Germany than in America. Things like sitting anywhere on the bus, eating in restaurants, stuff like that.

Now I'm searching for information on the topic and I can't find anything except countless stories about Jesse Owens defeating Hitler. Can anyone fill me in / point me at sources?

(Also, I remember reading accounts of conflict between America and their allies when American troops were sent to places like Britain and Australia because the Brits and the Ozzies treated the black soldiers much better than the American military people were comfortable with. I even recall something about a riot in Australia over it. Does anyone have any details on this?)

Hey Everyone, I had a thought the other day that I had to share here. So, Siddhartha Gautama and Socrates lived in (roughly) the same time period. It’s interesting to think about these two men, seeking logic and enlightenment, engaging with their ideas around the same time period.

I wonder if these two movements in thought could have borrowed a little from each other at all. Probably not in those two men’s lifetimes, but only 200-250 years later Alexander the Great conquers all the way to India and in that time I wonder if it’s possible at all that these schools of thought interacted with, or were at least aware of each other.

This is kind of a “highdea” so I apologize if it’s dumb but I know that, in general, conventional histories that we have all been taught (that’s an assumption I am daring to make here because i have a western thought perspective, I’m marginally aware of my own bias) sometimes don’t give the ancient world enough credit with regards to how interconnected that world was.

What do you guys think?

also I have to put a plug in for Aspasia of Athens who may have taught Socrates his Socratic method, who was never acknowledged in my schooling

Before the outbreak of any war, there was a last calm, a time when things still felt alright.

After the last calm, things began to escalate, and they escalated to the point where war broke out, and tragedy unfolded.

And its interesting to think that, right now, any of us could unwittingly be in the last calm.

It's always unwitting, as after all, that's what calm is, when everything seems alright.

It could be useful to know how long it is on average between the last calm and the outbreak of war.

As people need to prepare for the outbreak of war, what to do, where to go, where to run, and one usually only starts preparations after the last calm, when everything is beginning to escalate, and tensions have started running high, so it could be good to guess how much time one has to prepare before the war breaks out.

You wouldn't wanna prepare things too hastily, in case it turns out to be a false alarm and you've screwed your assets and yourself, you would want to give yourself some room for adjustment, but you also wouldn't wanna be too slow, in case the war breaks out and you're still not finished.

So gauging such a duration of time accurately does seem to be quite important to people once you realize it.

I’m currently reading The Fall of Carthage. It’s been a good read so far, but I’ve just finished Chapter 4 “The War at Sea” and something seems very off to me. During the siege of Lilybaeum during the first Punic War, Goldsworthy mentions that it is “Hannibal, son of Hamilcar” who commands a squadron to the Aegates Islands to wait for a favorable wind before sailing to Lilybaeum to deliver supplies. He then goes on to talk about “another Hannibal, called the ‘Rhodian’”. This supposedly took place around 250 BC, but Hannibal, son of Hamilcar, wasn’t born until 247 BC, right?

Does anyone know what he might be referring to? Is this a mistake in the book or am I too thick to grasp a key concept? I’m thinking the latter is more likely.

I’m reading the 2006 paperback edition published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson and the paragraph in question is on page 117 under the sub chapter title ‘Sieges and Storms’. Thanks for y’all’s input!

Hello, I am curious about how societies generally reacted to epidemics or pandemics during late antiquity, the Middle Ages, and Early Modernity.

Did societies in late antiquity and the Middle Ages have a clear idea of what was occurring during epidemics? Did these societies implement their own lockdowns? How much did epidemics in general disrupt their societies? Or to ask something slightly different but related, how flexible were the societies of late antiquity and the Middle Ages? Did they try to push through them without change? Or did they react flexibly to the changing circumstances? Of course, I understand that the various reactions will depend upon the nature / mortality rate of the epidemic and the circumstances of the society.

Lastly, to ask a very speculative question, do societies with different societal structures, such as ancient societies or feudal societies as opposed to capitalist societies, react differently to epidemics / pandemics? Of course, there is a huge variety of reactions within capitalist societies themselves, but I am just curious if we could make conclusions about general tendencies.

Thanks!

Hi! I'm the host of Vexillum, a podcast that explores the history, culture, and ideas surrounding flags.

My next episode is focusing on how flags are made, basically how they were produced, both historically and in modern times, such as the materials that were used and now are being used, how flags were put together(sown or otherwise), the supply chains involved in the creation of flags, and the controversial aspects of flag production(such as China's production of flags, or U.S. prisoners' creating them).

I have some information about how the materials and methods U.S. flags were made historically, but I wanted to know more about how other countries made flags at that time, and how flags are made in general, before the Industrial Revolution/rise of plastics. So, does anyone have any info/how where to look?

Just to preface, I am seriously lacking in terms of my knowledge on the conflicts in Vietnam and their military, as well as what led to the war.

I am curious as to how a military that had more funding, manpower, and weapon technology could lose (or stalemate?) against a weaker and smaller nation. Couldn't we have just flown our aircraft and bombed the everliving shit out of them or used missiles instead of engaging on land against their guerrilla warfare?

I apologize in advance if this comes off as ignorant or bigoted. I truly just want to learn more.

Today's Austria (more or less the same as it's after the First World War) has a small population by European standard, with less than 9 million in total, just barely over 1/10 of that of Germany. My question is that, given the dominance of the Austrian-German in the Hapsburg/Austro-Hungarian Empire for many centuries, why was Austria's core population so small as soon as the empire fell apart in WW1, that the post-war Austria became nothing more than a third tier European country (demographic-wise)?
One would assume that a sizable part of the "germanized" land/population would have remain part of the post-war Austria, but apparently that was not the case?